Vet loses house over pot bust.

[BacktoBasics]

Branson, Mo. — Newlyweds Scott and Samantha West drove their SUV through the gate of the exclusive housing community, winding upward to an empty cul-de-sac that offers commanding views of the surrounding valleys.

For months, the young couple visited this site and dreamed of their bright future, ever since a charity that serves wounded veterans announced last year it was building a house for Scott at no charge.

The gift, like his new bride, seemed heaven-sent to Scott West, 23, who had lost his legs to a roadside bomb in Iraq in December 2005. The new home would feature wide hallways, voice-activated lighting and other amenities tailored to Scott's needs.

And when a developer offered to give the Wests a free lot in Saddlebrooke, a community where house prices range from $350,000 to more than $1 million, the couple thought it was too good to be true.


"This was a place where I thought I could live the rest of my life and never have to worry," West said.

On this night, the couple didn't linger long at the vacant lot. The winter wind was bitter. So too, are the memories.

In January, just two days after the couple had returned from their honeymoon, the charity took back its gift after learning that Scott West had been arrested on marijuana charges in 2007 and pleaded guilty in December to a felony of possession with intent to distribute. Last week, a judge placed West on five years probation.

West acknowledges that he deserved to be punished. Despite his guilty plea, he insists he never sold marijuana. He believes the charity, Massachusetts-based Homes for Our Troops, overreacted. "It was something to help me," West said of the donated house. "It wasn't like a privilege to be taken from me."

Homes for Our Troops founder John Gonsalves did not respond to several requests for an interview. The nonprofit organization has built more than three dozen homes nationwide since it was established in 2004. It has about two dozen more homes under construction.

A spokeswoman for the charity said it was grateful for West's service and sacrifice. She described the decision to drop West from the program as the most painful Gonsalves has had to make.

"It hurts him; it haunts him," spokeswoman Vicki Thomas said.

NOT WHO HE IS
MORE METRO
bullet Get news, columns, photos and multimedia from the St. Louis area


Scott West said he never tried alcohol in high school and only used marijuana once. Then he graduated, joined the Army and reached his first duty station at Fort Stewart, Ga.

"I was drinking and smoking a week later," he said.

Within a month, he deployed to Iraq where alcohol, marijuana and hashish were available, he said.

West served as a reconnaissance scout in the 3rd Infantry Division. Three days before he was scheduled to leave Iraq, a roadside bomb detonated beneath West's Humvee while on patrol. He spent 14 months recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, where he learned about Homes for Our Troops. He decided to apply.

He returned to Branson in February 2007 and moved into a two-bedroom condominium he had purchased with a $100,000 insurance payment he received for his injuries. He was lauded in local news reports, granted honorary membership in local veterans organizations and spoke to elementary and high school students about overcoming adversity. And he smoked marijuana.

In October 2007, a police officer pulled West and two friends over for driving without headlights or license plates.

That very day, West said he had cashed the first of his monthly $4,000 disability checks and had gone to an electronics store to buy a 65-inch television, a laptop computer and other electronics. The purchases were in the back of a pickup he'd recently purchased.

On the way home, he picked up a friend, who, West said, had gone to buy marijuana for the group.

The police officer smelled marijuana and asked to search the vehicle. He reported finding 2.5 pounds of marijuana in several containers, a scale and several pipes. (It would later be determined the actual amount of marijuana was less than 12 ounces.) The officer also found $800 in cash on West.

The Sheriff's Department seized the electronics, cash and the truck, which was later repossessed. West spent three days in the Taney County Jail. "I'd never been in trouble," he said.

Two weeks later, West ran into Samantha Eubanks at the local Wal-Mart. They recognized each other from attending the same high school. Not long after they met, he told her about his legal problems.

"I didn't meet a drug dealer," she said. "That's not who Scott is. I met the real Scott."

She described him as outgoing, kindhearted and upbeat despite all that's happened. Still, she told him she wouldn't put up with any drugs.

About two weeks after they met, West traveled to Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas for more surgery on his leg. On many nights, he would fall asleep while talking to Samantha on the phone. He returned to Branson and enrolled in a substance abuse recovery program. In March, he proposed.

Then in May, Homes for Our Troops, notified West of his selection for a free home. He signed a contract in July. "They never asked about the arrest or any past information," West said. "I answered all their questions."

Meanwhile, the criminal case was moving forward.

West's attorney, Barney Naioti, said West was more likely to receive a lenient sentence if he didn't fight the charge, so West pleaded guilty to the felony, even though he says the drugs were for his personal use. A prosecutor said West's plea speaks for itself.

