Inominate Sarasota Slim to live in the tents in Arizona for his illegal activities surrounding sports gambling.
We can't have people breaking the law running around all willy nilly.
That would be fine with me ..as long, as I can have a computer an still have access to Covers.com for scores,gambling odds and and betting information..
0
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
Inominate Sarasota Slim to live in the tents in Arizona for his illegal activities surrounding sports gambling.
We can't have people breaking the law running around all willy nilly.
That would be fine with me ..as long, as I can have a computer an still have access to Covers.com for scores,gambling odds and and betting information..
Let's begin with point #1 my naive ill informed fukin idiot subject.
DEA, CBP, FBI ATF, US Marshal, Da's PDa's in courtrooms across the country filled with legal representation. That's only skimming the surface. Do you have the slightest clue?
We'll discuss prison contracts and CO's next. Amazing how little you know for such a big mouth in this place.
How does the government profit off of a prison contract? They don't.
DEA employs 10,000 people.. Most would still be needed.
ATF stands for alcohol, tobacco and firearms... I guess you didn't know that?
US Marshals capture fugitives, serve federal arrest warrants, transport prisoners and oversee the witness protection program. Why do you think they won't be needed?
DA's will always have jobs. There will be less Assistant DA's. They have law degrees and make less than I did in high school. They'll be better off.
CBP will still have to look for illegal drugs and people trying to come in illegally.
Do you think or do you just type?
0
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
Let's begin with point #1 my naive ill informed fukin idiot subject.
DEA, CBP, FBI ATF, US Marshal, Da's PDa's in courtrooms across the country filled with legal representation. That's only skimming the surface. Do you have the slightest clue?
We'll discuss prison contracts and CO's next. Amazing how little you know for such a big mouth in this place.
How does the government profit off of a prison contract? They don't.
DEA employs 10,000 people.. Most would still be needed.
ATF stands for alcohol, tobacco and firearms... I guess you didn't know that?
US Marshals capture fugitives, serve federal arrest warrants, transport prisoners and oversee the witness protection program. Why do you think they won't be needed?
DA's will always have jobs. There will be less Assistant DA's. They have law degrees and make less than I did in high school. They'll be better off.
CBP will still have to look for illegal drugs and people trying to come in illegally.
call me a fiscal conservative, but i don't like paying $35,000/year or so for each nonviolent drug offender that we keep in prison.
since the war on drugs is the most fiscally wasteful, counter productive, big government encouraging policy in the history of mankind, i would definitely agree that obama's actions yesterday is not a serious effort to further the war on drugs.
How much are you okay with paying then?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
call me a fiscal conservative, but i don't like paying $35,000/year or so for each nonviolent drug offender that we keep in prison.
since the war on drugs is the most fiscally wasteful, counter productive, big government encouraging policy in the history of mankind, i would definitely agree that obama's actions yesterday is not a serious effort to further the war on drugs.
That would be fine with me ..as long, as I can have a computer an still have access to Covers.com for scores,gambling odds and and betting information..
Arpaio wouldn't like that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
That would be fine with me ..as long, as I can have a computer an still have access to Covers.com for scores,gambling odds and and betting information..
Various taxes make up 94%. ALL other, that's ALL other make up the rest of 4%.
But just not sure that is good enough reason is mainly my point. There are people that get upset that towns stop people for speeding and claim it is their way of generating income.
The counter is ... So? Don't speed through their town. I am just saying don't sell drugs is the counter is all.
Not saying it doesn't generate income. Just not sure it is the % people want to make it out to be. Still not sure that if it was it would be the best argument against it is all.
I know you are a long-time advocate against the war on drugs. I get that. Just not sure that's he best route to take to make your point. Many other choices that are better to me. I probably wouldn't agree with them either. But for sure don't agree with this point. You could almost make the opposite argument I guess. You could say continue the war on drugs and the extra revenue is a nice side effect. Stopping speeders is good and the added revenue is a nice side effect. To argue stopping crime that generates revenue makes implications that just don't follow through. Unless you prove a speed trap that is illegal or entrapment like. Same with the drug deal. Have to prove there is inducement for someone to sell so that you can seize their assets or something along those lines.
