Soldier versus Police Officer

[jimnyc]

Pot hurts only the smoker. Most pot smokers that still smoke refuse to admit it hurts them. They will proudly say they have wheels upstairs still working.

Are you referring to me, you old goat? :poke:

[aboutime]

It's actually a very popular term these days, look it up on Google. It was meant to be funny, not necessarily mean. Point was, you seemed to get 'angered' with me, for whatever reason. No reason that I can see, but the only thing I can think of, since you replied to it, was my "bragging" about smoking, which wasn't bragging. It's just odd that someone would feel upset or angered, about someone stating they once smoked a lot of the stuff. Can you see where I'm going here? Make love, not war! : Insert funny hippie smilie here where the hippy has like a 10 foot joint in his mouth :


No reason to be angry jimnyc. I come here to be entertained, and it's an endless show.
I don't care what you did, or didn't do in your life.
The only person I feel confident about here, talking about pot, is me.
Never touched the stuff. So I have no need to explain.
I have my own feelings about people who use, or used it.
What's wrong with that?

[jimnyc]

No reason to be angry jimnyc. I come here to be entertained, and it's an endless show.
I don't care what you did, or didn't do in your life.
The only person I feel confident about here, talking about pot, is me.
Never touched the stuff. So I have no need to explain.
I have my own feelings about people who use, or used it.
What's wrong with that?

You're entitled to your own feelings, and entitled to share with the board. I had originally looked at things as "factual", which is much different than ones feelings. Speaking factually, marijuana really doesn't make anyone brain damaged, nor anywhere close to it. And while I concede even I believe it has some harmful effects, for some people, it's not killed a single person that I am aware of.

[Robert A Whit]

Well, I'm not going to lie about it. I smoked the stuff for many, many years. I'm not bragging about it, just stating that I did, that's all. But it didn't brain damage me and I've still got a few wheels turning upstairs.

Are you sure? LMAO About the wheels? :lol:

[aboutime]

You're entitled to your own feelings, and entitled to share with the board. I had originally looked at things as "factual", which is much different than ones feelings. Speaking factually, marijuana really doesn't make anyone brain damaged, nor anywhere close to it. And while I concede even I believe it has some harmful effects, for some people, it's not killed a single person that I am aware of.


jimnyc. In my long experience now. There has always been one, very noticeable aspect of pot users I have heard so many times. I can almost repeat exactly the same words you just said above...by heart.
In other words. It has been my experience that pot users have a standard defensive excuse, or explanation to share whenever anyone brings up the topic.
So. What I see you doing above...isn't unusual at all.
Yet. No matter how many years have passed since I grew up in the Sixties, attended Woodstock, and been around people who have used Pot. Your words are as predictable as the Democrat, DNC talking points liberals always use in defending their lies about politics.
Now. I am not calling you a Liberal, nor a Liar.
Just letting you know. I've heard those same words, probably more times than your years here on Earth.

[jimnyc]

Are you sure? LMAO About the wheels? :lol:

My wheels take a licking, but keep on spinning!

[jimnyc]

jimnyc. In my long experience now. There has always been one, very noticeable aspect of pot users I have heard so many times. I can almost repeat exactly the same words you just said above...by heart.
In other words. It has been my experience that pot users have a standard defensive excuse, or explanation to share whenever anyone brings up the topic.
So. What I see you doing above...isn't unusual at all.
Yet. No matter how many years have passed since I grew up in the Sixties, attended Woodstock, and been around people who have used Pot. Your words are as predictable as the Democrat, DNC talking points liberals always use in defending their lies about politics.
Now. I am not calling you a Liberal, nor a Liar.
Just letting you know. I've heard those same words, probably more times than your years here on Earth.

You're free to prove me wrong with facts. My brain is just fine and I was a habitual smoker for well over 20 years. I ma ot dain bramged!

[aboutime]

You're free to prove me wrong with facts. My brain is just fine and I was a habitual smoker for well over 20 years. I ma ot dain bramged!


:) :laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

Pot smoking is known to has lesser long term effects that alcohol or tobacco products. The only reason pot is not legal now is the tobacco lobby and the objections of legislators from tobacco growing states.
Find someone who has smoked pot (but not used nicotine products) and see if they have lung cancer.

If the U.S. legalized marijuana and taxed it at the same rate as tobacco products, it would be a huge boon to the American economy. Not only would the taxes raise a ton of money, but it would reduce the costs of law enforcement and greatly dent the influence of drug gangs.

[Robert A Whit]

Pot smoking is known to has lesser long term effects that alcohol or tobacco products. The only reason pot is not legal now is the tobacco lobby and the objections of legislators from tobacco growing states.
Find someone who has smoked pot (but not used nicotine products) and see if they have lung cancer.

If the U.S. legalized marijuana and taxed it at the same rate as tobacco products, it would be a huge boon to the American economy. Not only would the taxes raise a ton of money, but it would reduce the costs of law enforcement and greatly dent the influence of drug gangs.

Some of that I agree with.

Pot smoking is not good for anybody. At best, it may help patients who have problems such as from cancer. A diet of Vicodine is not good either but the human does not want or need a diet of said pills. Pot smoking is not as bad as Booze but Booze with flavor tastes a lot better. As it now is, the typical drinking person gets punished a lot for drinking. Tobacco is bad but I and many other devotees of human freedom see no need to punish them either.

[jimnyc]

Pot smoking is known to has lesser long term effects that alcohol or tobacco products. The only reason pot is not legal now is the tobacco lobby and the objections of legislators from tobacco growing states.
Find someone who has smoked pot (but not used nicotine products) and see if they have lung cancer.

If the U.S. legalized marijuana and taxed it at the same rate as tobacco products, it would be a huge boon to the American economy. Not only would the taxes raise a ton of money, but it would reduce the costs of law enforcement and greatly dent the influence of drug gangs.

As far as I know, there are no known diseases or deaths directly attributable to marijuana smoking. I do believe it limits response times and makes one unfit to drive. I think long term, one can become physically and mentally addicted. I also think there are proven benefits to it. Just like drinking a beer, I think it's up to the individual. While I've had no demonstrable effects from long term use at this time, I do think with some people it can be worse than with others, like an alcoholic with a drink. I don't think I would recommend it to anyone for long term abuse, but I also think it's much less harmful to someone than a beer or cigarette. As for myself, I've just learned that I have a VERY addictive personality, and am best suited at this time for legal products. :)

[aboutime]

Just a question for anyone who'd like to try and answer it.

Since most public places, and government buildings, or properties have EXCLUDED tobacco smokers, and products.

Is smoking Pot now permitted in public places, and government buildings or properties...since POT is Not Tobacco?????

I ask because I smoked for 50 years before having my heart attack. And I quit tobacco at that time.
Never smoked Pot...so, well. You know what I am asking?????

[jimnyc]

Just a question for anyone who'd like to try and answer it.

Since most public places, and government buildings, or properties have EXCLUDED tobacco smokers, and products.

Is smoking Pot now permitted in public places, and government buildings or properties...since POT is Not Tobacco?????

I ask because I smoked for 50 years before having my heart attack. And I quit tobacco at that time.
Never smoked Pot...so, well. You know what I am asking?????

Nope, they didn't need to specify marijuana is excluded as it was illegal.

[Robert A Whit]

Tax Rate

As of 2010, the tax rate for distilled spirits is $13.50 per proof gallon. A proof gallon is a 100 proof gallon of liquid or a gallon of liquor that is 50 percent alcohol. The TTB adjusts the tax rate according to the percentage of alcohol. For a 750 milliliter bottle, the tax is $2.14 for liquor that is 80 proof. In addition, many states impose additional taxeshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.ehow.com/list_6876588_laws-excise-tax-distilled-spirits.html#) on distilled spirits.




Read more: Laws on Federal Excise Tax on Distilled Spirits | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/list_6876588_laws-excise-tax-distilled-spirits.html#ixzz2LlayK4Uf) http://www.ehow.com/list_6876588_laws-excise-tax-distilled-spirits.html#ixzz2LlayK4Uf

[aboutime]

Nope, they didn't need to specify marijuana is excluded as it was illegal.


Okay. Let's say I move to Colorado. Does that mean...because they didn't specify Pot, and now...since it is Legal. How does that change the (pardon the pun) Atmosphere....smoke?

[jimnyc]

Okay. Let's say I move to Colorado. Does that mean...because they didn't specify Pot, and now...since it is Legal. How does that change the (pardon the pun) Atmosphere....smoke?

I'd have to read the specific law on the books, but I would imagine it prohibits all smoking products, which would include a joint or a bong!

[logroller]

Some of that I agree with.

Pot smoking is not good for anybody. At best, it may help patients who have problems such as from cancer. A diet of Vicodine is not good either but the human does not want or need a diet of said pills. Pot smoking is not as bad as Booze but Booze with flavor tastes a lot better. As it now is, the typical drinking person gets punished a lot for drinking. Tobacco is bad but I and many other devotees of human freedom see no need to punish them either.
Obviously you've never tasted pot laced brownies...taste better than any flavored booze I've had. Means to an end I suppose; NyQuil tastes like poison, but it helps me sleep when Im sick.

And as for those who claim to have attended Woodstock, if what you remember most about Woodstock was pot and not mud, you weren't there. :laugh2:

[aboutime]

Obviously you've never tasted pot laced brownies...taste better than any flavored booze I've had. Means to an end I suppose; NyQuil tastes like poison, but it helps me sleep when Im sick.