Soon after, the Springfield News-Leader published a story about West receiving the home. Afterward, the reporter received an anonymous tip about West's conviction and called him to ask if it was true. West said he explained what happened and thought nothing more of it.

While Samantha and Scott were on their honeymoon in Jamaica, the newspaper contacted the charity, which was unaware of West's legal problems. When the couple returned home, West's voice mail was filled with messages, including from Homes for Our Troops.

When he called the organization, West said Gonsalves told him he was rescinding the free house and lot because of the legal troubles.

The following day, the News-Leader ran a story about West losing the home because of his drug arrest. West said he didn't want to be seen in public. "I was embarrassed and ashamed."

'A DIFFERENT ROAD'

The couple still resides in West's small condo, where it's difficult to use a wheelchair. At night, when he removes his prosthetics, he walks on his hands. That makes it difficult to reach the sink or thermostat, or open cabinets or the refrigerator.

Robert V. Holland, a Navy veteran of World War II and a member of a Disabled American Veterans chapter in the Branson area, said many veterans used drugs to get through combat. Adjusting to civilian life afterward isn't easy, he added.

"It's a trap that it seems that not only him, but others fall into," said Holland, 85. "But they went over there and fought just like I did."

West said he is sorry and feels he let many people down. He had hoped to have a new home, go to college, have children. Those plans seem less certain. For now, he delivers pizzas.

"What I did will have consequences for years to come," West said. "I'm going to have to travel down a totally different road now."

[email protected] | 314-340-8321

[peewee's lovechild]

This is bullshit.

If a soldier comes back from war all busted up, we should let him smoke as much weed as he wants.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

That's fucked up. I'm not going to get into the drug debate this will likely spawn, but someone at that charity needs to get bitchslapped. They clearly had the resources to properly vet this guy's background, why the fuck didn't they use them before making an offer to him?

If they want to be mega hardasses with their money it's ultimately their perogative, but to pull the rug out from under someone like that because they didn't perform their due diligence is horrible.

[tlongII]

They gave him the house. They have the right to take it away as well.

[Oh, Gee!!]

how do you take back a gift? and how was a pizza delivery guy gonna pay the taxes anyway?

[BacktoBasics]

Here is homes for our troops contact info

http://www.homesforourtroops.org/site/PageServer?pagename=contactus

Mailing Address:
Homes For Our Troops
37 Main Street
Taunton, MA 02780

Phone: 508-823-3300 or Toll Free: (866) 7 TROOPS

Fax: 508-823-5411

[angel_luv]

I think a violation like that soldier's should bump him down on the list of people in line to get a new house but not disqualify him completely.
I think he should be re considered for a house if/ when he successfully fulfills his court ordered probbation.

[peewee's lovechild]

I think a violation like that soldier's should bump him down on the list of people in line to get a new house but not disqualify him completely.
I think he should be re considered for a house if/ when he successfully fulfills his court ordered probbation.

It's not his fault they didn't do a proper background check on him. They offered him a house without doing their due dilligence. It's their fault, not his.

As for the drug thing, he had a clean record before that and he even went to a drug rehab program. What else do they want him to do?

Nevermind the fact that he put his ass on the line for his country.

[angel_luv]

n/m - figured out timeline. I had misread it at first.

[BacktoBasics]

n/m - figured out timeline. I had misread it at first.
My opinion doesn't change because pot isn't any worse than any other legal substance and in most cases it pales in comparison to the addiction and destruction of alcohol which I doubt would have cost him the house had he entered in to AA. You don't offer something and take it away. I wonder if he has a case for breech of a verbal or contractual agreement.

[angel_luv]

He probably could sue, unless there is some sort of character clause ( is that what they call it?) specified in the contract.

I agree that the agency should have better researched the soldier before awarding him the house, if character of the recepient matters greatly to them.
Now their decision looks like a knee jerk reaction in the interest of them saving face and reputation.

Even so, I question whether the soldier currently deserves the new home as there are other wounded vets without law violations whom could benefit from the house.

[BacktoBasics]

He probably could sue, unless there is some sort of character clause ( is that what they call it?) specified in the contract.

I agree that the agency should have better researched the soldier before awarding him the house, if character of the recepient matters greatly to them.
Now their decision looks like a knee jerk reaction in the interest of them saving face and reputation.

Even so, I question whether the soldier currently deserves the new home as there are other wounded vets without law violations whom could benefit from the house.I fail to see how his violation and the severity of his injuries have anything to do with each other. If the company deemed he was in need of assistance that fact doesn't change, violation or not.

[Bigzax]

never flaunt when ridin dirty...

