[quote]imhungry wrote:
On a semi-related note.
I miss Bill Hicks. [/quote]
“George Bush says ‘we are losing the war on drugs’. Well you know what that implies? There’s a war going on, and people on drugs are winning it! Well what does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative motherfuckers on that side.”
I think everyone with a brain does.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Update on the article posted earlier:
[/quote]
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME??? This article makes me want to go hunt these fucks down and shoot them in the damn face because they stood up. FUCK!!!
[quote]GrindOverMatter wrote:
[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:
[quote]GrindOverMatter wrote:
I didnt read this whole thread but let me say this:
I despise Marijuana, I’ve never smoked it before, i’ve never really even considered smoking it(I’m happy to be drug free) Up until this year i never had a strong opinion about it. what changed my my opinion from neutral to hate was living with 2 stoners this year.
almost everynight id come home from a long tiring day at school at my house would reek like pot. The rest of the house would make an effort to keep the kitchen clean and managableable, (7 guys living together) only to be thwarted by these two roomates late night stoner cooking where theyd leave the most disgusting shit out for us to clean.
One of the guys was your typical stoner/surfer guy with a personality i couldnt stand at all, while the other was the whole Hunter S thompson stoner guy who trys come off as smart but all he really was, was a pathological liar (lying about his accomplishments and experiences in order to impress others).
I truely disliked this guy. on top this, our hunter S thompson friend sold weed out of his room in our house, i would of loved to see cops raid our house and see buddy get charged. In this siutation the cops were probably too careless, but for the most part i find myself agreeing with what gregron is saying.
to continue my rant,I honestly havent come across anyone who smokes on a semi regular basis who i don’t consider to lazy or unproductive, face it guys unless you abosolutely need the drug for some medical purpose, it’s just going to drag you down.
So for me the existence of this drug so far has only negatively affected my life, if it ever came to vote in canada, it would be a no decision for me, id vote against it.
[/quote]
Wow, weed sure has made your life shitty. I mean, stoners leaving food out in the kitchen? ROUGH.
This ain’t crack. Do you know how many people around you smoke/have smoked weed? I’d be willing to be a lot more than you think, and I’m not talking about ‘losers’.
Fuck outta here with yer ‘it brings everyone down.’ The most successful people I know hit the ganj.[/quote]
obviously my experience has been very different than yours, i never said it made my life rough, the asses who smoked it in my house pissed me off on a regular basis, i don’t like having to breathe their left over smoke.
Im well aware of those around me who smoke, i also know at least 3 people that used to smoke regulary, and they all have told me they are happier and more productive that they don’t anymore.
[/quote]
Well, the anecdotal reports of 3 people are good enough for me if they are all it takes for you to make up your mind.
I’m not saying YOU should smoke, I just don’t understand why you make negative blanket statements about everyone who smokes.
Look up a list of successful people who smoke or used to smoke. You will find multiple presidents, other important political figures, top level athletes, CEO’s of big influential corporations, and obviously many celebrities.
Whenever we have a massive amount of people in the world who do or did smoke, it’s kind of dumb to make blanket statements about those that do. The group of “people who have smoked” covers a very wide array of personalities and work ethics, just like anything else that’s very common.
[quote]Mettahl wrote:
Look up a list of successful people who smoke or used to smoke. You will find multiple presidents, other important political figures, top level athletes, CEO’s of big influential corporations, and obviously many celebrities.
Whenever we have a massive amount of people in the world who do or did smoke, it’s kind of dumb to make blanket statements about those that do. The group of “people who have smoked” covers a very wide array of personalities and work ethics, just like anything else that’s very common.[/quote]
Nah man, if someone does drugs they are automatically losers and dirt-bags who can’t hold a job or raise a family. You know just like everyone who trains and carries a lot of muscle, they are all stupid and hit/yell at people for no reason…
[quote]GrindOverMatter wrote:
I didnt read this whole thread but let me say this:
I despise Marijuana, I’ve never smoked it before, i’ve never really even considered smoking it(I’m happy to be drug free) Up until this year i never had a strong opinion about it. what changed my my opinion from neutral to hate was living with 2 stoners this year. almost everynight id come home from a long tiring day at school at my house would reek like pot.
The rest of the house would make an effort to keep the kitchen clean and managableable, (7 guys living together) only to be thwarted by these two roomates late night stoner cooking where theyd leave the most disgusting shit out for us to clean.
One of the guys was your typical stoner/surfer guy with a personality i couldnt stand at all, while the other was the whole Hunter S thompson stoner guy who trys come off as smart but all he really was, was a pathological liar (lying about his accomplishments and experiences in order to impress others).