And as for those who claim to have attended Woodstock, if what you remember most about Woodstock was pot and not mud, you weren't there. :laugh2:


Really? Prove it.

When talking about pot, not the mud. You are talking about the pot. Not the mud.

Do you know what a "TRIP TENT" was?

[logroller]

Really? Prove it.
It's your claim that you were there-- you prove it.

[aboutime]

It's your claim that you were there-- you prove it.


No way to prove it after all these years. But if you'd like to check. Find out the names of the Volunteer Ambulance Squad, located in the hollow...and mud where the rain never stopped.
Otherwise. Since there is no real way to prove it. I have no reason to lie. Nor would I. But then. How can anyone prove anything here?

If you doubt me. Fine. No biggy. You don't mean anything to me anyhow.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=619355#post619355)

Some of that I agree with.

Pot smoking is not good for anybody. At best, it may help patients who have problems such as from cancer. A diet of Vicodine is not good either but the human does not want or need a diet of said pills. Pot smoking is not as bad as Booze but Booze with flavor tastes a lot better. As it now is, the typical drinking person gets punished a lot for drinking. Tobacco is bad but I and many other devotees of human freedom see no need to punish them either.





Obviously you've never tasted pot laced brownies...taste better than any flavored booze I've had. Means to an end I suppose; NyQuil tastes like poison, but it helps me sleep when Im sick.

And as for those who claim to have attended Woodstock, if what you remember most about Woodstock was pot and not mud, you weren't there. :laugh2:

I enjoy Brownies but doubt pot makes them taste better. So, no I have not had them laced with pot.

Nope, I have not claimed to have been in Woodstock. I have however been in upper NY State. Also I am very close to one of those former concert areas around California's Altamont pass.

Crowd at the 1969 Altamont pass rock concert.

4552

[logroller]

No way to prove it after all these years. But if you'd like to check. Find out the names of the Volunteer Ambulance Squad, located in the hollow...and mud where the rain never stopped.
Otherwise. Since there is no real way to prove it. I have no reason to lie. Nor would I. But then. How can anyone prove anything here?

If you doubt me. Fine. No biggy. You don't mean anything to me anyhow.
Funny you mention the mud now, and not the pot...perhaps you were there;) My uncle was there; I've seen pictures; he said he was in the back if vw beetle for hours and said the whole of the experience is drastically overrated, and that its mostly cultural folklore. Mud rain filth and traffic (although being in an ambulance may have afforded you the ability to avoid much of this) but he said he couldn't even hear the music really. Once the beer ran out, he left. Spent more time coming and going than attending.

[Robert A Whit]

Northern CA had one of those huge rock concerts out of doors.

Most of you would not read it so I won't post the link to Altamont on Wikipedia. That was also hard to get to. I was not there but I understand if memory serves me, that it was a place of lewd behavior and maybe the place where a lot of middle aged people got their start and wonder why their mom has no clue who daddy is.

Currently that area is a site of a major wind farm.

[Robert A Whit]

I will handle Altamont, Somebody else can put up Woodstock if they want to.


The Altamont Speedway Free Festival was an infamous rock concert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_concert) held on Saturday, December 6, 1969, at the Altamont Speedway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Raceway_Park) in northern California, between Tracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy,_California) and Livermore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livermore,_California). Headlined and organized by The Rolling Stones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones),[contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup)] it also featured, in order of appearance: Santana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santana_%28band%29), The Flying Burrito Brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Burrito_Brothers), Jefferson Airplane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Airplane), and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby,_Stills,_Nash_%26_Young), with the Rolling Stones taking the stage as the final act.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert#cite_note-rollingwithp56-57-1) The Grateful Dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grateful_Dead) were also scheduled to perform, but declined to play shortly before their scheduled appearance due to the increasing violence at the venue.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert#cite_note-2) “That's the way things went at Altamont—so badly that the Grateful Dead, prime organizers and movers of the festival, didn't even get to play,” someone was quoted in Rolling Stone.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert#cite_note-3)

Approximately 300,000 people attended the concert, and some anticipated that it would be a "Woodstock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Festival) West." Filmmakers Albert and David Maysles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_and_David_Maysles) shot footage of the event and incorporated it into a documentary film titled Gimme Shelter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimme_Shelter_%281970_film%29) (1970). The event is best known for having been marred by considerable violence, including one homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide) and three accidental deaths: two caused by a hit-and-run (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_and_run_%28vehicular%29) car accident and one by drowning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning) in an irrigation canal. Four births were reported during the event.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert#cite_note-gimmeshelter-4) Scores were injured, numerous cars were stolen and then abandoned, and there was extensive property damage.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert#cite_note-5)

*

[Marcus Aurelius]

Did I miss the part where that suspect had called the officers himself. Or where the guy complained that they took so long to get there? your appeal to emotion is situationally irrelevant to the discussion of the case at hand. Need I repeat myself?
the guy in the OP didn't flee, nor was he confronted after pursuit. The case you presented had nothing to do with the OP!!!

you're not very bright, are you.

(rhetorical... look it up).

[logroller]

Well since this thread had obviously derailed...
the last three presidents have used marijuana. I wonder how many in congress have.

[tailfins]

So you're going to get butt hurt simply because I mentioned, or bragged in your opinion, about my prior smoking habits? :420:


Is that some kind of new slang? It sounds faggy.

[logroller]

Is that some kind of new slang? It sounds faggy.
'Some new kind of slang'....'faggy'...irony is strong with this one.

[jimnyc]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=butt+hurt

[aboutime]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=butt+hurt


jimnyc. I call that kind of talk, being POLITICALLY CORRECT. Always trying to appease others who follow PC, rather than think, or speak for themselves.
Much like the "Whatever", "My Bad", and "Word" crap being used vs. Real English language words. And using BUTT HURT is just like using PWNED, or OWNED.

[logroller]

jimnyc. I call that kind of talk, being POLITICALLY CORRECT. Always trying to appease others who follow PC, rather than think, or speak for themselves.
Much like the "Whatever", "My Bad", and "Word" crap being used vs. Real English language words. And using BUTT HURT is just like using PWNED, or OWNED.
That has nothing to do with political correctness, its just colloquial speech, synonymously, slang or jargon.
So far as real English language --
Main Entry: politically correctFunction: adjective
Date: 1936
: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

My use of pwned had nothing to do with political correctness; it had to do with giving your false allegations that stemmed from your bad attitude a necessary correction. Much as my offering of a defintion of political correctness is meant to show you what the word actually means; it has little to do with your offending my sensibilities; it has to do with you saying things which are plainly false. Same as when people say "obamacare". You can call blue, black; but it doesn't make it true. And when call blue things black, everybody thinks you're either retarded or color blind.

[logroller]

Oh yes, one more thing. When you capitalize text, it is assumed that one is YELLING. When you do it randomly throughout your posts its appears as though you have some form of digital Tourette's syndrome. :laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

***

[aboutime]

Oh yes, one more thing. When you capitalize text, it is assumed that one is YELLING. When you do it randomly throughout your posts its appears as though you have some form of digital Tourette's syndrome. :laugh2:


BOOOO HOOOO! You used the word 'assumed', and everyone knows what that means. DID YOU HEAR ME?

[logroller]

***
You winking at me...that's kind of 'faggy':laugh2:

[logroller]

BOOOO HOOOO! You used the word 'assumed', and everyone knows what that means. DID YOU HEAR ME?
Assume: To take upon oneself a belief. If there's some implied meaning as it pertains to your being an asshole, I'm quite certain it applies. Not that I assume as such, its merely a matter of examining your posts, bereft of anything that could qualify as a rational thought amid civil discourse. I wrote a poem for you: roses are red, violets are blue, you have dementia, cheese on toast.

[Robert A Whit]

That has nothing to do with political correctness, its just colloquial speech, synonymously, slang or jargon.
So far as real English language --
Main Entry: politically correctFunction: adjective
Date: 1936
: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

My use of pwned had nothing to do with political correctness; it had to do with giving your false allegations that stemmed from your bad attitude a necessary correction. Much as my offering of a defintion of political correctness is meant to show you what the word actually means; it has little to do with your offending my sensibilities; it has to do with you saying things which are plainly false. Same as when people say "obamacare". You can call blue, black; but it doesn't make it true. And when call blue things black, everybody thinks you're either retarded or color blind.

Actually the false name is the Affordable Care Act.

Believe me, this will be seen down the road, but it is not Affordable at all. If you want to see doctors flee practices, you may have fun. Doctors despise that law. I have had all of my doctors tell me the same thing.

The moment I hear some doctor says he likes the law, he then admits to being a very biased left winger. And voted for Obama of course.

You know why democrats like it?

They actually think they will get something for nothing. As you can easily take note of, Obama only targets the rich trying to make them pay for all of Government.

I suggest you read Becoming Europe. (Samuel Gregg)

[Voted4Reagan]

Kid Postured up to a Cop who is also a Marine..

Epic Fail on so many Levels.

[jimnyc]

Kid Postured up to a Cop who is also a Marine..

Epic Fail on so many Levels.

There we go, thread is back on track! LOL :lol:

[logroller]

Actually the false name is the Affordable Care Act.

Believe me, this will be seen down the road, but it is not Affordable at all. If you want to see doctors flee practices, you may have fun. Doctors despise that law. I have had all of my doctors tell me the same thing.

The moment I hear some doctor says he likes the law, he then admits to being a very biased left winger. And voted for Obama of course.