[peewee's lovechild]

Even so, I question whether the soldier currently deserves the new home as there are other wounded vets without law violations whom could benefit from the house.

They have to apply, Angel. It isn't given to them just because they're war vets.

This guy applied and did everything they asked of him.

Regardless of how many wounded vets there are, they didn't apply for the free house. This guy did.

[Obstructed_View]

They can choose to give or take their gift to whomever they choose. Besides, selling pot is illegal. Fuck that douchebag for blaming the Army for his drug use and drinking anyway.

[angel_luv]

I fail to see how his violation and the severity of his injuries have anything to do with each other. If the company deemed he was in need of assistance that fact doesn't change, violation or not.

Valid point. I am not disputing the soldiers need.

I was just pointing out that unless the company builds houses for every soldier in need, they must have additional points on which they qualify people.

Perhaps the company wants to give houses to men who are exemplary both as soldiers AND civilians.

I do hope that soldier gets his life all the way together and that he and his family find a nice home. All the best to him.

[peewee's lovechild]

They can choose to give or take their gift to whomever they choose. Besides, selling pot is illegal. Fuck that douchebag for blaming the Army for his drug use and drinking anyway.

Yea, because the Army is beyond reproach.

[BacktoBasics]

They can choose to give or take their gift to whomever they choose. Besides, selling pot is illegal.I'm not sold that its just that easy to commit to someone and then back out. If this were anything other than charity we'd all side with the guy. Verbally agreeing or contractually agreeing to something holds weight. This guy might have possibly made significant alterations to his life that center around the verbal agreement. He was accountable for his actions they should do the same.

The pot has absolutely nothing to do with the charity. Does the application request criminal history be divulged. Do the same laws of discrimination apply?

[Bigzax]

it's a shame he lost his legs, cuz that schmuck reporter definitely needs an ass kicking.

[Heath Ledger]

Regarding the dumb question about how the pizza guy can pay his property taxes, he gets $4k per month in disability from the military for losing his limbs.

[The Franchise]

that's fucked up. I'm not going to get into the drug debate this will likely spawn, but someone at that charity needs to get bitchslapped. They clearly had the resources to properly vet this guy's background, why the fuck didn't they use them before making an offer to him?

If they want to be mega hardasses with their money it's ultimately their perogative, but to pull the rug out from under someone like that because they didn't perform their due diligence is horrible.

+ 1

[BacktoBasics]

The mans life is ruined over a personal agenda driven war only come back home and be fucked with because he made the mistake of turning to a muscle relaxer for comfort.

[Blake]

gee, let's go hard on the charity that doesn't want to give a free home to a convicted drug dealer.

priorities.

[TDMVPDPOY]

should roll by in his wheel chair with m16 waitin...

[George Gervin's Afro]

This is bullshit.

If a soldier comes back from war all busted up, we should let him smoke as much weed as he wants.

I agree !

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

He paid for his crime through the court system. I don't think the organization can just take something back just because they changed their minds about the recipient's moral character...unless some sort of contract was in place that stated the terms of the gift. If the charity owns the house that's one thing, but if title is in the soldier's name already, I don't see that they can just take it back.

Where's FWD when you need him?

[half a man]

it's a shame he lost his legs, cuz that schmuck reporter definitely needs an ass kicking.

+1

[LockBeard]

+1

lmao, I bet you laugh your ass off when ripe opportune posts like that come up.

[half a man]

lmao, I bet you laugh your ass off when ripe opportune posts like that come up.


Only half the time.

[Marklar MM]

Good job reading the article a few of you. He did not sell weed. His friend brought it with him and they smoked it.

[JoeChalupa]

+1

Be nice Bigzak.


This sucks.

[JoeChalupa]

Good job reading the article a few of you. He did not sell weed. His friend brought it with him and they smoked it.

That is what I would have said. There must have been a reason why he pleaded guilty. Those damn court appointed attorneys.

[BacktoBasics]

That is what I would have said. There must have been a reason why he pleaded guilty. Those damn court appointed attorneys.
If you fight and lose you might end up with a huge sentence. If you plead guilty to a lesser charge you can negotiate the sentence. In his case he was a first time offender. In most states the first offense is typically probation. Especially for the small amount he had. Which is exactly how it ended up.

[ploto]

Good job reading the article a few of you. He did not sell weed. His friend brought it with him and they smoked it.

...pleaded guilty in December to a felony of possession with intent to distribute.

[Slydragon]

So all this because of a reporter, sounds like someone was jealous of not getting a free house of their own.

[Obstructed_View]

Good job reading the article a few of you. He did not sell weed. His friend brought it with him and they smoked it.

Good job not understanding the criminal justice system in the US. He copped a plea, he's guilty as charged.

