Drugs + guns = DEATH!

[jon'76]

Godwins law specifically covers comparisons to nazis, I did not.

I simply stated that we should keep our good old rebel spirits alive so that a totalitarian government cannot subjugate us.

Also as a young male I know better than to trust the media in their report of the man's actions. I have had friends get charged with all sorts of similar crimes because the police deliberately trump up the charges. I had one friend get arrested for carrying a pocket knife (NJ) and he had a plethora of charges levied against him. They do this so you're forced to concede to at least one charge.

When I was a juvenile I had my own run in and I was told by my lawyer that the prosecutor said he can't let me walk because I had too many charges and he had to get me on something. The lawyers and judges are NOT our friends. Their purpose is to line the state and their coffers.

Why do courts force women to accept larger amounts of child support from their husbands than they requested? So that the state gets a little bit larger cut when they take their percentage for facilitating the transfer.

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by P-11 shooter

I've said this numerous times on the forum, but we're talking about taking away someones rights for LIFE for a small amount of Marijuana IN HIS OWN HOME!.

LIFE!!


But you can drive drunk and endanger a whole community and nobody wants so take away your guns.

Could not agree more!!!!!!! I personally know a guy who has 5 maybe even 6 D.U.I. and still is allowed to own firearms.Yet a buddy of mine who got nailed with 1/8 he had in his house (angry ex ratted him out) is no longer allowed to properly defend himself.

"I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking IMPOSSIBLE. "Hey, buddy!" "Hey, what?" "Ummmmmmm...." End of argument."

• Bill Hicks

"It really puzzles me to see marijuana connected with narcotics dope and all of that stuff. It is a thousand times better than whiskey. It is an assistant and a friend."

• Louis Armstrong

I mean come on even the father of our nation grew it.

• George Washington in a note to his gardener at Mount Vernon (1794), The Writings of George Washington, Volume 33, page 270 (Library of Congress)
• Washington also recorded his concern that the male and female plants be seperated:

May 12-13 1765: Sowed Hemp at Muddy hole by Swamp.August 7, 1765: —began to seperate (sic) the Male from the Female Hemp at Do —rather too late. Some assert his interest in separating the male and female plants is an indication that he may have used Indian hemp medicinally to treat his chronic tooth aches. Others note that fiber of the male and female hemp plants have a different optimum harvest times.
Legalize it make it a 21 and older thing like booze, set up rules and laws for it like booze, and tax the hell out of it. Bye bye national deficit.

[ErSwnn]

I agree with Knighthawk on this one, legalize it, tax it heavily. But as to the situation, I don't want drunk or stoned people carrying guns. If your going to pop a few or toke one up, put the gun away. Whoever the person is that was arrested I have to agree with Policemedic....it's illegal at this time and a gunowner should act accordingly if they want to retain the ability to own guns. Someone posted that he might have purchased it through a small time dealer thus no organized crime. Dealing IS an organized crime. Grower to large scale distributor to middle scale to small scale to street level. Within a ring there is a hiearchy and an organizational chart of sorts. Bookkeeping is always done at the higher levels, and often even on the street level. It is organized.

Don't go thinking pot is harmless. Not so much as alcohol but I assure you, it's got it's dangers. But so does coffee and jogging. I work for a residential drug rehab. Pot IS a gateway drug. Though the real gateway drug is cigarettes. There are not too many junkies who started on heroin or cocaine. Damn near everyone of them started with cigarettes. Then a beer. Then a joint. The use of booze or pot has to be within confines of responsible use. Wrong place, wrong time....your screwing up. I have no issues with the person who lights up sitting at home or down by the fishing hole. It's the ones driving around, or getting high at 8 in the morning and going all day foggy brained I can't tolerate. They also tend to forget to put the frigin' straw in with my drive-thru order!

So, to address the OP, no, I can't support this person who blatantly broke the law. There are times when discretion is the right mode, answering the charges he faced was one of them. Or as I tell my kids, don't poke big dogs with sharp sticks.

[granuale]

Police arrested an estimated 829,625 persons for marijuana violations in 2006, the highest annual total ever recorded in the United States, according to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 738,915 Americans were charged with possession only. An American is now arrested for violating marijuana laws every 38 seconds.*

Illegal is illegal. If those people don't want to lose all their rights for a few years, and some of thier rights forever, they need to learn that they have to do what the government tells them to. It doesn't matter if the rules are stupid, make no sense, or cause them to live their lives in miserable pain - THE LAW IS THE LAW - OBEY OBEY OBEY!!!!! To those of you who think this, would you say the same thing about slavery? What about the death penalty for witches?

The point some of you people don't get is that nobody gets to tell me what I can or can't put in my body - because it's mine you see. By doing so you are trying to exercise a property right over something that doesn't belong to you. If you do try and do this as with various drugs, I will both ignore and resent you, and you will lose trust and legitimacy.

Incidentally and as a practical matter the war on drugs is a total failure in terms of reducing drug use. Drug prices have gone down and purity up dramatically since the war started. As a method of restricting rights and full employment for government agents however, it's a giant boon.

[Philbert]

Originally Posted by Robert Kayland

Guys, how many times do I have to tell you... look up Godwin's Law... whoever is the first to mention Hitler or the Nazis in an internet thread AUTOMATICALLY loses the debate!

This is Godwin's Law:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

It says nothing about winning or losing the debate.

Once again, xkcd says it all:

[Robert Kayland]

Originally Posted by Philbert

This is Godwin's Law:

It says nothing about winning or losing the debate.

Jeez Louise... DUDE! Read the very source that you yourself quote:

"There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)... For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law."

[Robert Kayland]

Yes, I'm sure our Founding Fathers were buzzed out of their gourds and that's how they came up with all those cool ideas like the Bill Of Rights, man!

So nowadays we have all these dope smokers and their apologists... but where are the George Washingtons?

Godwins law specifically covers comparisons to nazis, I did not.

The comparison was implicit... the folks nowadays who "kowtow" to the government about obeying the laws, especially those "unfair" laws regarding dope, are like those poor German saps under Hitler.

[Carnes]

Originally Posted by Philbert

Awesome! It is so annoying to have to fish around for another example just because you know that some 'clever' person will pull the Godwin's Law crap if you even mention Hitler.

[Philbert]

Originally Posted by Robert Kayland

Jeez Louise... DUDE! Read the very source that you yourself quote:

"There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)... For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law."

A corollary to the law is not the law. Mike Godwin said exactly the text I quoted. Other people came along and made up this idea that anyone who mentions the Nazis is wrong. That is not Godwin's law no matter how many people hold the misconception that it is. A magazine is frequently referred to as a clip but it is not a clip.

[Robert Kayland]

Originally Posted by Philbert

A corollary to the law is not the law. Mike Godwin said exactly the text I quoted. Other people came along and made up this idea that anyone who mentions the Nazis is wrong. That is not Godwin's law no matter how many people hold the misconception that it is. A magazine is frequently referred to as a clip but it is not a clip.

And what part of "This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law." was unclear to you?

In case you need more convincing:

"The concept appears to have entered the public consciousness more broadly, as well. In 2005, the aphorism was the subject of a question in the British television quiz show University Challenge. By 2007, The Economist had declared that "a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument." And in October 2007, the "Last Page" columnist in The Smithsonian stated that when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, "you have only to say 'Godwin's Law' and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles."

Best not contradict The Smithsonian, what?

/Sheesh! Objective: unmet