View Full Version : Obama Administration announces intent to begin raiding MMJ dispensaries in CO and WA
Regardless of your feelings about pot-smoking hippies and Libtards, this should be cause for concern. Shortly after Joe Biden was pressuring Colorado and Washington Democrats to pass the ban on hi-capacity magazines, Obama's "Drug Czar" announced his intent to raid licensed MMJ dispensaries in Colorado and Washington.
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-drug-czar-we-will-go-after-marijuana-distributors-wash-and-colo-1
(http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-drug-czar-we-will-go-after-marijuana-distributors-wash-and-colo-1)
BPTactical
02-18-2013, 23:41
Although I don't agree with 64, it is still a violation of fed law. What else did you expect?
Although this hopefully a wake up call as to how fast they turn on their own.
hghclsswhitetrsh
02-18-2013, 23:42
Good. They're braking a federal law. Fuck the hippies. I have better shit to worry about.
Cylinder Head
02-18-2013, 23:44
I voted for amendment 64, but I wouldn't mind watching the Dems eat themselves.
Although I don't agree with 64, it is still a violation of fed law. What else did you expect?
Although this hopefully a wake up call as to how fast they turn on their own.
Not only that, but no matter how fucked up state laws are they have to ultimately abide by federal laws and hopefully the constitution.
hghclsswhitetrsh
02-18-2013, 23:46
^^^ Your sig line makes me sad. Shame on you...
/thread derail
NGCSUGrad09
02-18-2013, 23:49
I say good on this one. I'll be curious to see how much enforcement they decide to do. It may just be a token one or two for the news and then back to ignoring it.
iquack08
02-18-2013, 23:54
Federal government doesn't have the resources for this. Just look at immigration. The only thing this will do is drive everything underground. Feds can't prosecute everybody - that would be a nightmare.
Good. If they can piss off enough hippies and stoners maybe that will turn them against the dems or at least prevent them from stepping into the voting booth. The most important thing over the next few years is to get as many Dems out of office as possible and rip all these gun laws down and take back some turf on that front.
^^^ Your sig line makes me sad. Shame on you...
/thread derail
My intent was to bum everybody out. Mission Accomplished.
Good. They're braking a federal law. Fuck the hippies. I have better shit to worry about.
Not really.. according to the article:
"the bottom line is, according to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, anything made and sold that stays within the state of Washington is beyond their jurisdiction. Also there are states' rights under the 10th Amendment," noted Rep. Shea
BushMasterBoy
02-19-2013, 00:22
We got asteroids hitting the planet, and the .gov is going after the weed? I guarantee you right now terrorist cells are plotting to kill US citizens and drug cartels are smuggling heroin and cocaine in the multi billion dollar quantities into the United States. I would not be surprised if the drug cartels outside the country, obtained a nuclear weapon and used it to destroy downtown Washington D.C...God save us from our central government!
Read this guys bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Kerlikowske
Although this hopefully a wake up call as to how fast they turn on their own.
Yup. Still, the idea of Federal SWAT teams coming to Denver to kick in doors and threaten people with submachineguns over minor bullshit should be cause for concern . . . and why is Eric Holder not in jail yet?
Yup. Still, the idea of Federal SWAT teams coming to Denver to kick in doors and threaten people with submachineguns over minor bullshit should be cause for concern . . . and why is Eric Holder not in jail yet?
Because Obama's running the show.
Aloha_Shooter
02-19-2013, 00:34
This is rather curious. I understand Obama's and Holder's attacks on gun owners since so many of them are not in line with the Obama program but the pot-smoking hippies in CO and WA are mostly Obama's core constituency. There's something else at play here.
Lest we forget another Amendment in the Bill of Rights:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Less government is the best government.
Be safe.
A lot of you are hypocrits, all I have to say about this.
Well, don't act surprised when people don't stand up for stuff you believe in I guess.
I'm in agreement with TAR31, just to be clear. When the gun community, all those guys that beat their chests about how guns and the 2nd exist to defend liberties, hangs other groups out to dry like a bunch of cowards; don't expect ANY support if you ever work up the courage to put your money where your mouth is.
This is exactly what the dems want-to have eveyone at each others throats-then all freedoms will be lost....
It's all about freedom of the people,and their doing a damn good job of puting us against each other.
United we stand -divided we fall...
CowboyTuff
02-19-2013, 02:09
Just Imagine Some "high Capacity" Black guns out standing guard at their storefronts, keeping the gooberment at bay. 2A doing what it was meant to do. I don't understand their freedom, But im sure they don't understand mine, either.
DavieD55
02-19-2013, 04:26
Good! Hopefully more people will realize that their king is not really for them.
Although I don't agree with 64, it is still a violation of fed law. What else did you expect?
Although this hopefully a wake up call as to how fast they turn on their own.
just because a law is a law it does not make it just....
"I may not agree with what you do or say but you can be god damned sure I'll defend to the death your right to say or do it."
Byte Stryke
02-19-2013, 05:01
Tenth...
that is all
buffalobo
02-19-2013, 08:54
Another step on the path...
PugnacAutMortem
02-19-2013, 08:59
Well, don't act surprised when people don't stand up for stuff you believe in I guess.
I'm in agreement with TAR31, just to be clear. When the gun community, all those guys that beat their chests about how guns and the 2nd exist to defend liberties, hangs other groups out to dry like a bunch of cowards; don't expect ANY support if you ever work up the courage to put your money where your mouth is.
+1. Well said Irving.
Good. If they can piss off enough hippies and stoners maybe that will turn them against the dems or at least prevent them from stepping into the voting booth. The most important thing over the next few years is to get as many Dems out of office as possible and rip all these gun laws down and take back some turf on that front.
+1 on this!
wctriumph
02-19-2013, 09:11
I hope that the state will stand up for MMJ. My wife is a legitimate registered user and truly needs it for her disability. She had to give up her CCW to retain her MMJ red card. 64 is a Colorado constitutional amendment and as such, it should be defended with the same vigor as all other amendments of our constitution.
No problam maan, sitting in the fema camp smoking federal weed maan. dat's where dis shit is going.
StagLefty
02-19-2013, 09:20
BAN-high capacity bongs & CC stash.
Meybe BO can't get da good stuff in DC maan. Soo,,,,
Not really.. according to the article:
"the bottom line is, according to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, anything made and sold that stays within the state of Washington is beyond their jurisdiction. Also there are states' rights under the 10th Amendment," noted Rep. Shea
Rep. Shea is falt wrong. The US Supreme Court decided otherwise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
I personally believe the the Supreme Court overreaches on the Commerce Clause but my opinion means nothing.
Mike
Lest we forget another Amendment in the Bill of Rights:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Less government is the best government.
Be safe.
Amen
Zundfolge
02-19-2013, 10:36
Rep. Shea is falt wrong. The US Supreme Court decided otherwise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
I personally believe the the Supreme Court overreaches on the Commerce Clause but my opinion means nothing.
Mike
And the precedent for this goes back before most of us were born http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
There is no commerce clause or tenth amendment anymore and hasn't been since 1942
Kraven251
02-19-2013, 10:44
So they shit on the 1st, are currently trying to shit on the 2nd, are preparing to shit on the 10th, by manipulating the 4th.
Though there are the dispensaries that are near schools, those people were warned and shouldn't have put their businesses there in the first place.
This is the game plan. Use "legalized" MJ as a legal precedent against the 10th, then the fed can use that precedent against all of the states that have passed laws that prohibit federal involvement with firearm rights. Remember, the Pres is a Constitutional lawyer, and he has never played the short fight.