I get that you can make a point that the war on drugs had not been successful. But others can say--sure it has, look at the folks that are in jail, etc., etc. But to say stop pursuing criminal activity because it, also, happens to generate revenue---just doesn't make sense to me.
0
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
C'mon dude. I'll post the numbers momentarily.
Various taxes make up 94%. ALL other, that's ALL other make up the rest of 4%.
But just not sure that is good enough reason is mainly my point. There are people that get upset that towns stop people for speeding and claim it is their way of generating income.
The counter is ... So? Don't speed through their town. I am just saying don't sell drugs is the counter is all.
Not saying it doesn't generate income. Just not sure it is the % people want to make it out to be. Still not sure that if it was it would be the best argument against it is all.
I know you are a long-time advocate against the war on drugs. I get that. Just not sure that's he best route to take to make your point. Many other choices that are better to me. I probably wouldn't agree with them either. But for sure don't agree with this point. You could almost make the opposite argument I guess. You could say continue the war on drugs and the extra revenue is a nice side effect. Stopping speeders is good and the added revenue is a nice side effect. To argue stopping crime that generates revenue makes implications that just don't follow through. Unless you prove a speed trap that is illegal or entrapment like. Same with the drug deal. Have to prove there is inducement for someone to sell so that you can seize their assets or something along those lines.
I get that you can make a point that the war on drugs had not been successful. But others can say--sure it has, look at the folks that are in jail, etc., etc. But to say stop pursuing criminal activity because it, also, happens to generate revenue---just doesn't make sense to me.
depends on the case, but generally, for drug users and low level drug users selling to support their habit, which is the majority of what i see over and over again, i'd pay $0 to make them a convicted criminal and put them in jail for any period of time.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
How much are you okay with paying then?
depends on the case, but generally, for drug users and low level drug users selling to support their habit, which is the majority of what i see over and over again, i'd pay $0 to make them a convicted criminal and put them in jail for any period of time.
depends on the case, but generally, for drug users and low level drug users selling to support their habit, which is the majority of what i see over and over again, i'd pay $0 to make them a convicted criminal and put them in jail for any period of time.
It maybe, that the majority of drug users sell to support their habit, but not all ..how about the significant percent of drug users that steal,rob and burglarize for drug money to support their habit ?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
depends on the case, but generally, for drug users and low level drug users selling to support their habit, which is the majority of what i see over and over again, i'd pay $0 to make them a convicted criminal and put them in jail for any period of time.
It maybe, that the majority of drug users sell to support their habit, but not all ..how about the significant percent of drug users that steal,rob and burglarize for drug money to support their habit ?
It maybe, that the majority of drug users sell to support their habit, but not all ..how about the significant percent of drug users that steal,rob and burglarize for drug money to support their habit ?
for those people who steal, rob and burglarize to support their habit, we should prosecute them for stealing, robbing and burglarizing. but giving a drug user who hasn't done that a felony conviction and putting them in jail for a certain period of time only seriously compromises their ability to get a decent job or get a professional license which increases their incentive to steal, rob or burglarize.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
It maybe, that the majority of drug users sell to support their habit, but not all ..how about the significant percent of drug users that steal,rob and burglarize for drug money to support their habit ?
for those people who steal, rob and burglarize to support their habit, we should prosecute them for stealing, robbing and burglarizing. but giving a drug user who hasn't done that a felony conviction and putting them in jail for a certain period of time only seriously compromises their ability to get a decent job or get a professional license which increases their incentive to steal, rob or burglarize.
depends on the case, but generally, for drug users and low level drug users selling to support their habit, which is the majority of what i see over and over again, i'd pay $0 to make them a convicted criminal and put them in jail for any period of time.
Obviously this is not the general case. last number I saw was around 8% or so. It may be what you see in whatever work you do or something.
But that is not the question and I think you know that. The inferred part of the question are the others that are incarcerated. How much are you willing to pay for them?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
depends on the case, but generally, for drug users and low level drug users selling to support their habit, which is the majority of what i see over and over again, i'd pay $0 to make them a convicted criminal and put them in jail for any period of time.