You know why democrats like it?

They actually think they will get something for nothing. As you can easily take note of, Obama only targets the rich trying to make them pay for all of Government.

I suggest you read Becoming Europe. (Samuel Gregg)
Well, it literally would take an act of congress to change the law, notwithstanding its title...they titled it BTW, not Obama. Calling it Obamacare implies that Obama has the power to change it; he does not, congress does. It's a subtle sleight, but it adds to the misinformed state of the populace. To illustrate my point, without looking it up, where did the bill originate: house or senate?

Bonus points if you know who introduced it, who stripped it down to a shell bill, inserted the current text and changed its name?
you don't need to know all about it, but it is important to know how the legislative process delivered this law. Instead, I seem I recall a big hoopla over where the bill originated, and that i was unconstitutional, when they were in fact wrong, and it did originate where it should. Again, misinformation. Then there's the tax not a tax debate; which most like to blame on SCOTUS, but if you read the ruling, once again, you find that Congress writes these ass-backwards law, and they too offer the remedy. All this lost to discussion when we go around blaming Obama. Whether by design or not, (I suspect the former), it distracts from constructive public debate and, in so doing, subverts the legislative design wherein Congress is held accountable every two years, not four. Go ahead and call it what you want, but when no remedy is sought, none will be delivered.

[logroller]

There we go, thread is back on track! LOL :lol:
Hope and change. exuberation gives way to disappointment.;)

[aboutime]

Assume: To take upon oneself a belief. If there's some implied meaning as it pertains to your being an asshole, I'm quite certain it applies. Not that I assume as such, its merely a matter of examining your posts, bereft of anything that could qualify as a rational thought amid civil discourse. I wrote a poem for you: roses are red, violets are blue, you have dementia, cheese on toast.


GOOD stuff. Yet you still were unable to deny, or mention what everyone knows that word means. And you even used it again.

[Robert A Whit]

Logroller says: Well, it literally would take an act of congress to change the law, notwithstanding its title...they titled it BTW, not Obama. Calling it Obamacare implies that Obama has the power to change it; he does not, congress does. It's a subtle sleight, but it adds to the misinformed state of the populace. To illustrate my point, without looking it up, where did the bill originate: house or senate?

Bonus points if you know who introduced it, who stripped it down to a shell bill, inserted the current text and changed its name?
you don't need to know all about it, but it is important to know how the legislative process delivered this law. Instead, I seem I recall a big hoopla over where the bill originated, and that i was unconstitutional, when they were in fact wrong, and it did originate where it should. Again, misinformation. Then there's the tax not a tax debate; which most like to blame on SCOTUS, but if you read the ruling, once again, you find that Congress writes these ass-backwards law, and they too offer the remedy. All this lost to discussion when we go around blaming Obama. Whether by design or not, (I suspect the former), it distracts from constructive public debate and, in so doing, subverts the legislative design wherein Congress is held accountable every two years, not four. Go ahead and call it what you want, but when no remedy is sought, none will be delivered.

Charles Rangle introduced the bill. Not worth the trouble to look up the rest. I am aware it was bounced back and forth between the House and the Senate. I still believe the law is not constitutional despite what Roberts ruled.

I have a long memory and realize that the Supreme Court has changed rulings over the same issues at various times.

Roberts really did open the door so the public can ignore the law. For that, I thank him.

I don't give Obama the credit for this law. Imagine the congress was the orchestra and Obama the audience. By clapping he approved. By signing the law all he did is approve.

[logroller]

Charles Rangle introduced the bill. Not worth the trouble to look up the rest. I am aware it was bounced back and forth between the House and the Senate. I still believe the law is not constitutional despite what Roberts ruled.

I have a long memory and realize that the Supreme Court has changed rulings over the same issues at various times.

Roberts really did open the door so the public can ignore the law. For that, I thank him.

I don't give Obama the credit for this law. Imagine the congress was the orchestra and Obama the audience. By clapping he approved. By signing the law all he did is approve.
Well, the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional, in part; not Roberts alone, he just authored it. Same as Congress passed the law, not Obama. He merely signed it into law. But the seventeenth? amendment opened the door for the bouncing of tax laws back and forth. So again, Congress did it; and the Healthcare ruling stated similarly regarding it being an object of Congressional creation; they should fix what is wrong, not slough off their responsibility onto the courts.

As for the symphony, if the orchestra butchered the performance would you attribute it to the audience because they clapped?

[Robert A Whit]

Well, the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional, in part; not Roberts alone, he just authored it. Same as Congress passed the law, not Obama. He merely signed it into law. But the seventeenth? amendment opened the door for the bouncing of tax laws back and forth. So again, Congress did it; and the Healthcare ruling stated similarly regarding it being an object of Congressional creation; they should fix what is wrong, not slough off their responsibility onto the courts.

As for the symphony, if the orchestra butchered the performance would you attribute it to the audience because they clapped?

I think that both the 16th and 17th amendments are a factor. I agree with your analysis. The only thing I have noticed about orchestras, is they actually have top rated musicians making the music. Obama is not top rated and his grateful audience is not either.

I had a very pleasant experience with an Orchestra in Berlin, Germany when they featured Handel's music. And the girl with me at the time? Well, smile. :cool:

[logroller]

GOOD stuff. Yet you still were unable to deny, or mention what everyone knows that word means. And you even used it again.


Assume: To take upon oneself a belief.

That is what it means. I know it; people who have a modicum of a vocabulary know what it means. Dementia must really be taking its toll on you. That or you weren't very good with words to begin with... or both. :dunno:

as for all caps: here's a detail of what I referenced.

With the advent of the Bulletin board system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system), or BBS, and later the Internet, typing messages in all caps became closely identified with "shouting" or attention-seeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-seeking) behavior, and is considered very rude. As a result, netiquette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette) generally discourages the use of all caps when posting messages online. While all caps can be used as an alternative to rich-text "bolding" for a single word or phrase, to express emphasis, repeated use of all caps can be considered "shouting" or irritating.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps
There's a bold feature on this site; learn it, use it, there's still hope you can slow down the progression of brain disease.

looked up assume, from the same source:


Verb
assume (third-person singular simple present assumes (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assumes#English), present participle assuming (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assuming#English), simple past and past participle assumed (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assumed#English))
To authenticate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authenticate) by means of belief (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/belief); to surmise (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/surmise); to suppose (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suppose) to be true (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/true), especially without proof (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proof). We assume that, as her parents were dentists, she knows quite a bit about dentistry.

To take on (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/take_on) a position (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/position), duty (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duty) or form. Mr. Jones will assume the position of a lifeguard until a proper replacement is found.

 [quotations ▼ (file://localhost/javascript/(function()%257B%257D)())]
To adopt (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adopt) an idea (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idea) or cause (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cause).
[edit (http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=assume&action=edit&section=5)]

So... what are you talking about?

[aboutime]

That is what it means. I know it; people who have a modicum of a vocabulary know what it means. Dementia must really be taking its toll on you. That or you weren't very good with words to begin with... or both. :dunno:

as for all caps: here's a detail of what I referenced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps
There's a bold feature on this site; learn it, use it, there's still hope you can slow down the progression of brain disease.

looked up assume, from the same source:

So... what are you talking about?




I DIDN'T STUTTER! (all caps for the hard of head...and hearing)

[gabosaurus]

I had a very pleasant experience with an Orchestra in Berlin, Germany when they featured Handel's music. And the girl with me at the time? Well, smile. :cool:

I think my maternal grandfather moved to the U.S. from Germany about 1951 or so. You were probably there a bit later.
My maternal grandmother has pictures of her playing the trombone during WWII youth rallies. My grandfather was in the military. Such a patriotic family, my maternal relatives were.

[Robert A Whit]

Are you referring to me, you old goat? :poke:

:clap::coffee:

[Robert A Whit]

I think my maternal grandfather moved to the U.S. from Germany about 1951 or so. You were probably there a bit later.
My maternal grandmother has pictures of her playing the trombone during WWII youth rallies. My grandfather was in the military. Such a patriotic family, my maternal relatives were.

I arrived in Germany at Frankfurt in October 1962 and served in Schweinfurt at two posts. Post 1 was infantry where I was in the Headquarters company that contained all the senior commanding officers and a lot of support for the line companies. We were called a Strike unit and I was told in all out war, we might survive an hour or so. Schweinfurt is in Bavaria, one of the states of Germany.

We were in a former Panzer base. By 62, in the formerly West Germany, the war damage was virtually all gone. My base had a couple damaged buildings that the US govt. simply chose to ignore.

Though Schweinfurt was reduced to rubble in WW2, the Germans somehow managed to restore the town. What amazed me is the Germans stuck to tradition and rather than change the styles, stuck to what was there before. They had the plans for the buildings hidden is what I was told.

Berlin I visited to the extent I was there about 45 days. I was able to cross at checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin to see the hell the Germans lived with over there.

The Wall to me was so sad. To see all those photos on the wall with flowers and so forth really hit me. They paid for freedom with their lives. Trying to bust out of East Berlin into West Berlin was next to impossible. But they kept trying.

I once thought my family had German roots but turns out none were from there but were rather from England. I still don't know where my grandfathers roots were but his last name seemed to me to be French. But I just don't know. The family was in America sometime in the 1700s and we tracked them back to North Carolina and then over a long time, moved state by state westward.