Here's my[2cents]:
I voted "no" for 64, not because it was wrong or anything (I'm all for ending the drug war- pretty much always have been- and making the U.S. drug policy more like the Dutch), but because it would do more harm than good right now with the detection and enforcement and various other factors I won't go on for pages upon pages of arguments. But this is just proof that even democrats (liberals/hippies) can't trust their own elected folks, and I really do hope that this forces more of the "useful idiots" into the Libertarian party or away from the Democratic party and helps them to wake the hell up. Obama is bad for this nation, he's intent on subtly proving it, but he's smart enough to realize that most non-thinkers won't notice and he can go on as usual. Now since the fine people (I use this loosely) of CO voted for this, I'm inclined to say "let the people have what they want if they pass it as an amendment"- the same can be said of our gun rights. If they go through the proper legal channels to have the state Constitution amended then we should respect that. We don't have to like it, but the people have spoken. I hope this decision backfires for Beeho and causes a lot of distrust within the voter base that was stupid enough to vote for him. Does anyone think that if Romney were elected, and 64 still passed, that he wouldn't enforce federal drug laws and go after us and WA? I can't say for certain, myself, but he's not as untrustworthy as Barry is.
KevDen2005
02-19-2013, 10:57
Not really.. according to the article:
"the bottom line is, according to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, anything made and sold that stays within the state of Washington is beyond their jurisdiction. Also there are states' rights under the 10th Amendment," noted Rep. Shea
It doesn't have to be just within the state to be considered commerce. Any commerce in your state that ultimately affects another state's commerce is no interstate commerce. Furthermore, there is Supreme Court case law that started in California for MMJ. The Supreme Court ruled that they did have a right to regulate because of a supposed black market on drugs and the commerce that is effected (I know, that one was pretty far stretch).
The supreme court usually gives a wide definition of commerce during liberal control and a more narrow definition of commerce when in conservative control (weird). This is traditionally how it's gone.
KevDen2005
02-19-2013, 10:59
And to point out, I voted against 64 not because I don't think it should be legalized. I actually think it should. I think the process in which this state took is ridiculous. Plus without making it legal for the entire US is asking for trouble for this state. The type of people that will be drawn here (think about pot smokers not working...that's good for the state). Along with cartel running operations out of here (which it has already done and will continue to do).
I only care about my guns right now. I never have smoked weed and dont have the energy to care right now.
KevDen2005
02-19-2013, 11:12
I only care about my guns right now. I never have smoked weed and dont have the energy to care right now.
I agree with you, but I think this is an important topic on state's rights and what they should be able to do. Guns...weed....what else?
Well if Colorado wants to ban plastic/metal boxes, they'll get no help from me supporting MMJ. I didn't care about people smoking pot, same sex marriage, etc. I'm completely polarized now. I'll vote against any of the things that the libs want regardless of my thoughts on liberty and a "live and let live" attitude. If I'm a criminal, we can all be criminals. If my rights are infringed so will theirs. Rome is burning, I say throw gas.
The dispensary owners are fools, the feds set them up so that they would operate openly, then at the opportune time, the feds seize the dispensaries, and all the owners assets to increase revenue to the federal government.
This pleases me for one reason: Some Obama-voting weedpeople may get their eyes opened about him.
I think the administration will reconsider once enough "interested parties" contribute to the O machine.
It's the anti gun
Pro gay
Stoner state according to my friends in other states.
So you guys are against gun regulation but all for pot regulation? Less government is less government....
Anyways didn't he say he wouldn't go after these people?
Zundfolge
02-19-2013, 11:55
I only care about my guns right now. I never have smoked weed and dont have the energy to care right now.
I agree with you, but I think this is an important topic on state's rights and what they should be able to do. Guns...weed....what else?
So you guys are against gun regulation but all for pot regulation? Less government is less government....
Along the lines of the essay I posted here (http://www.ar-15.co/threads/88753-A-lot-of-y-all-gonna-dig-this) its not about an unwillingness on my part to join righteous fight for liberty, its more a matter of "I'm busy right now defending my 2A rights, I don't have time or energy to help you pot heads (who also happen to oppose my 2A rights) defend their rights".
From the essay:
First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I'm not black.
Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I'm not gay.
Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I'm an atheist.
When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I'm a legal immigrant.
Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.
Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I'd done nothing wrong. So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die.
~~~
Or you can commit seppuku with a chainsaw. I really don't care anymore. This is the end of my support for any liberal cause, because liberals have become anything but. AMFs.
dwalker460
02-19-2013, 12:27
Whats funny is you guys think the Dems will receive even a shred of blowback from this. Thats funny. The pot seizures will be blamed on Republicans and the "Police State they created". Everyone knows the BIG OLE Baloney is for pot, they cant circulate that pic of him toking up fast enough. Its OBVIOUSLY BUSHES FAULT! CANT YOU CONSERVATIVES UNDERSTAND THAT?P?P?
Yeah, thats how that is going to go.
That is all.
Kraven251
02-19-2013, 12:30
Whats funny is you guys think the Dems will receive even a shred of blowback from this. Thats funny. The pot seizures will be blamed on Republicans and the "Police State they created". Everyone knows the BIG OLE Baloney is for pot, they cant circulate that pic of him toking up fast enough. Its OBVIOUSLY BUSHES FAULT! CANT YOU CONSERVATIVES UNDERSTAND THAT?P?P?
Yeah, thats how that is going to go.
That is all.
If you can control the language of the argument, it is already won.
Well if Colorado wants to ban plastic/metal boxes, they'll get no help from me supporting MMJ. I didn't care about people smoking pot, same sex marriage, etc. I'm completely polarized now. I'll vote against any of the things that the libs want regardless of my thoughts on liberty and a "live and let live" attitude. If I'm a criminal, we can all be criminals. If my rights are infringed so will theirs. Rome is burning, I say throw gas.
Hey, glad this isn't a cruise for one! I'm in the same boat... why help those who don't give a shit about you? I'm done with defending others' rights when they don't come to my aid when I need them most. F*ck anyone who voted for the current crop of dems, don't need 'em, so I say burn their crops of pot to the ground... Serves them right!
BushMasterBoy
02-19-2013, 13:19
I think it is to keep all the pothead snow boarders from crashing into Michelle's party on the ski slopes...
ShelbyJK500
02-19-2013, 13:22
I hope that the state will stand up for MMJ. My wife is a legitimate registered user and truly needs it for her disability. She had to give up her CCW to retain her MMJ red card. 64 is a Colorado constitutional amendment and as such, it should be defended with the same vigor as all other amendments of our constitution.
64 had nothing to do with Medical MMJ issues.
Good. They're braking a federal law. Fuck the hippies. I have better shit to worry about.
Perfect. So when you want more people to help you with the things YOU care about and they tell you to pound sand at least you will all be on equal footing.
This is bigger than 'hippies smoking pot' people. The bigger picture is the state granting more freedoms and the feds stepping in to strip those freedoms. This is wrong and it shouldn't matter if it's pot, guns, magazines, sugary soft drinks... whatever.
No wonder it's easier to take freedoms away than to give them back. At least those trying to take them away can all get on the same page.
Perfect. So when you want more people to help you with the things YOU care about and they tell you to pound sand at least you will all be on equal footing.
This is bigger than 'hippies smoking pot' people. The bigger picture is the state granting more freedoms and the feds stepping in to strip those freedoms. This is wrong and it shouldn't matter if it's pot, guns, magazines, sugary soft drinks... whatever.
No wonder it's easier to take freedoms away than to give them back. At least those trying to take them away can all get on the same page.
Yes but we don't have a dog in this particular fight- and normally we would help out, but there's only so many times the guy you helped change a tire last week can drive by when you have a flat before you say "never again."
Zundfolge
02-19-2013, 14:11
Perfect. So when you want more people to help you with the things YOU care about and they tell you to pound sand at least you will all be on equal footing.
This is bigger than 'hippies smoking pot' people. The bigger picture is the state granting more freedoms and the feds stepping in to strip those freedoms. This is wrong and it shouldn't matter if it's pot, guns, magazines, sugary soft drinks... whatever.