Obviously this is not the general case. last number I saw was around 8% or so. It may be what you see in whatever work you do or something.
But that is not the question and I think you know that. The inferred part of the question are the others that are incarcerated. How much are you willing to pay for them?
if you saw a number that said only 8% of drug arrests are users and low level drug dealers, never look at that source again as that isn't anywhere near the accurate number unless a number is missing after the 8.
i thought that was the question since this thread is about the war on drugs. but, if you are asking how much we should pay on an annual basis to incarcerate other criminals, i wouldn't know. i guess i'd have to see exactly where that $35,000/year goes.
0
if you saw a number that said only 8% of drug arrests are users and low level drug dealers, never look at that source again as that isn't anywhere near the accurate number unless a number is missing after the 8.
i thought that was the question since this thread is about the war on drugs. but, if you are asking how much we should pay on an annual basis to incarcerate other criminals, i wouldn't know. i guess i'd have to see exactly where that $35,000/year goes.
for those people who steal, rob and burglarize to support their habit, we should prosecute them for stealing, robbing and burglarizing. but giving a drug user who hasn't done that a felony conviction and putting them in jail for a certain period of time only seriously compromises their ability to get a decent job or get a professional license which increases their incentive to steal, rob or burglarize.
I didn't say they got caught for stealing,robbing and burglarizing ..only that selling drugs is not the only way drug users obtain the money to support their addiction..a lot of them are just future felons, that haven't been caught in the act..
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
for those people who steal, rob and burglarize to support their habit, we should prosecute them for stealing, robbing and burglarizing. but giving a drug user who hasn't done that a felony conviction and putting them in jail for a certain period of time only seriously compromises their ability to get a decent job or get a professional license which increases their incentive to steal, rob or burglarize.
I didn't say they got caught for stealing,robbing and burglarizing ..only that selling drugs is not the only way drug users obtain the money to support their addiction..a lot of them are just future felons, that haven't been caught in the act..
if you saw a number that said only 8% of drug arrests are users and low level drug dealers, never look at that source again as that isn't anywhere near the accurate number unless a number is missing after the 8.
i thought that was the question since this thread is about the war on drugs. but, if you are asking how much we should pay on an annual basis to incarcerate other criminals, i wouldn't know. i guess i'd have to see exactly where that $35,000/year goes.
Yes. I assume they are talking mainly non-marijuana stuff. Because why sell it if you have it to use. Very few are long term planners and trying to sell drugs to save up money to buy their own drugs. Not many meth addicts are making meth to sell just so that they can do meth. Sure marijuana users probably, by and large, also use. But believe me, and I know, most dealers are in it to make the money. Maybe I just know on a higher level. You may be correct on a very, very bottom level. If so---I will take your word for those. But yes 90%+ is the generally accepted number for non-marijuana.
So, you may be alright with 35k a year then after all? I assumed, quite obviously, when the title of the thread said '...war on drugs' it referred to harder guys.
I thought maybe you were getting into how much we coddle the criminals in general. I wanted to agree with you on that. I agree with the fellow in Arizona. Put them in tents and make them do hard labor.
I would NOT spend 35k a year---but I WOULD have them in jail. I was thinking you might be headed in that direction.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
if you saw a number that said only 8% of drug arrests are users and low level drug dealers, never look at that source again as that isn't anywhere near the accurate number unless a number is missing after the 8.
i thought that was the question since this thread is about the war on drugs. but, if you are asking how much we should pay on an annual basis to incarcerate other criminals, i wouldn't know. i guess i'd have to see exactly where that $35,000/year goes.
Yes. I assume they are talking mainly non-marijuana stuff. Because why sell it if you have it to use. Very few are long term planners and trying to sell drugs to save up money to buy their own drugs. Not many meth addicts are making meth to sell just so that they can do meth. Sure marijuana users probably, by and large, also use. But believe me, and I know, most dealers are in it to make the money. Maybe I just know on a higher level. You may be correct on a very, very bottom level. If so---I will take your word for those. But yes 90%+ is the generally accepted number for non-marijuana.