My moms dad was born in TX but she was born in Oklahoma as was my natural father. My step dad was born in Utah. I was born in the San Joaquin valley at Tulare, CA. Some poster says he has lived his life at Bakersfield. My next younger brother was born there and one in Sacramento, CA. Mom told me once that for a short time, we lived somewhere around. Los Angeles. The bulk of my life has been spent around the SF Bay Area.

[jimnyc]

:clap::coffee:

That's right, embrace your oldness and goatness! :lol:

[Robert A Whit]

That's right, embrace your oldness and goatness! :lol:

Jim, don't know if you can make it, but if you can get to my age, the view from the top is marvelous. Bear in mind that goats are very nimble and are even known to climb trees.:cool:4564

[revelarts]

Sunday school teacher disobeyed the Police man and got taught a lesson. he shot her dead.
says witnesses.
tragic, horrific

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BSPhC916GQM?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[Kathianne]

Confusing, Rev, to say the least. Checking out Google for more info, no clarity:

http://www.google.com/search?q=culpepper+woman+shot+church+parking+lot&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[logroller]

Sunday school teacher disobeyed the Police man and got taught a lesson. he shot her dead.
says witnesses.
tragic, horrific

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BSPhC916GQM?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>
Six rounds fired and "the Virginia medical examiner has the body to determine the exact cause of death." :unsure:

Taking the official account as factual; wouldn't the first shot have shattered the window, freeing his arm; why so many rounds fired?

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iQNDA835BsY?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/14/why-did-a-culpepper-cop-kill-a-retired-s


Virginia State Police and the Fauquier County prosecutor’s office have been investigating the shooting for 10 weeks. The officer, whose name has not been released, is reportedly on paid administrative leave.
UPDATE: Reason's own Ron Bailey directs me to a story in The Hook (http://www.readthehook.com/103920/name-changer-culpeper-cop-who-shot-unarmed-woman-has-multiple-monikerstizens-petition) that a) sheds some light on the offending officer's identity and background, and b) reports one of Virginia's top law enforcement veterans is irate about how long the investigation is taking:

Three months after a Culpeper police officer gunned down an unarmed woman and despite an official explanation that has been contradicted by at least two witnesses, there's still no action. Frustration has grown so intense that about 500 citizens have signed a petition, and now Central Virginia's leading law enforcer is speaking out about the case and its allegedly slow pace.
"What I've heard about it stinks,"says Albemarle Sheriff Chip Harding.
A former Charlottesville police captain who gained a national reputation in DNA technology, Harding says that 80 percent of a police shooting investigation typically occurs in the first five or six hours. Here, the State Police, aside from issuing a pair of press releases essentially blaming the victim, have released little– even denying multiple requests for the name of the officer in question.
"How long does it take to do an investigation?" asks Harding. "It's not rocket science."
Also:

The Free Lance-Star (http://fredericksburg.com//News/FLS/2012/042012/04042012/692927?rss=local) in Fredericksburg cites two unnamed officers confirming that the shooter's name is Daniel Harmon-Wright.
Moreover, the newspaper reports that the 33-year-old Harmon-Wright has previously used other names. On Facebook, he goes by "Dan Wayne," a graduate of James Madison High School in Vienna, the paper reports. More curiously, the five-year veteran of the Culpeper P.D., also a veteran of the U.S. Marines, previously lived in Fauquier where he was known as Daniel Sullivan.
Culpeper Police Chief Chris Jenkins did not return a phone call from the Hook seeking confirmation that Harmon-Wright is Sullivan and the shooter– and why the officer might tamper with his own surname.
UPDATE II: Cook's husband has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Culpeper PD (http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/15/husband-of-sunday-school-teacher-killed).

[Kathianne]

It does seem that the wheels of justice are grinding towards the truth?

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starexponent/news/local_news/article_13e38ff4-72dd-11e2-ae3a-001a4bcf6878.html


Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:00 am

The attorney representing the brother of the local homemaker fatally shot by an on-duty Culpeper Police officer hopes to have the wrongful death lawsuit in the matter heard by a jury in a Culpeper courtroom by the end of the year.


The estate of Patricia Cook continues to seek $5.35 million in the civil complaint filed against ex-cop Daniel Harmon-Wright related to her Feb. 9, 2012 death on East Street.

Last month, a jury found Harmon-Wright guilty of manslaughter and other felony charges, recommending a three-year jail sentence. Now that the criminal proceedings are over, the wrongful death suit can move forward with John Weigler, of Pennsville, N.J., representing his sister's estate.

Pat Cook's husband, Gary Cook, originally filed the civil suit, but he died in September of natural causes - seven months after his 54-year-old wife was shot dead in an altercation with Harmon-Wright on East Street.


Weigler's lawyer, J. Gregory Webb of Charlottesville, said Wednesday that his client and Mrs. Cook's mother were hoping for a more substantial sentence greater than three years for Harmon-Wright.


"We believe more time would have been appropriate," Webb said. "The wrongful death case is the continuance of the fight for full responsibility and accountability of Mr. Harmon-Wright and any others that may have been responsible for Mr. Harmon-Wright having a badge and a gun on Feb. 9, 2012.


"He clearly should not have been a police officer, one whose duty is to protect and serve," Webb added. "Mr. Weigler will continue the mission to hold Mr. Harmon-Wright and others fully accountable and responsible. Mr. Harmon-Wright had his day in court — now Patricia Cook's family seeks to have its day."

...

[taft2012]

Um, is the point here that some police officers act illegally? I mean, I'll cede that rather obvious point.

Or is it to compare the criminal percentage rates between police and potheads?

That'd be a very difficult set of numbers for the pothead conservatives to defend, since they represent a special interest constituency comprised entirely of criminals.

[revelarts]

What you Didn't know about NYPD's Stop & Frisk program ! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rfJHx0Gj6ys)


<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rfJHx0Gj6ys?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

NYC quotas for stops, quotas for arrest.

informant cop "...we are not here to protect or to help..."
informant cop "...if you don't make arrest per month you are labeled a "ZERO"..."

"my sister wont come to my home anymore, because she feels like she's going to be stopped and arrested"

"...I've been stopped over 14 times frisked and not arrested..."

".. a review of your own reports show that more whites you've stopped have guns than minorities,..."


Mayor and Police Claim the program "works" "keeps people safe". where have i heard this before

Sgt Berrelly blows whistle that the much lauded Low Crime stats are because many of the harsher crimes are downgraded to lower crimes, he finnally turned over his to review and was punnished by being moved from his supervisor job to a new position midnight shift a a local precint.

"many crime reports were tossed out" "they disappeared" no crime report means lower crime rate.

[taft2012]

What you Didn't know about NYPD's Stop & Frisk program ! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rfJHx0Gj6ys)



What you don't know, in addition the mountainous volumes already proven you don't know, is that there is no "NYPD Stop & Frisk Program." The mere fact that the liberal media and pothead conservatives repeated this lie so often that is has become an accepted fact does not make any more true.

The NYPD does what every other police department in the country does; when having reasonable suspicion - as defined by US Supreme Court precedents and rulings - that a person is committing or about to commit a crime, the police officers investigate.

The simple "DUH!" standard the libtard media and you pothead conservatives fail to address is that *IF* these stops and searches were unconstitutional, *ANY* arrests resulting from them would be immediately dismissed either at arraignment or preliminary hearings.

But they're not, are they? Gee, wonder why....

[jimnyc]

It's really just a "terry stop" based on a SC case which ultimately showed they can do so. In fairness, it is referred to a "stop and frisk program" in and outside of NYC, but I also agree that this terminology is unfair. All the officer needs is a reasonable suspicion, not even probable cause for an arrest. I think the main problem is that SOME can abuse this authority and simply claim a suspicious movement or similar. And at the same time, because of this authority, there are probably countless crimes prevented and an equal amount of weapons confiscated. Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

[taft2012]

In fairness, it is referred to a "stop and frisk program" in and outside of NYC, but I also agree that this terminology is unfair.

You're unusually well-informed.

The "program" terminology is not simply unfair, it's a deliberate distortion.

[revelarts]

It's really just a "terry stop" based on a SC case which ultimately showed they can do so. In fairness, it is referred to a "stop and frisk program" in and outside of NYC, but I also agree that this terminology is unfair. All the officer needs is a reasonable suspicion, not even probable cause for an arrest. I think the main problem is that SOME can abuse this authority and simply claim a suspicious movement or similar. And at the same time, because of this authority, there are probably countless crimes prevented and an equal amount of weapons confiscated. Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

watch the video if you get a chance.

Tafyt blames the media
but ciztens groups, city council men, district attorneys and some police are aginst this policy WHATEVER the NAME.

Claiming it saves countless lives is an assumption not borne out by the stats aand even those stats have been Fudged to make them look better than they are.
EVEN if were PRAGMATIC to give up your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS willy nilly Jim.
Heck living in a prison camp might be safer, we should all just do that. disarm the country that might be safer, no fatty foods that might save countless lives.
I'm just not convinced that our leader care that much about my life jim or yours.
Taft is only concerned about evil pot. Police Job #1, throw pot heads in jail.