No wonder it's easier to take freedoms away than to give them back. At least those trying to take them away can all get on the same page.
I don't have time, energy or money to fight BOTH for my 2A rights that are under attack now and the rights of pot heads to flout what I agree is bad Federal Law. It doesn't help that most of the supporters of MMJ (and recreational MJ) are also engaged in (or supportive of those engaged in) the fight to strip me of my 2A rights.
One must pick one's battles and I choose to fight to keep my guns ... if that means I can't help you keep your MMJ then too damn bad. Now IF the MMJ crowd were vocally pro-gun then maybe we could pool our efforts, but that just isn't the case.
So get off your fucking high horse or go over to the MMJ and RMJ forums and give them a rasp of shit about not helping us keep our gun rights.
I don't have time, energy or money to fight BOTH for my 2A rights that are under attack now and the rights of pot heads to flout what I agree is bad Federal Law. It doesn't help that most of the supporters of MMJ (and recreational MJ) are also engaged in (or supportive of those engaged in) the fight to strip me of my 2A rights.
One must pick one's battles and I choose to fight to keep my guns ... if that means I can't help you keep your MMJ then too damn bad. Now IF the MMJ crowd were vocally pro-gun then maybe we could pool our efforts, but that just isn't the case.
So get off your fucking high horse or go over to the MMJ and RMJ forums and give them a rasp of shit about not helping us keep our gun rights.
I voted yes on 64 but also voted for a presidential candidate that was pro-2A. As I have indicated in emails to CO politicians, 2A issues are my line in the sand and for the next round of elections I will align all votes with pro-2A candidates accordingly. Other issues will take a back seat.
jackthewall81
02-19-2013, 14:22
So you guys are against gun regulation but all for pot regulation? Less government is less government....
Anyways didn't he say he wouldn't go after these people?
That is my problem. Lots of people think they are pro freedom, but then support governmental restrictions? Can't be both.
Yup, seems pretty hypocritical to me. I also like the sweeping generalizations that anyone who supports legalizing mj in CO is a hippie liberal faggot pot head.
My political beliefs are grounded primarily in the respect for personal freedom of individual citizens. Both the Left and the Right seek to strip away different freedoms, and as we alternate between Leftist and Right wing administrations, ALL our rights and liberties will be systematically diminished or eliminated until we get to the Orwellian end point where "Everything that is not prohibited is mandated."
Aloha_Shooter
02-19-2013, 14:56
Yup, seems pretty hypocritical to me. I also like the sweeping generalizations that anyone who supports legalizing mj in CO is a Commie hippie liberal faggot NAMBLA-loving pot head.
You forgot a couple. [ROFL2]
I have nothing against weed. I think if we allow alcohol, weed should be treated just the same. Not everyone enjoys alcohol and some prefer to smoke a joint on a Friday night. Nothing wrong with either choice, IMO.
I just hope this gets more libs on our side. Between Rep Salazar saying women can't handle a firearm safely and this, it could give us a little more support.
Yup, seems pretty hypocritical to me. I also like the sweeping generalizations that anyone who supports legalizing mj in CO is a hippie liberal faggot pot head.
So the freedom to get f*cked up is on the same level of liberty as the RTKBA?
ipleadda2nd
02-19-2013, 16:22
I know 5 pot heads and they are all conservative. Maybe that's why I don't mind knowing them. Making generalizations about pot heads is like libs making generalizations about gun owners. After meeting so many gun owners, I know they don't all fit the stereotypes. There's just too much variation. But, people love to think they are better than others. Libs tend to hate on gun owners and small government lovers. Cons tend to hate on atheists, pot heads and homosexuals. It's the same concept, just different details.
Teufelhund
02-19-2013, 16:22
Lest we forget another Amendment in the Bill of Rights:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Less government is the best government.
Be safe.
This.
Well, don't act surprised when people don't stand up for stuff you believe in I guess.
I'm in agreement with TAR31, just to be clear. When the gun community, all those guys that beat their chests about how guns and the 2nd exist to defend liberties, hangs other groups out to dry like a bunch of cowards; don't expect ANY support if you ever work up the courage to put your money where your mouth is.
And this.
And yes, Ronin. One's right to get fucked up is just as important as any other liberty. All of them end where another's rights begin, and up to that point are none of the government's goddamn business. You either believe in individual liberty or you don't. No middle ground.
While I agree with KevDen that pot has no place in a State Constitution, I also subscribe partially to Cthulhu's philosophy of throwing gas on the fire. I voted "yes" on 64 primarily hoping it would force this stand-off; it is necessary and I'd rather have it now while I'm young and can still see well enough to aim than make my kids fight it for me. For those who say they are too busy fighting for the RTKBA to participate in helping the pot-smoking crowd, I say it is the same fight. If anyone is planning to use their EBR to defend the dispensaries when the Red-Coats come to kick in the door, give me a call.
And yes, Ronin. One's right to get fucked up is just as important as any other liberty. All of them end where another's rights begin, and up to that point are none of the government's goddamn business. You either believe in individual liberty or you don't. No middle ground.
While I agree with KevDen that pot has no place in a State Constitution, I also subscribe partially to Cthulhu's philosophy of throwing gas on the fire. I voted "yes" on 64 primarily hoping it would force this stand-off; it is necessary and I'd rather have it now while I'm young and can still see well enough to aim than make my kids fight it for me. For those who say they are too busy fighting for the RTKBA to participate in helping the pot-smoking crowd, I say it is the same fight. If anyone is planning to use their EBR to defend the dispensaries when the Red-Coats come to kick in the door, give me a call.
You're right, I shouldn't have worded it so offensively, I was just wondering where people stand- does pot (or alcohol for that matter) land in the same place on the spectrum of liberty as the right to keep and bear arms? For me, liberty is liberty, but the right to keep and bear arms is more important because it defends the right to pray, have these insightful discussions on here, and for those that choose, take a drink or bong rip.
KestrelBike
02-19-2013, 16:28
Good. If they can piss off enough hippies and stoners maybe that will turn them against the dems or at least prevent them from stepping into the voting booth. The most important thing over the next few years is to get as many Dems out of office as possible and rip all these gun laws down and take back some turf on that front.
^^^^^^^^ +1
Now they all can just roll in the mess they created. The cuffs are off, the big O doesn't have to win anymore liberal opinion. Yes that's right liberals you f****** up. He gave you some sort of hope and now here comes the change.
Sent from my Otterbox Defended Tactical iPhone using High Capacity "Clips".
KestrelBike
02-19-2013, 16:32
Perfect. So when you want more people to help you with the things YOU care about and they tell you to pound sand at least you will all be on equal footing.
This is bigger than 'hippies smoking pot' people. The bigger picture is the state granting more freedoms and the feds stepping in to strip those freedoms. This is wrong and it shouldn't matter if it's pot, guns, magazines, sugary soft drinks... whatever.
No wonder it's easier to take freedoms away than to give them back. At least those trying to take them away can all get on the same page.
Reposting this http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/the-post-in-which-i-piss-off-everybody
PugnacAutMortem
02-19-2013, 17:02
I don't have time, energy or money to fight BOTH for my 2A rights that are under attack now and the rights of pot heads to flout what I agree is bad Federal Law. It doesn't help that most of the supporters of MMJ (and recreational MJ) are also engaged in (or supportive of those engaged in) the fight to strip me of my 2A rights.
One must pick one's battles and I choose to fight to keep my guns ... if that means I can't help you keep your MMJ then too damn bad. Now IF the MMJ crowd were vocally pro-gun then maybe we could pool our efforts, but that just isn't the case.
So get off your fucking high horse or go over to the MMJ and RMJ forums and give them a rasp of shit about not helping us keep our gun rights.