So, you may be alright with 35k a year then after all? I assumed, quite obviously, when the title of the thread said '...war on drugs' it referred to harder guys.
I thought maybe you were getting into how much we coddle the criminals in general. I wanted to agree with you on that. I agree with the fellow in Arizona. Put them in tents and make them do hard labor.
I would NOT spend 35k a year---but I WOULD have them in jail. I was thinking you might be headed in that direction.
I assumed, quite obviously, when the title of the thread said '...war on drugs' it referred to harder guys.
that's one of the main points. it doesn't. the war on drugs mostly catches possession cases- users and low level drug dealers. in addition to the statistics, it's very rare to see a major drug dealer go through the system. i can't think of the last one i saw in the state system.
anyway, i'm not exactly sure what you are saying in your last post, but just know that the overwhelming majority of drug arrests are for drug possession and many of those are for marijuana. and many of the non-possession arrests are low level drug dealers who are users.
it's politically expedient to do it that way and, as has been mentioned, a lot of government jobs depend on doing it this way but it doesn't accomplish anything productive and it's really f*cking expensive.
0
I assumed, quite obviously, when the title of the thread said '...war on drugs' it referred to harder guys.
that's one of the main points. it doesn't. the war on drugs mostly catches possession cases- users and low level drug dealers. in addition to the statistics, it's very rare to see a major drug dealer go through the system. i can't think of the last one i saw in the state system.
anyway, i'm not exactly sure what you are saying in your last post, but just know that the overwhelming majority of drug arrests are for drug possession and many of those are for marijuana. and many of the non-possession arrests are low level drug dealers who are users.
it's politically expedient to do it that way and, as has been mentioned, a lot of government jobs depend on doing it this way but it doesn't accomplish anything productive and it's really f*cking expensive.
I assumed, quite obviously, when the title of the thread said '...war on drugs' it referred to harder guys.
that's one of the main points. it doesn't. the war on drugs mostly catches possession cases- users and low level drug dealers. in addition to the statistics, it's very rare to see a major drug dealer go through the system. i can't think of the last one i saw in the state system.
anyway, i'm not exactly sure what you are saying in your last post, but just know that the overwhelming majority of drug arrests are for drug possession and many of those are for marijuana. and many of the non-possession arrests are low level drug dealers who are users.
it's politically expedient to do it that way and, as has been mentioned, a lot of government jobs depend on doing it this way but it doesn't accomplish anything productive and it's really f*cking expensive.
Sure I get more possessors are caught---simply by definition. There are more users than first-line sellers. There are more first-line than second-line and on up. It is a matter of numbers. It is not 'very rare' to see a major drug dealer go through the system. It happens all the time. Unless you are talking major, major. But obviously it is harder to catch them. Most of top fellows are never even in sight of the product.
Lot of government jobs are dependent on keeping their particular endeavor afloat. It doesn't mean they are inducing people to use/sell drugs. Of course we have to pay to have the people track them down, etc. What is the choice---simply not to do it? If you are simply for legalizing everything I get that. But that counter is usually made by people that have not seen the uglier side of it in depth, in my opinion.
For example, are you for simplifying tax-code to reduce the number of employees? How about privatizing USPS? Or fixing the grant issues. I mean it is picking and choosing. And a good argument can be made that stopping criminals and drugs is more important than other things that keep people employed.
Lot of govt is expensive. I am sure it, as other things, can be done cheaper. But as I always say govt doesn't do anything cheap. The bigger it is the more inefficient, almost also by definition.
Not sure what you are confused about in the last post? 35k is too much to spend is what I am saying. Don't give them so much. Make prison---prison.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
I assumed, quite obviously, when the title of the thread said '...war on drugs' it referred to harder guys.
that's one of the main points. it doesn't. the war on drugs mostly catches possession cases- users and low level drug dealers. in addition to the statistics, it's very rare to see a major drug dealer go through the system. i can't think of the last one i saw in the state system.
anyway, i'm not exactly sure what you are saying in your last post, but just know that the overwhelming majority of drug arrests are for drug possession and many of those are for marijuana. and many of the non-possession arrests are low level drug dealers who are users.
it's politically expedient to do it that way and, as has been mentioned, a lot of government jobs depend on doing it this way but it doesn't accomplish anything productive and it's really f*cking expensive.