I truely disliked this guy. on top this, our hunter S thompson friend sold weed out of his room in our house, i would of loved to see cops raid our house and see buddy get charged. In this siutation the cops were probably too careless, but for the most part i find myself agreeing with what gregron is saying.
to continue my rant,I honestly havent come across anyone who smokes on a semi regular basis who i don’t consider to lazy or unproductive, face it guys unless you abosolutely need the drug for some medical purpose, it’s just going to drag you down.
So for me the existence of this drug so far has only negatively affected my life, if it ever came to vote in canada, it would be a no decision for me, id vote against it.
[/quote]
I had a roommate who wasted his life playing world of warcraft. He was a lazy good for nothing slob but no one is busting in his home, arresting him and shooting his dog over it.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
Well…as much as I agree with you, they received a search warrant from a judge…so it must not have been the most unreasonable thing at the time.
It’s funny to see people call eachother names as if to somehow discredit them, or to have people make bizzarely disproportionate scenarios as if to somehow make a logical point.
Keep it up guys, im in for the night[/quote]
^This. Great post. Especially the part about name calling and disproportionate scenarios… that sort of thing is running rampant in here.
.greg.[/quote]
Great post except for the part about the warrant. Have you guys heard about the recent philly cop corruption cases. These guys were straight up fabricating evidence for warrants. Having a criminal informant buy drugs at one house and claim he bought 'em at a suspected drug dealers house.
they were doing all kinds of other ridiculous abusive stuff. Disabling security cameras at bodegas and stealing money, candy etc. Oh yeah, after arresting the owner for, I shit you not, selling ziploc bags that the police claimed were paraphanalia. What. The. Fuck.
Prohibition is stupid. What good are we doing by jailing addicts by the way? That ell teach em a lesson and ruin their employment prospects for the rest of their lives all but ensuring they will end up back in crime school. <— I mean our overcrowded abusive prison system.
I’m not whining about the shabby treatment of violent offenders. Fuck those guys. Its just the guy doing time for posession that I don’t get.
[quote]gregron wrote:
The question I asked had nothing to do with the bill of rights. I asked for an example of laws that arent smart to follow but you went off m a tangent and didn’t answer my question.
I never said anything about respnses to “the same level” crimes in many states I said when has someone gone 7mph over the speed limit and been shot at for it?
You obviously can’t stay on topic and discuss the issue at hand which is:
A. The police raided the house because illegal narcotics were believed to be on site.
B. They found illegal narcotics in the house.
What can you argue about that? (hint: nothing. So I’m sure you’ll try to change it around and bring up some other issue to try to pigeon hole me but I’m done debating you cause you seem to not be able to stay on topic here)
.greg.[/quote]
We can argue about the quantity. The quantity they were expecting suggests operations of organized crime and you could probably expect to find weapons and money on the premises also. This scenario merits SWAT
The quantity that they did find indicates that this guy likes to occasionally smoke weed as do millions of other americans. This scenario does not merit SWAT.
Furthermore they did not take precautions to safeguard the innocent. I find this indicates arrogance and sloppy police-work. Im sure you can think of a dozen ways they could have done this better. They could have knocked on the door during daylight for example. They could have set up a sting where they wait for the guy outside of his house.
I got into it with a couple of friends about this and thought I would toss my opinion into the ring.
“The idea that this man wasn’t a violent criminal is soooo hindsight-ed.” (part of friend’s response)
(my response)
I really don’t think it is, they went in with a narcotics search warrant, whatever information they had only told them that he had illegal substances, nothing about being heavily armed. Do I think they should have gone in unarmed, of course not; do I think that this was excessive given the
information that they had, absolutely.
It’s not that I’m necessarily mad about the dogs being shot, obviously it’s not pretty, but given the circumstances a SWAT member who’s about to get attacked by a pitbull is going to act and I can’t fault him for that.
But why was the SWAT team there in the first place? Had someone taken more time to investigate the information the police had been given maybe they would have realized this man wasn’t who they thought he was, and a whole lot of people would have been sparred a lot of trouble. I’m concerned that they acted so quickly and to such a violent extent on information that was weak.
Had they found a couple pounds of marijuana and some unregistered had guns, then I would be a lot more ok with this, but the guy had almost nothing. They even hit him with child endangerment which to me seems like a last ditch effort to make this whole situation more acceptable.
Of course I don’t know the whole story and maybe this guy is more heavily involved that it seems. Maybe a good Samaritan thought they were protecting his son by giving the police information and hoping to get the kid away from the home. Maybe they did receive a tip about him having weapons.