[revelarts]

It's really just a "terry stop" based on a SC case which ultimately showed they can do so. In fairness, it is referred to a "stop and frisk program" in and outside of NYC, but I also agree that this terminology is unfair. All the officer needs is a reasonable suspicion, not even probable cause for an arrest. I think the main problem is that SOME can abuse this authority and simply claim a suspicious movement or similar. And at the same time, because of this authority, there are probably countless crimes prevented and an equal amount of weapons confiscated. Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

and

what is a "reasonable suspicion"?
most of these people are just walking down the street in their neighborhoods. Kids walking to the playground or school.
How does that rank as reasonable. Unless, like Taft, all police can look a kids face and see that he's a perp or a perp in training.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's really just a "terry stop" based on a SC case which ultimately showed they can do so. In fairness, it is referred to a "stop and frisk program" in and outside of NYC, but I also agree that this terminology is unfair. All the officer needs is a reasonable suspicion, not even probable cause for an arrest. I think the main problem is that SOME can abuse this authority and simply claim a suspicious movement or similar. And at the same time, because of this authority, there are probably countless crimes prevented and an equal amount of weapons confiscated. Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

I will cheer if ever they do that in the black neighborhoods around here. They are full of criminals that walk around with concealed weapons. I don't mean law abiding citizens either. These are guys with prison records that are not allowed to have a gun and certainly not carry one concealed or otherwise. Police here for over 20 years have kept an extremely low profile in those areas. Allowing for "black small business" (crime) to prosper there.
90% of this city's criminal element live in those areas. Just about everybody here knows the truth of that because most of the drug busts are there! -Tyr

[taft2012]

watch the video if you get a chance.

Tafyt blames the media
but ciztens groups, city council men, district attorneys and some police are aginst this policy WHATEVER the NAME.

Claiming it saves countless lives is an assumption not borne out by the stats aand even those stats have been Fudged to make them look better than they are.
EVEN if were PRAGMATIC to give up your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS willy nilly Jim.
Heck living in a prison camp might be safer, we should all just do that. disarm the country that might be safer, no fatty foods that might save countless lives.
I'm just not convinced that our leader care that much about my life jim or yours.
Taft is only concerned about evil pot. Police Job #1, throw pot heads in jail.


Again, it's not a policy. It's not a program.

It's something police do all across the country.

The liberal/pothead conservative media likes to go around and find soldiers against the war in the Middle East and blow their opinions out of perspective vis-a-vis the rest of the military. Because a random soldier opposes the war, is that somehow supposed to discredit the war itself?

Perhaps, if one's mind is pot-addled.

Was Cindy Sheehan a typical example of a military mom? To the liberal/pothead conservative media she was.

There are no Constitutional rights being "given up" here. This is something decided long ago.

[taft2012]

Scene: 4:00 a.m. A police officer sees a man walking down a street of parked cars, pulling the door handle of car after car. No crime has been committed, but that is reasonable suspicion that he is checking for a car to steal, or steal its contents.

In Rev's world without the "ZOMG! EVIL NYPD STOP AND FRISK PROGRAM!" police officers would not be able to stop and ask this guy what the heck he's doing. The police, however, will be able to come in the morning and take an incident report when someone comes out in the morning and discovers their car stolen.

Of course, there's no real danger of this happening. No Supreme Court would ever be so insane as to take that crime fighting ability away from the police.

But isn't it amazing to what extent the pothead conservative are willing to let society deteriorate in their quest for legalized highs?

[taft2012]

and

what is a "reasonable suspicion"?
most of these people are just walking down the street in their neighborhoods. Kids walking to the playground or school.
How does that rank as reasonable. Unless, like Taft, all police can look a kids face and see that he's a perp or a perp in training.

You're so full of shit I can smell it coming out of my computer.

If any stop was not based upon legitimate reasonable suspicion, the District Attorneys would not prosecute the resulting arrest, and certainly a judge would dismiss the charges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/nyregion/police-perspective-to-be-presented-at-trial-on-stop-and-frisk-tactic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


One officer described how car thieves might pretend to be beggars, sifting through curbside trash. “If someone is in the middle of a dark street, staring into the car and then when we drive by, they start ripping up garbage bags,” the police officer, Michael Noboa, said, “that would give me reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop, question” and possibly frisk.

Another officer in the same Brooklyn precinct, Kha Dang, explained how gang members often stash a gun nearby when they congregate outdoors. So he might grow suspicious, he explained, if he observed people repeatedly glancing over at a trash can or “at the bushes, you know, no person would sit there and keep looking at the bushes like that.”

In their statements, the officers described various legal standards related to encounters between the police and the public. While officers have a right to approach anyone to request information, the encounter only becomes a stop, as Officer Noboa explained, once “you temporarily detain somebody while you’re speaking to them.”


Officer Gonzalez, in his deposition, explained that, “We can’t just stop anyone for the sake of stopping a person.”


Still, Officer Noboa said he tried not to jump to conclusions when observing seemingly suspicious behavior, often pausing before moving in to stop someone. “I don’t want to stop someone without having the reasonable suspicion, and I usually just wait and make the observation,” Officer Noboa said. “Maybe I’m overlooking something, maybe I’m not seeing the bigger picture.”


The officers also explained that not every stop was the result of an out-of-the-blue observation. Some stops occurred in response to a specific crime, often as an officer drove a victim in search of a suspect. “When you have a victim of a crime in a car, and she tells you this is the person that did it, and you would obviously stop them, you know,” Officer Gonzalez explained.

But please, do not allow reality and common sense to interrupt your marijuana-fueled paranoia.

Continue to cower in a corner of your double-wide and await the arrival of the Pig's Knuckle, Arkansas PD's Swat Team. Dude, they're comin' for your weed! :laugh:

[jimnyc]

watch the video if you get a chance.

Tafyt blames the media
but ciztens groups, city council men, district attorneys and some police are aginst this policy WHATEVER the NAME.

Claiming it saves countless lives is an assumption not borne out by the stats aand even those stats have been Fudged to make them look better than they are.
EVEN if were PRAGMATIC to give up your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS willy nilly Jim.
Heck living in a prison camp might be safer, we should all just do that. disarm the country that might be safer, no fatty foods that might save countless lives.
I'm just not convinced that our leader care that much about my life jim or yours.
Taft is only concerned about evil pot. Police Job #1, throw pot heads in jail.

If the SC voted in favor of Terry frisks in "Terry Vs. Ohio", then it's not unconstitutional to stop and frisk someone that they feel is suspicious.

[jimnyc]

and

what is a "reasonable suspicion"?
most of these people are just walking down the street in their neighborhoods. Kids walking to the playground or school.
How does that rank as reasonable. Unless, like Taft, all police can look a kids face and see that he's a perp or a perp in training.

That's where I agreed with you, as I think some probably do frisk based solely on appearance, color or location. Good luck fighting that in court when a cop says he thought you looked suspicious.

[jimnyc]

You're unusually well-informed.

The "program" terminology is not simply unfair, it's a deliberate distortion.

I've been frisked a time or 2 in my life! LOL

Nah, I'm a law nutter and read a bunch of law forums all the time, and there are a lot coming to ask advice about searches and other things, and I've been reading replies from lawyers and others for years and years now.

[revelarts]

500% increase in summons being tossed out by the courts since this Stop n Frisk NON-POLICY has been going on. That's been complained about by Community Leaderships, Council members, Lawyers, ACLU, District Attorneys and Judges and many Police Officers...

Scene 7:00pm man parking his sister car after a funeral
frisked and Arrested

Scene 5:00 pm Woman Crossing the street with a baby in a stroller stopped and frisked and given a summons

Scene 3:00 pm kids walking home from school, police stop and frisk...

etc etc etc

Reasonable?
police could smell the pot on them maybe?


There is a class action lawsuit in progress now against NYPD and to get to that stage judges had to determine if the lawsuit was realistic.

the Judge said "...It is Indisputable that the NYPD has an Enormous stop and frisk program.
there were2.8 million documented stops between 2004 and 2009. those stops were made pursuant to policy designed implemented and monitored by the NYPD administration...."
"...evidence shows that the stop and frisk program is centralized and hierarchical...."
http://ccrjustice.org/floyd

Taft you need to tell the Judge that he's been smoking too much weed in his trailer. and listening to much left wing cop hatin media. there is no program or policy. Taft said so. the judge and the reams of evidence the judge saw is full of weed eatin S***. Taft knows better.


For those of you who think it's ok for the police to break the Constitution, as long as it's against minorities who are born looking suspicious to some. (wonder why so many are suspicious of police) .
Here's a cop against a pot smoking street preacher.
when the rights of anyone is abused it's a threat to everyone. epsecially if it's POLICY.

Califorinia
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8GMnPXeuC0o?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[jimnyc]

I got stopped and frisked with some friends in NYC once. We just left this guys apartment on Avenue C near Tompkins Square park. I think we scored about an 1/8th of pot and some hash. Had to be about 1988-89? Fuckers stopped and frisked us even though we were just walking down the road. My friend had a flight jacket on and put it in his left arms side pocket near his bicep. Luckily for us/him, they didn't find it and we were free to go.

In Jersey one time, I was pulled over with 2 friends. I think one was busted before for pot, but we were all clean and just cruising through Rahway, NJ (crappy town). They didn't believe me and before I knew it, the entire car was emptied on the sidewalk, contents of trunk too, and then off came the door panels. They let us go when they didn't find anything, but hell, I had to put all the stuff back and put together the doors again. I was like 18 or 19, I didn't know how to do that! Damn door was always weird from that point on!

http://i.imgur.com/h5OI1Yp.jpg

[taft2012]

500% increase in summons being tossed out by the courts since this Stop n Frisk NON-POLICY has been going on. That's been complained about by Community Leaderships, Council members, Lawyers, ACLU, District Attorneys and Judges and many Police Officers...