Sure I get more possessors are caught---simply by definition. There are more users than first-line sellers. There are more first-line than second-line and on up. It is a matter of numbers. It is not 'very rare' to see a major drug dealer go through the system. It happens all the time. Unless you are talking major, major. But obviously it is harder to catch them. Most of top fellows are never even in sight of the product.
Lot of government jobs are dependent on keeping their particular endeavor afloat. It doesn't mean they are inducing people to use/sell drugs. Of course we have to pay to have the people track them down, etc. What is the choice---simply not to do it? If you are simply for legalizing everything I get that. But that counter is usually made by people that have not seen the uglier side of it in depth, in my opinion.
For example, are you for simplifying tax-code to reduce the number of employees? How about privatizing USPS? Or fixing the grant issues. I mean it is picking and choosing. And a good argument can be made that stopping criminals and drugs is more important than other things that keep people employed.
Lot of govt is expensive. I am sure it, as other things, can be done cheaper. But as I always say govt doesn't do anything cheap. The bigger it is the more inefficient, almost also by definition.
Not sure what you are confused about in the last post? 35k is too much to spend is what I am saying. Don't give them so much. Make prison---prison.
Heroin or cocaine and their derivative...synthetic or manufactured drugs and other dangerous nonnarcotic drugs amount to more arrests for drug abuse violations than marijuana nationally.. according to the FBI crime report ...."Crime in the United States 2013"
These are not just people getting a buzz on the week-end or smoking a little weed a few times to get high during the week ...these are hard core druggies..
Of course, I can understand President Obama thinking drug abuse is no big thing ...when he himself admitted to a felony when he belonged to the Choom Gang .... "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it"..~Dreams From My Father...........
A guy gets busted for snorting a little cocaine.
The police ask him : Why do you do that ?..You have to know that it's addictive and not good for you ..
Busted guy : Yeah,,I know that,, butI want to be President of the United States some day ..that's why..
0
Heroin or cocaine and their derivative...synthetic or manufactured drugs and other dangerous nonnarcotic drugs amount to more arrests for drug abuse violations than marijuana nationally.. according to the FBI crime report ...."Crime in the United States 2013"
These are not just people getting a buzz on the week-end or smoking a little weed a few times to get high during the week ...these are hard core druggies..
Of course, I can understand President Obama thinking drug abuse is no big thing ...when he himself admitted to a felony when he belonged to the Choom Gang .... "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it"..~Dreams From My Father...........
A guy gets busted for snorting a little cocaine.
The police ask him : Why do you do that ?..You have to know that it's addictive and not good for you ..
Busted guy : Yeah,,I know that,, butI want to be President of the United States some day ..that's why..
Sure I get more possessors are caught---simply by definition. There are more users than first-line sellers. There are more first-line than second-line and on up. It is a matter of numbers. It is not 'very rare' to see a major drug dealer go through the system. It happens all the time. Unless you are talking major, major. But obviously it is harder to catch them. Most of top fellows are never even in sight of the product.
Lot of government jobs are dependent on keeping their particular endeavor afloat. It doesn't mean they are inducing people to use/sell drugs. Of course we have to pay to have the people track them down, etc. What is the choice---simply not to do it? If you are simply for legalizing everything I get that. But that counter is usually made by people that have not seen the uglier side of it in depth, in my opinion.
It is not 'very rare' to see a major drug dealer go through the system. It happens all the time.
it is very rare. i've love to know in what location they are busting major drug dealers with regularity, but i've rarely seen it. can you tell me where this happens "all of the time"?
what is the choice? look at the stats slim posted. 82% of drug arrests are possession charges. that's such an incredible waste of resources and money when it costs about $35,000'year per person to put these people in prison. not to mention all of the other costs of the war on drugs. and 40% of all drug arrests are marijuana possession arrests. so the obvious first solution is to make marijuana legal. the other changes would be to get rid of minimum mandatory sentences. and overall focus on treatment over just putting people in jail and giving them criminal records for the overwhelming number of drug possession arrests we have.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Sure I get more possessors are caught---simply by definition. There are more users than first-line sellers. There are more first-line than second-line and on up. It is a matter of numbers. It is not 'very rare' to see a major drug dealer go through the system. It happens all the time. Unless you are talking major, major. But obviously it is harder to catch them. Most of top fellows are never even in sight of the product.