Again, this is an EXTREMELY self-centered opinion. What makes your liberties more important than anyone else's? Who said that we as 2A supporters would only help other causes that involve the government taking away our freedoms IF AND ONLY IF they are also pro 2A? It's not a matter of whether marijuana is good or bad, it's a matter of standing up to the government trying to take away a freedom that a majority of voters in the state agreed we should all have. And now the government wants to come in and take that freedom away, and you're too busy to worry about it? I still fail to see how this is ANY different than the 2A issues we are working through here in CO.
And before you jump down my throat about being a "hippie" or a "stoner" or anything else...I hate the stuff. Absolutely hate it. But you know what? I voted yes on 64 because it's not my place to tell anyone what they can or cannot enjoy. What if the 2A crowd showed a bit of solidarity and stood with the 64 crowd against the government? You think that might change some of the minds of the people you're too busy to try and help out? Isn't that the goal of everyone here? To change the minds of the ignorant or unlearned?
You sound like such a hippie faggot pinko commie bitch.
edit: and pothead and stuff
Whats funny is you guys think the Dems will receive even a shred of blowback from this. Thats funny. The pot seizures will be blamed on Republicans and the "Police State they created". Everyone knows the BIG OLE Baloney is for pot, they cant circulate that pic of him toking up fast enough. Its OBVIOUSLY BUSHES FAULT! CANT YOU CONSERVATIVES UNDERSTAND THAT?P?P?
Yeah, thats how that is going to go.
That is all.
hit the nail on the head
UncleDave
02-19-2013, 17:37
Change the rhetoric fellas. Put everything under the same battle flag, liberty. All of these attacks are on personal freedom, they are all related. If you make this about a dozen splinter issues, they all loose.
Kraven251
02-19-2013, 17:41
And before you jump down my throat about being a "hippie" or a "stoner" or anything else...I hate the stuff. Absolutely hate it. But you know what? I voted yes on 64 because it's not my place to tell anyone what they can or cannot enjoy. What if the 2A crowd showed a bit of solidarity and stood with the 64 crowd against the government? You think that might change some of the minds of the people you're too busy to try and help out? Isn't that the goal of everyone here? To change the minds of the ignorant or unlearned?
Or they'll arrest us all, and with the mix of drugs and firearms they'd call it a conspiracy and we'd become the example that they scare the rest of the country with...
They're looking for a fight, so they can make an example of someone and do it very publicly.
Or they'll arrest us all, and with the mix of drugs and firearms they'd call it a conspiracy and we'd become the example that they scare the rest of the country with...
They're looking for a fight, so they can make an example of someone and do it very publicly.
The feds have a pattern of creating "conspiracies" and "criminal networks" where none existed prior to them coming into a community and actively seeking out easily duped people to recruit and manipulate. They have been doing that since COINTELPRO in the 1960s. It is a lot safer and easier than infiltrating established criminal gangs or terrorist cells, and looks almost as good when presented to the media.
Change the rhetoric fellas. Put everything under the same battle flag, liberty. All of these attacks are on personal freedom, they are all related. If you make this about a dozen splinter issues, they all loose.
Bingo.
This is all I'm trying to say. I'm not asking anyone to fight for others rights to smoke weed whatever else they CHOOSE to do with their individual liberties but is it too much to ask for a little civility and a little less personal attacks? This is one thing I hate, hate HATE about the shooting community is how closed minded, unaccepting and idiotic we come off as a group. Can't we just show a little compassion for those going through something relatively similar to us in the spirit of liberty? For crying out loud people.
Change the rhetoric fellas. Put everything under the same battle flag, liberty. All of these attacks are on personal freedom, they are all related. If you make this about a dozen splinter issues, they all loose.
Totally agree with the sentiment but here's where I'm coming from now...It must get worse before it gets better. I'm done slowing the process down. Everyone must eat their share of the shit sandwich before we collectively decide that enough is enough. Car accidents kill more people than firearms. Ban cars that can reach speeds over 100 Mph. Swimming pools are death traps. Ban them. Maybe I'm just tired and pissed off. I know I'm tired of being pissed off.
Hey, glad this isn't a cruise for one! I'm in the same boat... why help those who don't give a shit about you? I'm done with defending others' rights when they don't come to my aid when I need them most. F*ck anyone who voted for the current crop of dems, don't need 'em, so I say burn their crops of pot to the ground... Serves them right!
Imagine everyone in your life took a shit on you at every turn, like you're taking a shit on others right now.
Anyone who thinks that they are some moral, compassionate, person with steadfast values, and were just born that way, are the greatest of fools. When you look up to people as you develop into an adult, you have to realize that not everyone you came across gave a shit about you at all, and that they were doing the right thing, just to do the right thing. If you want to FOREVER burn the bridge between potential allies, instead of leading them into the light and increasing your own numbers, that's fine. Just understand the irrevocable damage you are doing to your own cause.
Also, I think what Dwalker says is correct. This will somehow be blamed on "conservatives" and the people will only be half wrong.
10mm-man
02-19-2013, 20:43
I support 64 for the simple fact that they should enjoy the freedom they want to have and the GOV has no business telling them they can't have it. Go smoke some pot, veg out, get muchies, WHATEVER as long as it doesn't hurt anyone have at it.. The feds have no business deciding the peoples decisions. the power should rest in the states hands expect when it comes to my GUNS!
d_striker
02-19-2013, 21:18
So you guys are against gun regulation but all for pot regulation? Less government is less government....
Anyways didn't he say he wouldn't go after these people?
I don't have a midget in this fight (64), but to be completely objective, you're comparing the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution to an activity that is illegal federally and perhaps protected by a state's constitution at best. That's hardly and apples to apples comparison.
My theory on this is that Obunghole and his cronies are trying to set a precedent that Federal law supercedes State law. Hmmmm, I wonder why they would want to do that....
I don't have a midget in this fight, but to be completely objective, you're comparing the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution to an activity that is illegal federally and perhaps protected by a state's constitution at best. That's hardly and apples to apples comparison.
This is the mindset of someone who accepts needless rule. Please reconsider your stance.
d_striker
02-19-2013, 21:32
This is the mindset of someone who accepts needless rule. Please reconsider your stance.
I am referring to 64...If this is still what your comment is regarding, where do you draw the line to your logic?
Teufelhund
02-19-2013, 21:38
I don't have a midget in this fight, but to be completely objective, you're comparing the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution to an activity that is illegal federally and perhaps protected by a state's constitution at best. That's hardly and apples to apples comparison.
My theory on this is that Obunghole and his cronies are trying to set a precedent that Federal law supercedes State law. Hmmmm, I wonder why they would want to do that....
Federal law does not supersede State law in such instance where the federal gov't does not possess the authority to instate such a law (i.e. the Tenth Amendment). There is a very specific list of 18 things Congress is allowed to do; prohibiting plants and limiting the number of rounds one can load into a firearm before reloading are not among them.
Defending the federal government's position they have the authority to regulate what an individual can grow/inhale/ingest is tantamount to defending their position they may regulate your ability to defend yourself.
d_striker
02-19-2013, 21:43
Federal law does not supersede State law in such instance where the federal gov't does not possess the authority to instate such a law (i.e. the Tenth Amendment). There is a very specific list of 18 things Congress is allowed to do; prohibiting plants and limiting the number of rounds one can load into a firearm before reloading are not among them.
Defending the federal government's position they have the authority to regulate what an individual can grow/inhale/ingest is tantamount to defending their position they may regulate your ability to defend yourself.
I honestly don't know where you interpreted that I am defending the gov.
Perhaps it was the last sentence of my post which was purely sarcasm....To further elaborate, the current administration would potentially benefit from establishing such a precedent in order to justify going into states that have passed anti-AWB laws.
I am referring to 64...If this is still what your comment is regarding, where do you draw the line to your logic?
HBAR pretty much nailed it. Injustice is injustice, no matter the scale.