[LockBeard]

So all this because of a reporter, sounds like someone was jealous of not getting a free house of their own.


In the new America, who isn't jealous of not getting a free home :hat

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

It's a bit of green, for fucksake. Who cares? The "War on Drugs" is a freakin joke. Dope is no worse than alcohol, and to punish people for smoking it is a travesty.

[JoeChalupa]

If you fight and lose you might end up with a huge sentence. If you plead guilty to a lesser charge you can negotiate the sentence. In his case he was a first time offender. In most states the first offense is typically probation. Especially for the small amount he had. Which is exactly how it ended up.

It was the amount he had that enabled them to charge him with intent to sell. If it was a small amount he wouldn't have had to negotiate. But it varies from State to State.

[peewee's lovechild]

It's a bit of green, for fucksake. Who cares? The "War on Drugs" is a freakin joke. Dope is no worse than alcohol, and to punish people for smoking it is a travesty.

Amen.

[JoeChalupa]

I concur but it is the law.

[baseline bum]

...pleaded guilty in December to a felony of possession with intent to distribute.

Sounds a lot like that 2.5 pounds was for personal use; an over the top buy for someone who all of a sudden had $48,000/year (with no rent, no mortgage) burning a hole in his pocket. It's consistent with his other purchases (bigscreen tv, laptop, etc.). Shit, the guy sacrificed his legs for the nation, so he's earned the right to sit around and smoke a grip of weed for a while.

[SpursWoman]

Didn't I read that it wasn't even 2.5lbs, but like 12oz? Bummer.

[baseline bum]

It's a bit of green, for fucksake. Who cares? The "War on Drugs" is a freakin joke. Dope is no worse than alcohol, and to punish people for smoking it is a travesty.

The war on drugs is big to the same right-wingers who love this asinine war in Iraq.

[baseline bum]

Didn't I read that it wasn't even 2.5lbs, but like 12oz? Bummer.

:lol Good catch. I skipped over the parenthesized part.

[JoeChalupa]

Didn't I read that it wasn't even 2.5lbs, but like 12oz? Bummer.

That is still 3/4 of a lb and enough to charge you with intent to sell.

[SpursWoman]

That is still 3/4 of a lb and enough to charge you with intent to sell.


I know it's still a lot, I'm more versed in these things than I ever cared to be ... but it's a little easier to believe that 12oz was for solely personal use than 2.5lbs would be. :lol

[baseline bum]

That is still 3/4 of a lb and enough to charge you with intent to sell.

I had a friend busted with <100grams who got charged with distribution based solely on the quantity.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The war on drugs is big to the same right-wingers who love this asinine war in Iraq.

Indeed. The same people who think that pot is the same as heroin or crack, and that MDMA is the same as ice. Fucking ignorant morons.

And I hate the "War On..." terminology - it's just bullshit dressed up to please hard right wingers who don't understand that the world is complex and full of shades of grey.

[baseline bum]

I don't support prohibition on heroin or coke either though. Way too much money to be made off it, which means way too much crime in bloody turf wars to get at those profits and way too many kids getting sucked into trying to make that quick dollar (even though it's worse than minimum wage for your typical scrub street dealer making his supplier rich).

[Clandestino]

smoking marijuana is illegal. simple as that. fuck him

[Blake]

....

[Blake]

Iraq vet loses free home offer after drug plea

The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Jan 14, 2009 20:52:05 EST

FORSYTH, Mo. — A nonprofit that builds homes for severely injured soldiers has rescinded its offer to a Branson veteran after he was convicted of a felony drug charge.

Scott West pleaded guilty Dec. 11 to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The charge carries a sentence of five to 15 years in prison.

West lost both legs while serving in Iraq when his Humvee hit a roadside bomb. He was slated to receive a free house from Massachusetts-based Homes for Our Troops, but lost the offer under the group’s provision that veterans who commit felonies are not eligible.

“We take very seriously our obligations to our donors and volunteers,” John S. Gonsalves, founder of Homes for Our Troops, told the Springfield News-Leader for a story published Tuesday. “That is why our agreements with servicemen and women include a provision that allows us to end a project if it was clear the veteran has committed a felony criminal act.”

West was arrested after an Oct. 1, 2007, traffic stop in Taney County netted law officers 2.5 pounds of marijuana under the car seat, smoking pipes and digital scales.

According to the incident report, the officer who made the stop smelled marijuana coming from West’s car. The officer said in the report that he remembered receiving an anonymous tip that West might be involved in illegal drugs.