Lot of government jobs are dependent on keeping their particular endeavor afloat. It doesn't mean they are inducing people to use/sell drugs. Of course we have to pay to have the people track them down, etc. What is the choice---simply not to do it? If you are simply for legalizing everything I get that. But that counter is usually made by people that have not seen the uglier side of it in depth, in my opinion.
It is not 'very rare' to see a major drug dealer go through the system. It happens all the time.
it is very rare. i've love to know in what location they are busting major drug dealers with regularity, but i've rarely seen it. can you tell me where this happens "all of the time"?
what is the choice? look at the stats slim posted. 82% of drug arrests are possession charges. that's such an incredible waste of resources and money when it costs about $35,000'year per person to put these people in prison. not to mention all of the other costs of the war on drugs. and 40% of all drug arrests are marijuana possession arrests. so the obvious first solution is to make marijuana legal. the other changes would be to get rid of minimum mandatory sentences. and overall focus on treatment over just putting people in jail and giving them criminal records for the overwhelming number of drug possession arrests we have.
fight against drug use makes more sense. but spending a shitload of taxpayer money to increase the size of government and build prisons and pay for law enforcement to arrest users and low level drug dealers makes no sense unless the goal is to increase government and waste a shitload of money.
It wouldn't cost that much to house these drug offenders /sellers like Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been doing with law breakers for over 20 years ..he uses an open-air jail with military tents. The same tents that our military troops used in the Korean War and Iraq. If they are good enough for our fighting men/women they are good enough for prisoners who have broken our laws..
Yeah. A tent oughta hold him.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
fight against drug use makes more sense. but spending a shitload of taxpayer money to increase the size of government and build prisons and pay for law enforcement to arrest users and low level drug dealers makes no sense unless the goal is to increase government and waste a shitload of money.
It wouldn't cost that much to house these drug offenders /sellers like Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been doing with law breakers for over 20 years ..he uses an open-air jail with military tents. The same tents that our military troops used in the Korean War and Iraq. If they are good enough for our fighting men/women they are good enough for prisoners who have broken our laws..
It is not 'very rare' to see a major drug dealer go through the system. It happens all the time.
it is very rare. i've love to know in what location they are busting major drug dealers with regularity, but i've rarely seen it. can you tell me where this happens "all of the time"?
what is the choice? look at the stats slim posted. 82% of drug arrests are possession charges. that's such an incredible waste of resources and money when it costs about $35,000'year per person to put these people in prison. not to mention all of the other costs of the war on drugs. and 40% of all drug arrests are marijuana possession arrests. so the obvious first solution is to make marijuana legal. the other changes would be to get rid of minimum mandatory sentences. and overall focus on treatment over just putting people in jail and giving them criminal records for the overwhelming number of drug possession arrests we have.
No idea exactly where you are. But here is a 5 page list of some from the LA Times on some pretty major ones from 1987 - early 2000s. These are just from the LA county area I think.
It is not 'very rare' to see a major drug dealer go through the system. It happens all the time.
it is very rare. i've love to know in what location they are busting major drug dealers with regularity, but i've rarely seen it. can you tell me where this happens "all of the time"?
what is the choice? look at the stats slim posted. 82% of drug arrests are possession charges. that's such an incredible waste of resources and money when it costs about $35,000'year per person to put these people in prison. not to mention all of the other costs of the war on drugs. and 40% of all drug arrests are marijuana possession arrests. so the obvious first solution is to make marijuana legal. the other changes would be to get rid of minimum mandatory sentences. and overall focus on treatment over just putting people in jail and giving them criminal records for the overwhelming number of drug possession arrests we have.
No idea exactly where you are. But here is a 5 page list of some from the LA Times on some pretty major ones from 1987 - early 2000s. These are just from the LA county area I think.
Copyright � 1995 - 2024
CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