Whether you're pro-64 or not, this is just another classic example of Mother Govt stating that they're the final authority on everything, and states' rule be damned. O-hole is a traitor to the constitution, the bill of rights, the founding fathers' intent for this country... why wouldn't he stab his own constituents in the back too? He's as loyal as a rabid dog with a god-complex. How much longer before he starts minting coins with his image, and requiring us to pray to him? I don't smoke weed, sniff coke, or shoot heroin for that matter. But I damn well think people should have a right to. Both from a self-determination standpoint, and the Darwinian benefits to the gene-pool.
I think you should be able to buy smack with foodstamps. If you chose to do so, you'd voluntarily help the healthcare financial crisis on a long enough timeline, and free up the welfare for someone who fucking deserved it.
I honestly don't know where you interpreted that I am defending the gov.
Perhaps it was the last sentence of my post which was purely sarcasm....To further elaborate, the current administration would potentially benefit from establishing such a precedent in order to justify going into states that have passed anti-AWB laws.
It's not that you are defending the government, it is that you come across as suggesting that some wrongs by the government are not as important as other wrongs of the government.
Teufelhund
02-19-2013, 21:50
I honestly don't know where you interpreted that I am defending the gov.
Your implication the RTKBA is defensible under the Constitution, yet one's ability to use pot is not:
. . .you're comparing the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution to an activity that is illegal federally. . .
Unconstitutional law is not law.
d_striker
02-19-2013, 21:50
the problem, as I see it is... the federal government never had the power given by the Constitution to outlaw it in the first place. So, they have no legal right to enforce it. most federal laws need to be repealed. power to the state and local government. liberty for the people.
Serious question: Do you feel the same way about Heroin, Cocaine, and Meth?
d_striker
02-19-2013, 21:51
Your implication the RTKBA is defensible under the Constitution, yet one's ability to use pot is not:
Unconstitutional law is not law.
I ask you the same question, do you feel the same way about heroin, cocaine, and meth?
I ask you the same question, do you feel the same way about heroin, cocaine, and meth?
Not trying to interject into an argument, but I do. See above post.
Teufelhund
02-19-2013, 21:54
I ask you the same question, do you feel the same way about heroin, cocaine, and meth?
Yes. Add suicide by any means to that list. My grandfather used to say, "My right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins." Anything less is no one else's, least of all the federal government's business.
d_striker
02-19-2013, 21:55
Not trying to interject into an argument, but I do. See above post.
And that's where Libertarians completely lose me....
Teufelhund
02-19-2013, 21:56
And that's where Libertarians completely lose me....
So you support legislation for one's own good, as long as it fits your definition of "wrong?"
And that's where Libertarians completely lose me....
It's quite simple. Look at the root word.
I ask you the same question, do you feel the same way about heroin, cocaine, and meth?
Yes. People do those drugs anyway. Do you know a single person who has passed on Heroin, Cocaine, or Meth just because it was illegal?
Social pressure is far more powerful than legislation. I don't mean social pressure as in peer pressure to get people to try drugs, I mean social pressure as in the environment we all grow up in that vilifies (correctly) the abuse of drugs, drunk driving, etc. If Heroin were legal tomorrow, your stance of "well, it's Federally illegal" would be immediately blown out of the water, but I sure wouldn't be able to convince you to shoot up.
d_striker
02-19-2013, 22:01
So you support legislation for one's own good, as long as it fits your definition of "wrong?"
I'm really trying to understand your question contextually. Redefine "one's own good."
d_striker
02-19-2013, 22:02
It's quite simple. Look at the root word.
I think you got lost a few posts ago...
d_striker
02-19-2013, 22:07
Yes. People do those drugs anyway. Do you know a single person who has passed on Heroin, Cocaine, or Meth just because it was illegal?
Social pressure is far more powerful than legislation. I don't mean social pressure as in peer pressure to get people to try drugs, I mean social pressure as in the environment we all grow up in that vilifies (correctly) the abuse of drugs, drunk driving, etc. If Heroin were legal tomorrow, your stance of "well, it's Federally illegal" would be immediately blown out of the water, but I sure wouldn't be able to convince you to shoot up.
Yes, I do....
If heroin were legal tomorrow, I would not do it based on the individual that I am today.
If heroin/cocaine/meth were legal 15 years ago when I partied hard and thought I was invincible, I honestly think that I would do it....After all, it's legal which means that at some level, society approves of it.
Additionally, you're making the HUGE assumption that these drugs would be vilified in our current culture...
UncleDave
02-19-2013, 22:10
One cannot legislate morality. All prohibitions are ineffective at best and destructive at worst. Look at liqueur, prostitution, gambling, and drugs to name a few. None of those laws have been effective at curbing these vices, they still exist. None of those laws wre in place until 100 years ago plus or minus. Is society better or worse now? The reasons to not practice these vices must come from the individual's moral compass, not government mandate. Incidentally, I am against all of the vices based on my values. I am more than willing to reason with people as to why these are damaging to them and should be avoided, but it is not my place to FORCE THEM to conform to my beliefs by gunpoint or legislation. Most certainly the Federal Gov. has no authority, legally to legislate morality.
10mm-man
02-19-2013, 22:11
the problem, as I see it is... the federal government never had the power given by the Constitution to outlaw it in the first place. So, they have no legal right to enforce it. most federal laws need to be repealed. power to the state and local government. liberty for the people.
it should rest with the states unless the power was specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. An example is the Bill of Rights. 1a, 2a, etc.
Right, 2A- hence why I said, rest with the state, except my guns! That rest in the 2A.
I am not a pot smoker, but pot should not be illegal in the first place and I stand by that belief as well.
No matter where you side on pot use, this is yet another example of the Federal Government overstepping its boundaries and power that was given to it by the States in the first place, interfering with State government, plus the will of the people.
I have read in two places; one was Montana who had been working on a pro 2a law concerning Federal overstepping of it boundaries and trying to use the 10th Amendment to back them and I just read an opinion piece concerning Washington states mention of their recent pro legalization of pot also using the 10th amendment for a backing. While we and the pot heads might be two totally different groups of people, there is a common cause that both groups are fighting.
The Constitution and the bill of rights are the only thing everyone at the time agreed upon.
d_striker
02-19-2013, 22:23
One cannot legislate morality. All prohibitions are ineffective at best and destructive at worst. Look at liqueur, prostitution, gambling, and drugs to name a few. None of those laws have been effective at curbing these vices, they still exist. None of those laws wre in place until 100 years ago plus or minus. Is society better or worse now? The reasons to not practice these vices must come from the individual's moral compass, not government mandate. Incidentally, I am against all of the vices based on my values. I am more than willing to reason with people as to why these are damaging to them and should be avoided, but it is not my place to FORCE THEM to conform to my beliefs by gunpoint or legislation. Most certainly the Federal Gov. has no authority, legally to legislate morality.
Can one legislate the behavior in consideration of the least common denominator? You are counting on individuals to make the right decision irrespective of negative consequences. I guess I live in a different world or maybe I just have too little faith in humanity.
If driving drunk were legal I am absolutely positive more people would do it. An individual's "liberty," as it pertains to driving drunk, is not more important than the collective detriment drunk drivers impose to society.
UncleDave
02-19-2013, 22:35
Individual liberty ends as soon as it infringes on someone else. I am not counting on everyone to make the right choices, but they do have the right to make them! They also have to live with the consequences of those choices. For things like injuring of killing someone else by your stupidity, those consequences should be severe and swift. Just because not all will use their free will wisely, does not excuse the legislating away the free moral agency of the people. You cannot try to save stupid people from themselves, you will only get more stupid people. When there is no safety net people are more careful, or they are out of the gene pool. A win, win.
d_striker
02-19-2013, 22:37
Individual liberty ends as soon as it infringes on someone else. I am not counting on everyone to make the right choices, but they do have the right to make them! They also have to live with the consequences of those choices. For things like injuring of killing someone else by your stupidity, those consequences should be severe and swift. Just because not all will use their free will wisely, does not excuse the legislating away the free moral agency of the people. You cannot try to save stupid people from themselves, you will only get more stupid people. When there is no safety net people are more careful, or they are out of the gene pool. A win, win.