You're unusually poorly informed. Summons are not issued in NYC for misdemeanors or felonies as defined in the NYS Penal Law.

Stops, question, frisks are only authorized for suspected misdemeanors or felonies as defined in the NYS Penal Law.

One has nothing to do with the other.


Scene 7:00pm man parking his sister car after a funeral
frisked and Arrested

And charged with what? For parking his car? You seriously expect anything thinking person to believe this tripe?


Scene 5:00 pm Woman Crossing the street with a baby in a stroller stopped and frisked and given a summons

A summons for what? Crossing the street?

Perhaps she was jaywalking? WTF does this have to do with Terry stops?

This isn't a Terry stop... it's a stop that takes place when an officer observes a violation. Like when he observes you drive through a red light. You don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about and are mixing apples and oranges.



Reasonable?
police could smell the pot on them maybe?

Again, you're unusually poorly informed. These stops do not authorize searches for evidence. Only weapons that could endanger the police. Even if the police do find marijuana, they can not justify in court that they thought it was a weapon that they felt through the clothing.

I could go on and on.... you're not interested in the truth.

You're worried about your pot.

And you should be. We're coming for it. :laugh:

[revelarts]

You're unusually poorly informed. Summons are not issued in NYC for misdemeanors or felonies as defined in the NYS Penal Law.

Stops, question, frisks are only authorized for suspected misdemeanors or felonies as defined in the NYS Penal Law.

One has nothing to do with the other.



And charged with what? For parking his car? You seriously expect anything thinking person to believe this tripe?



A summons for what? Crossing the street?

Perhaps she was jaywalking? WTF does this have to do with Terry stops?

This isn't a Terry stop... it's a stop that takes place when an officer observes a violation. Like when he observes you drive through a red light. You don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about and are mixing apples and oranges.



Again, you're unusually poorly informed. These stops do not authorize searches for evidence. Only weapons that could endanger the police. Even if the police do find marijuana, they can not justify in court that they thought it was a weapon that they felt through the clothing.

I could go on and on.... you're not interested in the truth.

You're worried about your pot.

And you should be. We're coming for it. :laugh:

Sheesh, I didn't make any of that up, watch the video i posted, the news reported each of those incidents an more.


interseting how you both still want to make out that all of those stops are still Justified and assume they are all legal even after i posted the Judges findings.

whatever, Taft cops never harrass people becuase they have quotas to fill, and the NYPD who admit to doing it and being presured to do it are lying.

but wait Cops don't lie.

I'm in a bind here Taft is cop he never lies and is always right.
and the others' are Also cops who never lie and are always right.

what am i suppose to think um.... I know .. I'll just stop thinking and believe whatever the heck any cops tells me at that moment and not try to check reality for myself or worry about what the constitution says.

OH yeah don't smoke pot.. unless a police offier is selling it.
"NEW YORK (PIX11) - Prosecutors say an NYPD cop out on disability living in an upscale pad valued at more than half a million dollars, according to sale records, is one of the central figures in a six man drug operation that peddled oxycodone and cocaine in bars, restaurants, nightclubs and banks in and around the town of Brookhaven along the North Shore. “This has been a long time in coming but it sends a very clear message,” Brookhaven Town Supervisor Ed Romaine told PIX11 Thursday.
The busted NYPD cop has been identified as Thomas Gironda. The 44-year-old is out on disability according to prosecutors but he still operates a construction business, New Look Concrete housed out of an office inside of a subdued business park.



Read more: http://pix11.com/2012/12/20/nypd-cop-was-central-figure-behind-li-drug-ring-officials/#ixzz2PircPQGP


Federal prosecutors say an NYPD officer helped a drug dealer by facilitating financial transactions and performed other favors like feeding him information about arrests of his associates and even providing him a police parking placard.

Authorities said Guy Curtis, the leader of a heroin ring based in Jamaica, Queens, regularly reached out to Officer Devon Daniels, a 30-year-old uniform patrol officer, by phone and text, asking for help like how to "get gun shot residue off your hands."
Curtis, who pleaded guilty in January to charges of conspiracy to distribute, asked Daniels at one point "I need u to clap a felon he always carrying a gun," according to the federal complaint.




A cop was sentenced to 15 years in prison for stealing guns from his East Village police station house for his drug dealer.

Nicholas Mina, who'd been a cop for four years, peddled four 9 mm guns from his coworkers' lockers so he could feed his prescription drug habit, said his lawyer Robert Gallo.
"He takes responsibility and accountability for his actions," Gallo said, which were brought about by "the scourge of prescription drugs."
Justice Edward McLaughlin said the reason for Mina's crimes are "uncontested," but what he did was "inexcusable."

In addition to swiping three Glocks and a Smith & Wesson at the Ninth Precinct earlier this year, Mina admitted to selling his own private-use Glock - and investigators caught him on wiretaps talking about taking and selling more guns.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/ex_nypd_officer_gets_years_in_prison_nUZb0QEe6SLw1 nUVjpkm9M

Instead of worrying about pothead conservatives on the internet you need to check you brothers in blue right there at the station. they are dealers and suppliers of worse than pot. Taft, get busy officer, you've got some collars to make right there.


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[jimnyc]

interseting how you both still want to make out that all of those stops are still Justified and assume they are all legal even after i posted the Judges findings.

Both? You didn't read what I wrote then! I agreed with both sides basically. I know some good comes of an alert officer doing a terry stop, but I have no doubt that this gets abused by some. Some stops will be bogus and tossed out of court. Some will be good and drugs or guns will come off the streets. And yes, some of them have law abiding citizens being 'harassed' for being in a certain neighborhood, being a certain color or just looking the wrong way. I don't think this is a majority of cops by any means, but obviously it happens.

Seriously though, what's the answer? Bring it to the SC again? Perhaps. But I think the SC will always give the police a little leeway as it's their lives on the line daily. The question comes down to the police or policing the police. Since they have that leeway, how do you lessen any type of abuse of that leeway? Dunno myself.

[tailfins]

Again, it's not a policy. It's not a program.

It's something police do all across the country.

The liberal/pothead conservative media likes to go around and find soldiers against the war in the Middle East and blow their opinions out of perspective vis-a-vis the rest of the military. Because a random soldier opposes the war, is that somehow supposed to discredit the war itself?

Perhaps, if one's mind is pot-addled.

Was Cindy Sheehan a typical example of a military mom? To the liberal/pothead conservative media she was.

There are no Constitutional rights being "given up" here. This is something decided long ago.

What's this obsession you have with weed? Thou doth protest too much, methinks!

[taft2012]

interseting how you both still want to make out that all of those stops are still Justified and assume they are all legal even after i posted the Judges findings.

You're mixing and mixing and mixing. If a police officer issues a summons for a red light violation, and the judge in traffic court dismisses it .... has something unconstitutional occurred? :laugh2:


whatever, Taft cops never harrass people

but wait Cops don't lie.

I'm in a bind here Taft is cop he never lies and is always right.
and the others' are Also cops who never lie and are always right.

Impressive laundry list of strawmen.

Not how about addressing a few points I've actually made, or at least get the straighten out your knowledge base of WTF you're talking about.

what am i suppose to think um.... I know .. I'll just stop thinking and believe whatever the heck any cops tells me at that moment and not try to check reality for myself or worry about what the constitution says.



Instead of worrying about pothead conservatives on the internet you need to check you brothers in blue right there at the station. they are dealers and suppliers of worse than pot. Taft, get busy officer, you've got some collars to make right there.


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Your logic is irreproachable.

So apparently because there are anecdotal incidents of police engaging in criminal behavior, the only logical recourse is to hamstring the crime fighting efforts of *ALL* police ... and also to legalize marijuana.

Of course, by this standard - because we have to court martial members of our military from time-to-time - our nation should then never take military action again.:laugh2:

Light up dude, puff away. I learned long ago just to laugh at stuff like this. Experience tells me we almost always catch up to career criminals. Your day will come.

[taft2012]

What's this obsession you have with weed? Thou doth protest too much, methinks!

I've explained it numerous times in numerous threads all over this forum. Sorry, but I'm afraid if you've missed these frequent explanations; methinks you smoke too much.

[aboutime]

What's this obsession you have with weed? Thou doth protest too much, methinks!


So said tailfins after taking a long drag from the DOOBIE.

[logroller]

So said tailfins after taking a long drag from the DOOBIE.
So said a recovering alcoholic...proving tailfin's point.

[logroller]

Um, is the point here that some police officers act illegally? I mean, I'll cede that rather obvious point.

Or is it to compare the criminal percentage rates between police and potheads?

That'd be a very difficult set of numbers for the pothead conservatives to defend, since they represent a special interest constituency comprised entirely of criminals.
Is your point that because pot is illegal, potheads are criminals?? I too will concede that obvious point, but would admonish your for engaging in circular reasoning.

[aboutime]

So said a recovering alcoholic...proving tailfin's point.


Unlike the unrecoverable potheads? I'm proud of my accomplishment. Anyone who defends illegal activity, or admits to it is STOOPID.

[Kathianne]

Unlike the unrecoverable potheads? I'm proud of my accomplishment. Anyone who defends illegal activity, or admits to it is STOOPID.

You should be proud of your accomplishment. I'm confused though why you'd agree that anyone that disagrees with Taft's definitions is a pot head?

I am in favor of legalization of mj, but have no intention of ever using it in the future. I just feel the laws are a waste of resources and would be a source of revenue, along with removing it from the possibility of 'gateway' drug; meaning those that sell illegal mj, are likely to provide other illegal drugs.