But the fact that they found almost nothing makes me feel like this was all brought together too quickly and that more thorough planning, research, and a little bit of restraint should have been used.
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.
On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.
On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]
You have no clue what the problem is. Thanks for trying, though.
[quote]Kvale wrote:
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.
On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]
You have no clue what the problem is. Thanks for trying, though.[/quote]
I said MY problem, not “the” problem - which is entirely subjective anyway.
For the posters who say it is the law and illegal: What happens when the pharmaceutical companies get the B-complex, vitamin C, all vitamins and minerals for that matter, required to be bought through a prescription? You, knowing better, get a black market bottle of vitamin C, the cops raid your house and kill your dogs over some vitamins, how would you feel? This is not much different.
One other item that enrages me is how an officer feels it is ok to kill my dog, who is only protecting the house THAT THEY STORMED INTO, while I would be charged with killing an officer for killing a police dog that was mauling my arm.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.
On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]
Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.
Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.
So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.
Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.
Horizon - Britain's Most Dangerous Drugs Part 4/5 - YouTube!
This is the clip of the “Top 20 Most Dangerous Drugs” in the world as classified by a study in Britain that talks about alcohol being number 5. That’s way worse than marijuana, tobacco, LSD, ecstasy, amphetamines, etc.
Btw, this scientific study is old news. If you haven’t seen this documentary AND read the studies and essays that were written on the studies, then where have you been? Go research this stuff!
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.
On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]
Do you even know about drugs? So do you actually believe that Alcohol has less side effects than weed or other “illegal” drugs?
Dude if you don’t know what you’re talking about please don’t comment.
[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Unsurprisingly, reason had a thing on it: Video of SWAT Raid on Missouri Family
The parents were charged w/ child endangering. [/quote]
Good. They know the potential consequences and yet they keep contraban around their kids. That’s just plain selfish.[/quote]
You get busted for personal use pot you generally aren’t going to be charged with child endangerment. It was a retarded face saving move to bring those charges.
Please explain to me how the child was in danger from mom and/or dad smoking pot to relax. No different than having beer or wine.[/quote]
No, beer or wine is legal. And if it were really the same then why bother with the weed in the first place?
Having your house raided is no doubt going to traumatize a child. That doesn’t mean we should let criminals hide behind their kids and not execute search warrants.[/quote]
Then let’s pretend for a while the parents were having a beer each to relax. Now let’s pretend it’s still prohibition era and the period-appropriate SWAT equivalent had busted in guns blazing. Is it still the parents who are endangering their children?[/quote]
Yup.[/quote]
KAS
Telling everyone that his way of living is the ONLY way of living.[/quote]
He asked my opinion and I gave it. How is that TELLING anyone anthything? Read the post before you get your panties in a bunch.
[quote]vikingrob wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Unsurprisingly, reason had a thing on it: Video of SWAT Raid on Missouri Family
The parents were charged w/ child endangering. [/quote]
Good. They know the potential consequences and yet they keep contraban around their kids. That’s just plain selfish.[/quote]
You get busted for personal use pot you generally aren’t going to be charged with child endangerment. It was a retarded face saving move to bring those charges.
Please explain to me how the child was in danger from mom and/or dad smoking pot to relax. No different than having beer or wine.[/quote]
No, beer or wine is legal. And if it were really the same then why bother with the weed in the first place?
Having your house raided is no doubt going to traumatize a child. That doesn’t mean we should let criminals hide behind their kids and not execute search warrants.[/quote]
Then let’s pretend for a while the parents were having a beer each to relax. Now let’s pretend it’s still prohibition era and the period-appropriate SWAT equivalent had busted in guns blazing. Is it still the parents who are endangering their children?[/quote]
Yup.[/quote]
Usually I try to be respectful of peoples opinions, but…
Are you just being annoying or are you an idiot?
It is one or the other.
I hope it is not an idiot, cause you obviously would not know if you were one.
[/quote]
Actually it’s neither. I didn’t realise that I was not intitled to an opinion.
Funny thing is I haven’t called anyone names or questioned their intelligence, just given my opinion.
Same can’t be said for most of the “pro marijuana” crowd.
[quote]Mettahl wrote:
Look up a list of successful people who smoke or used to smoke. You will find multiple presidents, other important political figures, top level athletes, CEO’s of big influential corporations, and obviously many celebrities.
Whenever we have a massive amount of people in the world who do or did smoke, it’s kind of dumb to make blanket statements about those that do. The group of “people who have smoked” covers a very wide array of personalities and work ethics, just like anything else that’s very common.[/quote]
Who made a blanket statement?