Well stated... Though, it seems like there would be a lot of "chaos" leading up to equilibrium.
UncleDave
02-19-2013, 22:41
That is as unavoidable as a child falling for a while when the training wheels are removed from his bike. However it is necessary for progress to be made.
Geology Rocks
02-19-2013, 23:33
My wife asked me this....
State make legal something that is illegal federally...federal govt steps in. Marijuana.....for example
State makes something illegal that constitution says is Fine.....federal govt doesnt step in. Guns being carried in places like NY.
This is not a question of what is legal under state law vs illegal under federal law IMO. This is a question about the limit of federal authority vs the authority of individual states and citizens.
If the people of NY want to outlaw transfat, then please, by all means do so. I will move to a non-nanny state that does not believe it has the right to legislate what I do with my diet.
If the people of CO want to legalize the inhalation of burned weeds, by all means do so. I still maintain my rights as an individual to make the decision for myself.
The US Constitution does not specifically grant the power over dietary fat or drug use to the federal government, therefore that authority is, by reason of the 10th Amendment, reserved to the states and the people.
The best government is less government.
Be safe.
Well stated... Though, it seems like there would be a lot of "chaos" leading up to equilibrium.
Deal.
Teufelhund
02-20-2013, 00:46
My wife asked me this....
State make legal something that is illegal federally...federal govt steps in. Marijuana.....for example
State makes something illegal that constitution says is Fine.....federal govt doesnt step in. Guns being carried in places like NY.
Although that is how it actually happens now, it is bass-ackward from the actual intention of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The government's only purpose is to protect the rights of the people. The States are free to pass legislation as they damned well please, unless it contradicts the U.S. Constitution; that is the only time the Federal Government is legally supposed to intervene.
Although that is how it actually happens now, it is bass-ackward from the actual intention of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The government's only purpose is to protect the rights of the people. The States are free to pass legislation as they damned well please, unless it contradicts the U.S. Constitution; that is the only time the Federal Government is legally supposed to intervene.
Ironic how the federal government should be stepping into to squash states that create laws infringing on people's 2nd amendment rights but instead their busy TAKING AWAY rights that are granted by the states such as Colorado legalizing MJ. Seems the feds have LONG since forgotten their place.
Wow, talk about fragmented opposition. Some of us are chewing on each others asses and forgetting the common problem.
Yes. Add suicide by any means to that list. My grandfather used to say, "My right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins." Anything less is no one else's, least of all the federal government's business.
Pretty much sums up my view of freedom, your grandfather was a smart man. I'm fine with you drinking that beer, or smoking that joint, or even shooting up that heroin. But the moment you get behind the wheel drunk or stone or otherwise impaired is where I have the problem. I posted on FB last night that I'll stand with 64 supporters and asked only that they stand with me on my 2A rights. If we can both agree that rights being trampled is something we all suffer from then I think we can move forward with stopping tyranny.
Pretty much sums up my view of freedom, your grandfather was a smart man. I'm fine with you drinking that beer, or smoking that joint, or even shooting up that heroin. But the moment you get behind the wheel drunk or stone or otherwise impaired is where I have the problem. I posted on FB last night that I'll stand with 64 supporters and asked only that they stand with me on my 2A rights. If we can both agree that rights being trampled is something we all suffer from then I think we can move forward with stopping tyranny.
Thankfully we have laws against driving while impaired, driving recklessly or a number of different things they don't prosecute. They're too busy creating new laws to actually enforce the ones already on the book. Do we really need a no text message law or can we just prosecute those who drive recklessly and cause accidents? Some people are just better drivers than others and charging people who haven't done anything in the name of prevention is BS. Hell, in that respect, we're all murders with firearms waiting for the right moment. If you start to think the way these politicians and liberals think it's pretty easy to start drawing the conclusion that these laws are necessary.
If someone can smoke a J and get behind the wheel and STILL drive better than 50% of the population then who gives a shit? Not me. I see people all the time (especially when I rode motorcycles) doing dangerous things or not paying attention w/o having a phone in their hands. At some point we just need to realize that life is dangerous and take it upon ourselves to watch out for everyone else in every facet of our lives. Stop looking to the government to protect us.
Thankfully we have laws against driving while impaired, driving recklessly or a number of different things they don't prosecute. They're too busy creating new laws to actually enforce the ones already on the book. Do we really need a no text message law or can we just prosecute those who drive recklessly and cause accidents? Some people are just better drivers than others and charging people who haven't done anything in the name of prevention is BS. Hell, in that respect, we're all murders with firearms waiting for the right moment. If you start to think the way these politicians and liberals think it's pretty easy to start drawing the conclusion that these laws are necessary.
If someone can smoke a J and get behind the wheel and STILL drive better than 50% of the population then who gives a shit? Not me. I see people all the time (especially when I rode motorcycles) doing dangerous things or not paying attention w/o having a phone in their hands. At some point we just need to realize that life is dangerous and take it upon ourselves to watch out for everyone else in every facet of our lives. Stop looking to the government to protect us.
When a person [RHONDA FIELDS] who thinks they know how to take care of you better than yourself becomes a legislator for a living, how are they going to spend their time if not by creating laws on top of laws to save you from yourself? ;)
Thankfully we have laws against driving while impaired, driving recklessly or a number of different things they don't prosecute. They're too busy creating new laws to actually enforce the ones already on the book. Do we really need a no text message law or can we just prosecute those who drive recklessly and cause accidents? Some people are just better drivers than others and charging people who haven't done anything in the name of prevention is BS. Hell, in that respect, we're all murders with firearms waiting for the right moment. If you start to think the way these politicians and liberals think it's pretty easy to start drawing the conclusion that these laws are necessary.
If someone can smoke a J and get behind the wheel and STILL drive better than 50% of the population then who gives a shit? Not me. I see people all the time (especially when I rode motorcycles) doing dangerous things or not paying attention w/o having a phone in their hands. At some point we just need to realize that life is dangerous and take it upon ourselves to watch out for everyone else in every facet of our lives. Stop looking to the government to protect us.
That's kind of what I'm arguing- but if someone gets behind the wheel after smoking pot they should go to jail for DUI. The problem is not laws, we already have plenty, the problem is giving those who enforce said laws the tools to do so properly. How do we know one- Joe Blow Pothead- is driving stoned? I honestly don't know how they detect if one is under the influence of anything other than alcohol. I'd be much more inclined to use all the legal power at my disposal to go after someone who hit me because they were driving stoned. I don't care if after two [bong rips/bottles] you're the best driver in the world- you are under the influence of a mind altering substance and a danger on the road... just like the idiot texting while driving.
That's kind of what I'm arguing- but if someone gets behind the wheel after smoking pot they should go to jail for DUI. The problem is not laws, we already have plenty, the problem is giving those who enforce said laws the tools to do so properly. How do we know one- Joe Blow Pothead- is driving stoned? I honestly don't know how they detect if one is under the influence of anything other than alcohol. I'd be much more inclined to use all the legal power at my disposal to go after someone who hit me because they were driving stoned. I don't care if after two [bong rips/bottles] you're the best driver in the world- you are under the influence of a mind altering substance and a danger on the road... just like the idiot texting while driving.