[aboutime]

You should be proud of your accomplishment. I'm confused though why you'd agree that anyone that disagrees with Taft's definitions is a pot head?

I am in favor of legalization of mj, but have no intention of ever using it in the future. I just feel the laws are a waste of resources and would be a source of revenue, along with removing it from the possibility of 'gateway' drug; meaning those that sell illegal mj, are likely to provide other illegal drugs.


Kathianne. Perhaps because it's personal. I lost my youngest brother who was Gay, used Pot as his starter connection with drugs, and we learned...after his death of AIDS. He had been stealing our mother's prescription drugs, and selling them for more of his own benefit.
Pot was his downfall, as a starter drug. As for taft's definition. Many people use that expression, just as they use Druggy, or Pothead to express their feelings about users of illegal, and legal drugs.
When you come in contact with those kinds of abusers often enough. Just like crooks....we know to be politicians. The words have meaning. Some people agree, and others don't.
Finally. Whatever taft defines as pot head isn't what I would agree with totally. But, based on his experience. He's mighty close.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. Perhaps because it's personal. I lost my youngest brother who was Gay, used Pot as his starter connection with drugs, and we learned...after his death of AIDS. He had been stealing our mother's prescription drugs, and selling them for more of his own benefit.
Pot was his downfall, as a starter drug. As for taft's definition. Many people use that expression, just as they use Druggy, or Pothead to express their feelings about users of illegal, and legal drugs.
When you come in contact with those kinds of abusers often enough. Just like crooks....we know to be politicians. The words have meaning. Some people agree, and others don't.
Finally. Whatever taft defines as pot head isn't what I would agree with totally. But, based on his experience. He's mighty close.

First off, my condolences, I'm sorry for your loss.

That was MY point. Remove it from illegal, cut out the supplier. End the gateway.

From what you are describing, he may well have found the other stuff on his own. Free will.

[cadet]

First off, my condolences, I'm sorry for your loss.

That was MY point. Remove it from illegal, cut out the supplier. End the gateway.

From what you are describing, he may well have found the other stuff on his own. Free will.

Surveys taken show that people on meth did pot once in their life.

Surveys also show that people that use pot, when asked if they'd try meth, say "Why the f--- would you put that in your system? What are you retarded?"

It all depends on which side you're looking at.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You should be proud of your accomplishment. I'm confused though why you'd agree that anyone that disagrees with Taft's definitions is a pot head?

I agree completely with that . Abouttime's military service is an accomplishment that would do anybody proud. Hell, I am proud for him myself!!! -Tyr

[logroller]

Surveys taken show that people on meth did pot once in their life.

Surveys also show that people that use pot, when asked if they'd try meth, say "Why the f--- would you put that in your system? What are you retarded?"

It all depends on which side you're looking at.
Alcohol and tobacco are too.

[logroller]

Unlike the unrecoverable potheads? I'm proud of my accomplishment. Anyone who defends illegal activity, or admits to it is STOOPID.
I have smoked pot; im not proud of that. Don't smoke it now, I'm not proud of that either. That make me a stoopid, unrecoverable pothead?

[cadet]

Alcohol and tobacco are too.

Exactly!

Also, did you know that 100% of people who drink dihydrogen monoxide die? And that everyone that does any drugs has at one point in their life partaken in this substance?

Yes, numbers can and will be fucked with by statistics to make you think whatever you want.

[Kathianne]

Alcohol and tobacco are too.

yet both are legal. Let's look at some of the topics we're addressing today. While abusing alcohol or mj or tobacco will eventually lead to a shorter life, none as quickly as being shot with a gun. Right? You agree with that?

Now when will we get commonsense drug laws to have the same 'urgency' as those proposed laws regarding the second amendment?

Seems to me that urgency of any proposals regarding law is relative to the time it takes the politicians to recognize the possible increase in their control over the people.

[logroller]

yet both are legal. Let's look at some of the topics we're addressing today. While abusing alcohol or mj or tobacco will eventually lead to a shorter life, none as quickly as being shot with a gun. Right? You agree with that?

Now when will we get commonsense drug laws to have the same 'urgency' as those proposed laws regarding the second amendment?

Seems to me that urgency of any proposals regarding law is relative to the time it takes the politicians to recognize the possible increase in their control over the people.
.....but think of the poor defenseless children...and imagine that to be the entire populace.

[Kathianne]

.....but think of the poor defenseless children...and imagine that to be the entire populace.

To be clear to all, you agree with me?

[logroller]

Exactly!

Also, did you know that 100% of people who drink dihydrogen monoxide die? And that everyone that does any drugs has at one point in their life partaken in this substance?

Yes, numbers can and will be fucked with by statistics to make you think whatever you want.
All substances are toxic, even water; its merely a matter of the dose.

“All things are poisons, for there is nothing without poisonous qualities. It is only the dose which makes a thing poison.”― Paracelsus

[taft2012]

Is your point that because pot is illegal, potheads are criminals?? I too will concede that obvious point, but would admonish your for engaging in circular reasoning.

I'm missing the "circular reasoning"

[cadet]

I'm missing the "circular reasoning"

Potheads are criminals. And pot is only used by criminals. Thus we should keep it illegal cause they're criminals.


Now imagine if it were legalized. Potheads would not be criminals. :batteyes:
Get it?

[aboutime]

I have smoked pot; im not proud of that. Don't smoke it now, I'm not proud of that either. That make me a stoopid, unrecoverable pothead?


​You said it...not me. Thanks anyway.

[logroller]

​You said it...not me. Thanks anyway.
If it keeps your last brain cell pulsing, you're surely welcome. :thumb:

[jimnyc]

That starter drug crap is crap, IMO. Everyone has a choice, from whether to smoke a cigarette, a joint, some crack, heroin... None of them will make you want to have the other. You don't say "I'll have this, why not, I had marijuana once...". They don't impact one another. I'd be willing to bet the majority of pot smokers today, and in the past, didn't have it lead them to harder drugs and such. This doesn't mean I am or would promote the use of it, no more than I would promote the use of drinking, which is also not a "gateway" drug.

If anything, the wrong friends and places one is hanging is much more of any gateway.

[aboutime]

That starter drug crap is crap, IMO. Everyone has a choice, from whether to smoke a cigarette, a joint, some crack, heroin... None of them will make you want to have the other. You don't say "I'll have this, why not, I had marijuana once...". They don't impact one another. I'd be willing to bet the majority of pot smokers today, and in the past, didn't have it lead them to harder drugs and such. This doesn't mean I am or would promote the use of it, no more than I would promote the use of drinking, which is also not a "gateway" drug.

If anything, the wrong friends and places one is hanging is much more of any gateway.


jimnyc: Nobody has ever said ALL who have used POT would also become more serious drug users. Calling someone a POT HEAD isn't wrong IF...someone admits to smoking Pot. In fact. It's a true statement.
All the big hubbub is over the use of POTHEAD. Nothing more, nothing less.
But those who are so quickly offended by the use of those words...seem to be taking the words rather seriously. And they should...if they have used pot at any time.
What's wrong with that?
Look at how members here have happily enjoyed reminding me of my sickness with Alcohol.
Did I get angry at them for telling the truth?????

[jimnyc]

jimnyc: Nobody has ever said ALL who have used POT would also become more serious drug users. Calling someone a POT HEAD isn't wrong IF...someone admits to smoking Pot. In fact. It's a true statement.
All the big hubbub is over the use of POTHEAD. Nothing more, nothing less.
But those who are so quickly offended by the use of those words...seem to be taking the words rather seriously. And they should...if they have used pot at any time.
What's wrong with that?
Look at how members here have happily enjoyed reminding me of my sickness with Alcohol.
Did I get angry at them for telling the truth?????

The "pothead" term wasn't just for someone who smoked pot, but a serious habitual user, a hardcore stoner. Your casual user wouldn't be labeled as such. I don't get offended over stuff like that, I just correct the misconceptions is all.

[Kathianne]

That starter drug crap is crap, IMO. Everyone has a choice, from whether to smoke a cigarette, a joint, some crack, heroin... None of them will make you want to have the other. You don't say "I'll have this, why not, I had marijuana once...". They don't impact one another. I'd be willing to bet the majority of pot smokers today, and in the past, didn't have it lead them to harder drugs and such. This doesn't mean I am or would promote the use of it, no more than I would promote the use of drinking, which is also not a "gateway" drug.

If anything, the wrong friends and places one is hanging is much more of any gateway.

The illegality of mj makes it a 'gateway.' I don't really know if mj is less or more or the same as alcohol regarding addiction. What I do know is that it's legal and taxed to buy alcohol, provided you are of a certain age. At the same location you may likely purchase legal tobacco products. MJ? No way.

That guy supplying the MJ? Well he can also put in a score for other things, it's the nature of a black market. Not all want, that's true. Those using mj to escape? Likely customers for better escapes. Legality is the key.

[jimnyc]

The illegality of mj makes it a 'gateway.' I don't really know if mj is less or more or the same as alcohol regarding addiction. What I do know is that it's legal and taxed to buy alcohol, provided you are of a certain age. At the same location you may likely purchase legal tobacco products. MJ? No way.

That guy supplying the MJ? Well he can also put in a score for other things, it's the nature of a black market. Not all want, that's true. Those using mj to escape? Likely customers for better escapes. Legality is the key.

Who's to say that someone scoring an 8 ball of cocaine will not later turn to MJ? I suppose it all depends on what they are lured to first, and whether they have an addictive personality, their friends, family, how it affects them when high...