Yeah, we're not saying the same thing because you want to get someone for smoking pot and driving even if they ARE the best driver in the world. Why should it matter? If someone smokes weed and drives every single day, lives to be 80 years old and NEVER has or causes an accident what business is it of yours that they smoke pot and drive? I just don't see how these laws do ANYTHING to make ANYONE safer. It's revenue and control. I remember when the created the new lower limits for DUI and how it was going to make our roads SO much safer. I don't see the safety. Most of the increases in highway safety can be attributed to advancements in cars being built safer. I don't think we need all these laws to prosecute someone and turn them into a criminal before they've even done anything wrong. That is why we already have laws about driving recklessly and such. Now, this requires them to actually drive recklessly and someone else to possibly get hurt but this is why you drive defensively and treat EVERY driver as if they're not paying attention because most aren't. This is just part of the small price we all pay to live in a free society. Laws that add inherent safety by stripping liberties do nothing other than take away freedom. As long as I never cause an accident I should be able to bake a souffle in my car.
Yeah, we're not saying the same thing because you want to get someone for smoking pot and driving even if they ARE the best driver in the world. Why should it matter? If someone smokes weed and drives every single day, lives to be 80 years old and NEVER has or causes an accident what business is it of yours that they smoke pot and drive? I just don't see how these laws do ANYTHING to make ANYONE safer. It's revenue and control. I remember when the created the new lower limits for DUI and how it was going to make our roads SO much safer. I don't see the safety. Most of the increases in highway safety can be attributed to advancements in cars being built safer. I don't think we need all these laws to prosecute someone and turn them into a criminal before they've even done anything wrong. That is why we already have laws about driving recklessly and such. Now, this requires them to actually drive recklessly and someone else to possibly get hurt but this is why you drive defensively and treat EVERY driver as if they're not paying attention because most aren't. This is just part of the small price we all pay to live in a free society. Laws that add inherent safety by stripping liberties do nothing other than take away freedom. As long as I never cause an accident I should be able to bake a souffle in my car.
Driving stoned is already against the law, same with driving drunk. If one drives drunk and doesn't speed, doesn't weave, doesn't get into an accident, and basically doesn't get pulled over then I guess it's okay right? Same with driving high. If they don't get caught, hey, that's on them. But if they do, the current laws we have are adequate punishment IMO. Just because one person is good at driving stoned doesn't mean everyone is. The line between freedom and loss thereof is thin, they call it "when you act upon someone else's." So just because Person A is a good driver even when stoned, that doesn't mean Person B is. And Person B now has a reduced reaction time, inhibited judgement, and their concentration is limited. Now Person B is behind the wheel of a 3,000lb machine capable of killing. NOW it's my Goddamn business.
Teufelhund
02-20-2013, 15:45
Carrying a gun in DC is already against the law, same with driving drunk. If one carries a gun and doesn't kill someone, doesn't maim someone, doesn't cause a negligent discharge, and basically doesn't get stopped and arrested then I guess it's okay right? Same with fishing without a license. If they don't get caught, hey, that's on them. But if they do, the current laws we have are adequate punishment IMO. Just because one person is good at carrying a gun doesn't mean everyone is. The line between freedom and loss thereof is thin, they call it "when you act upon someone else's." So just because Person A is a law-abiding citizen even when armed, that doesn't mean Person B is. And Person B now has a dangerous weapon, decent aim, and they could hurt someone. Now Person B is behind the trigger of a 30 round magazine capable of killing. NOW it's my Goddamn business.
FIFY so you can see the hypocrisy Jer is trying to point out.
Driving stoned is already against the law, same with driving drunk. If one drives drunk and doesn't speed, doesn't weave, doesn't get into an accident, and basically doesn't get pulled over then I guess it's okay right? Same with driving high. If they don't get caught, hey, that's on them. But if they do, the current laws we have are adequate punishment IMO. Just because one person is good at driving stoned doesn't mean everyone is. The line between freedom and loss thereof is thin, they call it "when you act upon someone else's." So just because Person A is a good driver even when stoned, that doesn't mean Person B is. And Person B now has a reduced reaction time, inhibited judgement, and their concentration is limited. Now Person B is behind the wheel of a 3,000lb machine capable of killing. NOW it's my Goddamn business.
To your point, are there people right now operating motor vehicles that are more dangerous that are NOT stoned? Who are we to determine who is more or less dangerous when no actual collision has happened or visual impairment exists? This is a difficult concept for some since for most of us have lived our entire lives in a society where people are often criminals before they've done anything actually wrong. Sad that the state of our nation is such that people can't even imagine a life w/o such petty little nanny laws created to 'prevent' actual crimes. They want all these laws passed to keep people from doing things THEY deem dangerous because they themselves can't handle it.
If you really want to see how bad drivers are, ride a motorcycle. You'll hate 90% of drivers on the road.
lowbeyond
02-20-2013, 16:21
Driving stoned is already against the law, same with driving drunk. If one drives drunk and doesn't speed, doesn't weave, doesn't get into an accident, and basically doesn't get pulled over then I guess it's okay right? Same with driving high. If they don't get caught, hey, that's on them. But if they do, the current laws we have are adequate punishment IMO. Just because one person is good at driving stoned doesn't mean everyone is. The line between freedom and loss thereof is thin, they call it "when you act upon someone else's." So just because Person A is a good driver even when stoned, that doesn't mean Person B is. And Person B now has a reduced reaction time, inhibited judgement, and their concentration is limited. Now Person B is behind the wheel of a 3,000lb machine capable of killing. NOW it's my Goddamn business.
Is it your goddamn business that the driver is tired too ? How about just old with delayed reaction time?
What about people who drive with only one hand on the wheel? or people who drive with their wrists? Or people that drive in non-optimal seating positions ? or people that eat or drink int he car? Or people who reach into the back seat to give their kid a snack or jingle a toy?
All those, but especially the last, meet your crieteria of "reduced reaction time, inhibited judgement, and their concentration is limited". So jail parents and granny ? Check points to check for snacks and toys to make sure they are secured in the truck? How about roadside awareness/dexterity tests too ?
Guess what. Driving is risky. You can control what you do, but you do not have control over those around you. No law or regulation or anything can change that.
You are not really talking about a real crime, aka a Malum in se crime; you are talking about pre-crime or at best a Malum prohibitum so called "crime"
Is it your goddamn business that the driver is tired too ? How about just old with delayed reaction time?
What about people who drive with only one hand on the wheel? or people who drive with their wrists? Or people that drive in non-optimal seating positions ? or people that eat or drink int he car? Or people who reach into the back seat to give their kid a snack or jingle a toy?
All those, but especially the last, meet your crieteria of "reduced reaction time, inhibited judgement, and their concentration is limited". So jail parents and granny ? Check points to check for snacks and toys to make sure they are secured in the truck? How about roadside awareness/dexterity tests too ?
Guess what. Driving is risky. You can control what you do, but you do not have control over those around you. No law or regulation or anything can change that.
You are not really talking about a real crime, aka a Malum in se crime; you are talking about pre-crime or at best a Malum prohibitum so called "crime"
This guy gets it.
FIFY so you can see the hypocrisy Jer is trying to point out.
Not entirely... driving isn't a right like gun ownership, it's a privilege. We pay to use the roads the government maintains, so they can set the rules. Just like if I owned a stadium I could dictate where you can/can't go, and what you can/can't bring in. I understand his point, and I'm simply saying that just because one person can function well under the influence of drugs (that are scientifically proven to affect people negatively) doesn't mean all can, and if we make exception for one, then we should make exception for all- and well I don't think it's a good idea to have people all fucked up driving around killing people. Is Jer saying that drunk driving should be okay?
Is it your goddamn business that the driver is tired too ? How about just old with delayed reaction time?
What about people who drive with only one hand on the wheel? or people who drive with their wrists? Or people that drive in non-optimal seating positions ? or people that eat or drink int he car? Or people who reach into the back seat to give their kid a snack or jingle a toy?
All those, but especially the last, meet your crieteria of "reduced reaction time, inhibited judgement, and their concentration is limited". So jail parents and granny ? Check points to check for snacks and toys to make sure they are secured in the truck? How about roadside awareness/dexterity tests too ?
Guess what. Driving is risky. You can control what you do, but you do not have control over those around you. No law or regulation or anything can change that.
You are not really talking about a real crime, aka a Malum in se crime; you are talking about pre-crime or at best a Malum prohibitum so called "crime"
lowbeyond, I get what you're saying here, and you are a great student of the Liberal form of making an argument (I'm not calling you a liberal, I'm attacking your argument)- let's build a straw man and attack him. You're going to one extreme. I'm simply equating driving stoned to driving drunk- I don't know why so many are jumping on my comments on the issue- are you all saying that we should just let people get all kinds of fucked up and drive around? Fine by me, just as long as when they hit me I can beat the everloving piss out of them for being an idiot. Hey, they took the risk of hurting someone else, so when they do they should get hurt for their transgressions. Isn't that how it works?
Teufelhund
02-20-2013, 16:47
Not entirely... driving isn't a right like gun ownership, it's a privilege. We pay to use the roads the government maintains, so they can set the rules. Just like if I owned a stadium I could dictate where you can/can't go, and what you can/can't bring in. I understand his point, and I'm simply saying that just because one person can function well under the influence of drugs (that are scientifically proven to affect people negatively) doesn't mean all can, and if we make exception for one, then we should make exception for all- and well I don't think it's a good idea to have people all fucked up driving around killing people. Is Jer saying that drunk driving should be okay?
I shouldn't try to make Jer's point, he did fine without my help. I'm only trying to point out arresting someone for driving while stoned, without them hitting or injuring anyone, is comparable to arresting a gun-owner without him shooting anyone just because he might. Or like arresting everyone in a movie theater because they have the potential to yell "fire." The only difference is that most people are dangerous when impaired and behind the wheel, and the opposite is true for gun-owners or theater-goers.
I shouldn't try to make Jer's point, he did fine without my help. I'm only trying to point out arresting someone for driving while stoned, without them hitting or injuring anyone, is comparable to arresting a gun-owner without him shooting anyone just because he might. Or like arresting everyone in a movie theater because they have the potential to yell "fire." The only difference is that most people are dangerous when impaired and behind the wheel, and the opposite is true for gun-owners or theater-goers.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that- I would say arresting someone for driving stone is the same as arresting someone for driving drunk. Not anything like a person walking around with *gasp* a loaded firearm doing nothing wrong.
I see both sides of the argument.
It's all about state of mind. We all agree that a mentally ill person probably shouldn't have access to guns, right? But why? He hasn't committed any crimes yet. We can play the "what if" games all day long. We don't restrict car ownership because someone drinks/smokes weed. We just let people buy cars on good faith that you'll use it responsibly. If you make a bad decision and get caught, well, that's your fault and there's consequences.
I think we can all agree that if, you are able to handle your inebriation and follow all the posted traffic laws, you probably won't get stopped. So in a round about way, we allow you to drive in whatever condition you want up to the extent of not obeying other traffic laws. At that point, someone might call you in or a cop might pull you over to investigate further.
I'm simply saying that just because one person can function well under the influence of drugs (that are scientifically proven to affect people negatively) doesn't mean all can, and if we make exception for one, then we should make exception for all- and well I don't think it's a good idea to have people all fucked up driving around killing people. Is Jer saying that drunk driving should be okay?
So we make everyone suffer for the lowest common denominator among us, right? That doesn't sound like Liberty to me. By that logic we SHOULD have much more strict firearm restrictions based on the few wrong doers.
BTW, that line I put in bold is very telling. Typical of people our age and younger that have lived their entire lives in our society that think that law is the ONLY thing keeping this society from tearing itself apart. The question I often pose to people is: What would happen if ALL, and I mean ALL firearms restrictions were taken off of the law books completely tomorrow? Think about that for a minute. Most people's reaction, even for those who are pro2A, think that anarchy will ensue. It will be streets flowing red with the blood of the innocent and Armageddon will be ushered in by endless showers of brass. The fact of the matter is that in reality it would be something much, much, MUCH less than that. Even for those of us who are into firearms... things wouldn't change all that much. Sure we all like to think we would run out and buy 30 suppressors and fully auto firearms and the ammo to feed it all and..... shit costs money. I mean you might buy an NFA item or two but how will it affect society? How will it affect all those terrified of firearms who own none of them? I would venture to guess that they wouldn't notice a single difference in their day to day life.
The above can be applied to ALL 'preventative' laws such as texting, smoking pot or any other distraction and driving. Some people are better at prioritizing distractions while driving and are considered safe drivers. Some can not and therefore we should ALL suffer because of those people who can not and probably shouldn't be driving anyway? I would rather do away with ALL laws trying to prevent crime and just increase the penalties for ACTUALLY committing crimes.
It all comes down to government control as as individuals who are are the HUGE focus of our government right now I think we should embrace this thought that Liberty should be cherished above all. Laws shouldn't be created on the hunch that it may make us all safer (sound familiar?).
d_striker
02-20-2013, 20:55
Not entirely... driving isn't a right like gun ownership, it's a privilege. We pay to use the roads the government maintains, so they can set the rules. Just like if I owned a stadium I could dictate where you can/can't go, and what you can/can't bring in. I understand his point, and I'm simply saying that just because one person can function well under the influence of drugs (that are scientifically proven to affect people negatively) doesn't mean all can, and if we make exception for one, then we should make exception for all- and well I don't think it's a good idea to have people all fucked up driving around killing people. Is Jer saying that drunk driving should be okay?
lowbeyond, I get what you're saying here, and you are a great student of the Liberal form of making an argument (I'm not calling you a liberal, I'm attacking your argument)- let's build a straw man and attack him. You're going to one extreme. I'm simply equating driving stoned to driving drunk- I don't know why so many are jumping on my comments on the issue- are you all saying that we should just let people get all kinds of fucked up and drive around? Fine by me, just as long as when they hit me I can beat the everloving piss out of them for being an idiot. Hey, they took the risk of hurting someone else, so when they do they should get hurt for their transgressions. Isn't that how it works?
It's a Libertarian cocktail party in this thread, and you're crapping in their punch bowl....
It's a Libertarian cocktail party in this thread, and you're crapping in their punch bowl....
I love how people have to be labeled to have a point.
This thread got derailed. Let's go back to calling each other potsmoking doping homo fgts for supporting 64. I liked that better.
d_striker
02-20-2013, 21:43
I love how people have to be labeled to have a point.
You make it sound like I'm using "Libertarian" as a dirty word.
I love how spades get pissed when they're called spades.
You make it sound like I'm using "Libertarian" as a dirty word.
I love how spades get pissed when they're called spades.
No, I just dislike labels and some people's need to label people like they know all about them. Takes real intelligence to round everyone up into nice tidy groups to make it easier for folks like you to understand them, right? How 'bout I'm my own person and can make up my own mind about things?
d_striker
02-20-2013, 21:51
No, I just dislike labels and some people's need to label people like they know all about them. Takes real intelligence to round everyone up into nice tidy groups to make it easier for folks like you to understand them, right? How 'bout I'm my own person and can make up my own mind about things?
Ok, sorry....So you're not a Libertarian then?
buckshotbarlow
02-20-2013, 21:52
If you really want to see how bad drivers are, ride a motorcycle. You'll hate 90% of drivers on the road.
ding ding ding marge, and now try those drivers on weed!
Ok, sorry....So you're not a Libertarian then?
Nope.
d_striker
02-20-2013, 22:07
Nope.
Sorry I offended you....Let me amend my original statement to:
This thread is full of individuals with ideological beliefs tantamount and/or similar to the Libertarian party, and you're crapping in their punch bowl.
THe Yetti
02-20-2013, 23:37
Regulation is the enemy of freedom. Freedom comes with risk attached, that is just the way it is.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.