I think a lot of factors come into play before someone smokes a joint and then decides to try heroin or meth. I do think, just being in the drug scene alone, might very well lead some into temptation for all kinds of drugs. If a guy goes with friends to his cousins house, and they are doing cocaine there, he may be lured to that. If they are smoking crack, it may smell good to him. If smoking MJ, maybe that. I just don't think any one drug leads someone to do another drug. IMO, I look at it as like a gun doesn't kill people, people do. In this instance, drugs don't lead to other drugs - people go there.

[aboutime]

What I find most amazing, but not unexpected these days is. Reading all of the many kinds of excuses, and even some Defensive reasoning that separates a Pot User..POT HEAD, from hard core drug users...DRUGGIES.

Listen to yourselves out there. Seems as if most of you prefer to make Pot legal to alleviate your past, secretive experiments with, or normal use of something that...up until only recently. Has been on the ILLEGAL list.

I see it as some form of personal gratification many of you are expressing...while hoping in A STATE NEAR YOU...it becomes legal to smoke all the Pot you want.
I guess I see it differently as someone who smoked cigarettes for almost 50 years before my heart attack...and warnings that I would not survive to see my grandchildren grow...if I continued. But now. Despite all of the Political wrangling in many states to keep citizens who smoked LEGALLY from doing so..almost everywhere that offended other people.
SO...Where are all of those Whiners who hated to smell smoke when it comes to POT?
Hypocrisy comes in many forms. And now. POT is replacing the SMOKE of choice...and the same people who complained so much about cigarettes..ARE HAPPILY SILENT????

[cadet]

What I find most amazing, but not unexpected these days is. Reading all of the many kinds of excuses, and even some Defensive reasoning that separates a Pot User..POT HEAD, from hard core drug users...DRUGGIES.

Listen to yourselves out there. Seems as if most of you prefer to make Pot legal to alleviate your past, secretive experiments with, or normal use of something that...up until only recently. Has been on the ILLEGAL list.

I see it as some form of personal gratification many of you are expressing...while hoping in A STATE NEAR YOU...it becomes legal to smoke all the Pot you want.
I guess I see it differently as someone who smoked cigarettes for almost 50 years before my heart attack...and warnings that I would not survive to see my grandchildren grow...if I continued. But now. Despite all of the Political wrangling in many states to keep citizens who smoked LEGALLY from doing so..almost everywhere that offended other people.
SO...Where are all of those Whiners who hated to smell smoke when it comes to POT?
Hypocrisy comes in many forms. And now. POT is replacing the SMOKE of choice...and the same people who complained so much about cigarettes..ARE HAPPILY SILENT????

The whole issue is that it's your body and you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to it.
Answer me, does the gov't have the right to tell you what you can and cannot consume?

Also, it's not as harmful, or addicting as cigarettes. Plus, there's no second hand smoke issue.
You think the gov't should be able to tell what you can do with your life? That's very liberal/totalitarian of you.

[jimnyc]

What I find most amazing, but not unexpected these days is. Reading all of the many kinds of excuses, and even some Defensive reasoning that separates a Pot User..POT HEAD, from hard core drug users...DRUGGIES.

Listen to yourselves out there. Seems as if most of you prefer to make Pot legal to alleviate your past, secretive experiments with, or normal use of something that...up until only recently. Has been on the ILLEGAL list.

I see it as some form of personal gratification many of you are expressing...while hoping in A STATE NEAR YOU...it becomes legal to smoke all the Pot you want.
I guess I see it differently as someone who smoked cigarettes for almost 50 years before my heart attack...and warnings that I would not survive to see my grandchildren grow...if I continued. But now. Despite all of the Political wrangling in many states to keep citizens who smoked LEGALLY from doing so..almost everywhere that offended other people.
SO...Where are all of those Whiners who hated to smell smoke when it comes to POT?
Hypocrisy comes in many forms. And now. POT is replacing the SMOKE of choice...and the same people who complained so much about cigarettes..ARE HAPPILY SILENT????

How many people are out there dying from smoking marijuana, as cigarette smokers are? The comparison is apples and oranges, as the effects are different, both physically and mentally. How many have heart attacks as a result? Lung cancer? Oh, that's right, none, zero, nada, zilch.

Make it legal to alleviate the past? That doesn't even make any sense. I imagine if someone had an issue with their past, they likely wouldn't be exposing it on a message board. I stand by my past 100%. I don't make excuses. I don't get defensive, I merely correct the incorrect. Drinking alcohol is 5000% worse than any "pothead" could ever do to himself, even if he/she injected THC directly into their veins. And then cigarettes are even worse than that.

[logroller]

jimnyc: Nobody has ever said ALL who have used POT would also become more serious drug users. Calling someone a POT HEAD isn't wrong IF...someone admits to smoking Pot. In fact. It's a true statement.
All the big hubbub is over the use of POTHEAD. Nothing more, nothing less.
But those who are so quickly offended by the use of those words...seem to be taking the words rather seriously. And they should...if they have used pot at any time.
What's wrong with that?
Look at how members here have happily enjoyed reminding me of my sickness with Alcohol.
Did I get angry at them for telling the truth?????
The hubbub is over using pothead as an ad hominem attack. Its rather you clear you fail to understand the difference between use and abuse of substances. One can casually use alcohol and not have issues with dependence. Same goes for MJ. Maybe you can't, personally, use substances casually, but many can. I'm glad you found a way to deal with your addiction, but understand the only person who need label it a problem is you. That's your freedom, your right, and your responsibility; and so long as you don't involve me in it, it doesn't concern me. I expect the same in return.

[aboutime]

The hubbub is over using pothead as an ad hominem attack. Its rather you clear you fail to understand the difference between use and abuse of substances. One can casually use alcohol and not have issues with dependence. Same goes for MJ. Maybe you can't, personally, use substances casually, but many can. I'm glad you found a way to deal with your addiction, but understand the only person who need label it a problem is you. That's your freedom, your right, and your responsibility; and so long as you don't involve me in it, it doesn't concern me. I expect the same in return.

Wouldn't expect, or have it any other way. Guess some of us have ways of speaking, or using words we expect others to always understand. It's called opinion, or idea. So we never get to agree about everything. That's how it is.

[Kathianne]

Who's to say that someone scoring an 8 ball of cocaine will not later turn to MJ? I suppose it all depends on what they are lured to first, and whether they have an addictive personality, their friends, family, how it affects them when high...

I think a lot of factors come into play before someone smokes a joint and then decides to try heroin or meth. I do think, just being in the drug scene alone, might very well lead some into temptation for all kinds of drugs. If a guy goes with friends to his cousins house, and they are doing cocaine there, he may be lured to that. If they are smoking crack, it may smell good to him. If smoking MJ, maybe that. I just don't think any one drug leads someone to do another drug. IMO, I look at it as like a gun doesn't kill people, people do. In this instance, drugs don't lead to other drugs - people go there.

I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet it's rare indeed to find someone that is using coke or heroin to move down to grass, but if I'm missing something, willing to learn.

[logroller]

I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet it's rare indeed to find someone that is using coke or heroin to move down to grass, but if I'm missing something, willing to learn.
http://mobile.alternet.org/alternet/#!/entry/is-marijuana-an-exit-drug-study-suggests-some-are-taking,5125f65ed7fc7b56703da189

[taft2012]

Potheads are criminals. And pot is only used by criminals. Thus we should keep it illegal cause they're criminals.


Now imagine if it were legalized. Potheads would not be criminals. :batteyes:
Get it?

Uh, yeah. But look at it this way, we could eliminate crime completely if we legalized everything.

[taft2012]

The whole issue is that it's your body and you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to it.
Answer me, does the gov't have the right to tell you what you can and cannot consume?
.

Answer me; Does the government have the right to confiscate my wealth to pay for your housing, food, and medical care when you chose to be non-functioning substance abusers?

As long as the government has that power, the people have a compelling public interest in preventing this population from expanding.

This is like turning a blind eye to illegal immigration.... to get more government dependent liberal Dems on the voting rolls.

[taft2012]

I'm confused though why you'd agree that anyone that disagrees with Taft's definitions is a pot head?


Right... because that's *exactly* the point I'm trying to make; anyone who disagrees with my definitions is a pot head. :rolleyes:

Someday we'll all be able to have political discussions outside the parameters of the two thinking boxes provided to us by Sean Hannity and Chris Mathews.

Someday, but certainly not today.

[cadet]

Answer me; Does the government have the right to confiscate my wealth to pay for your housing, food, and medical care when you chose to be non-functioning substance abusers?

As long as the government has that power, the people have a compelling public interest in preventing this population from expanding.

This is like turning a blind eye to illegal immigration.... to get more government dependent liberal Dems on the voting rolls.

I agree that the gov't doesn't have those rights either. I have nothing to fight against these statements.
America was founded upon freedom, and hard work. And everyone should have the right to be free to do with their lives as they wish. That includes paying for others lives, no reason to unless you really want to.

[jimnyc]

I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet it's rare indeed to find someone that is using coke or heroin to move down to grass, but if I'm missing something, willing to learn.

That's just it, many people seem to think there is a hierarchy with drugs, and there isn't, there are just drugs. What is dangled in front of someone is what they are perhaps going to try, and that is entirely up to that individual. And a person being offered cocaine at a party - I don't think his/her answer changes based on whether or not they have or do smoke marijuana.