The officer told West about the tip and asked if he could search the car, the report says. West agreed to the search and told the officer that he had medical marijuana under the seat. Later, he led deputies to his house, where they found drug paraphernalia.

In late December, West told the News-Leader that despite his guilty plea, the drugs found in his car weren’t his and he doesn’t deal drugs.

West’s sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 19.


provision against the recipients committing felonies.

hey kids, don't plead guilty to possession of drugs with intent to sell.

It's also not a good idea to have digital scales in your car along with the drugs if you want to try to convince someone later that you really are innocent.

[LockBeard]

I don't support prohibition on heroin or coke either though..

Wow....just wow.

[mouse]

Hey Kids!

Also remember you can volunteer to fight for this country, win a bunch of gold medals and even lose your legs....it's all good!
just don't get caught smoking, or selling something that has been here long before the people who made these laws to ruin the rest of your life.

[ploto]

So the time line seems clearer-- he was approved for the program. Then, in December he pleaded guilty to a felony, so he was removed from the program based upon its clear guidelines. He had not received the house yet.

[2Blonde]

I think a violation like that soldier's should bump him down on the list of people in line to get a new house but not disqualify him completely.
I think he should be re considered for a house if/ when he successfully fulfills his court ordered probbation.
But that would be waaaaayyyy to rational a thing to for the charity to do! (sorry, I couldn't remember what color sarcasm was supposed to be:toast)

[Re-Animator]

To bad he's not an NFL,Baseball or basket ball player. Pay a fine and move on. Or if he was a congressman or a mayor of Washington.

http://img.drive.com.au/drive_images/Editorial/2007/06/28/28Barry_m_m.jpg

http://www.matadorrecords.com/matablog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/marion_barry_smoking_crack.gif



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/images/2008/10/13/mahoneytimflarep.jpg


http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/3025/irvin.jpg

http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/archives/irvinmug1.jpg


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2002/04/29/strawberry_sentenced_ap/t1_strawberry_ap-01.jpg




Busted! 100 Celebrities Arrested For Drug Possession: 21-40

http://www.popcrunch.com/busted-100-celebrities-arrested-for-drug-possession-21-40/

Busted! 100 Celebrities Arrested For Drug Possession
http://www.popcrunch.com/busted-100-celebrities-arrested-for-drug-possession/


Woody Harrelson, Willie Nelson, Frances, McDormand, Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Justin Timberlake, Kimora Lee Simons, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton, Snoop Dog, Lil Wayne, Charliz Theron, Matthew McConaughey


Did it keep Johnny Cash from making money singing? Did it keep Clinton out of the white house?

The list goes on.................................

to bad they can't use all that money on fighting drugs ($40 billion per year)to fight child molesters, gangs,fight home invasion, hell find a cure for Cancer.

[Blake]

Hey Kids!

Also remember you can volunteer to fight for this country, win a bunch of gold medals and even lose your legs....it's all good!
just don't get caught smoking, or selling something that has been here long before the people who made these laws to ruin the rest of your life.

that's not the point.

[baseline bum]

Wow....just wow.

Why wow? The drug war creates so much crime and has spectacularly failed in its attempt to halt usage. It wastes so many tax dollars while drug dealers don't pay SS, Medicare, or any kind of income tax. It keeps the police and prison budgets huge, fighting an unwinnable war of attrition. There's so much collateral damage. My friend's wife was killed by a stray bullet while walking with her son thanks to a shootout involving drug dealers. Kid got to watch his mother die on the sidewalk in front of him because some assholes in Washington want to push their agenda without any regard to the consequences; who cares? The drug war isn't in their neighborhoods.

The fact that coke is illegal makes it so much easier for kids to get than alcohol, because drug dealers don't check IDs. I know in HS I could have gotten coke or any other drug much more easily than a bottle of vodka or a 12-pack of beer, so the protecting the children angle doesn't work either. Hell, Jr. High too. If nothing else convinces you, then what about the government having no right to tell a grown person what he can and cannot put in his own body?

[Blake]

i don't support prohibition on heroin or coke either though.

+1

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Indeed. The same people who think that pot is the same as heroin or crack, and that MDMA is the same as ice. Fucking ignorant morons.

And I hate the "War On..." terminology - it's just bullshit dressed up to please hard right wingers who don't understand that the world is complex and full of shades of grey.


smoking marijuana is illegal. simple as that. fuck him

And there's one of them. :rolleyes See, it's not "simple as that" at all. Marijuana is less damaging to society than alcohol, and prohibition is ruining hundreds of thousands of lives all across your country every year for no reason. It is not a simple issue at all.


I don't support prohibition on heroin or coke either though. Way too much money to be made off it, which means way too much crime in bloody turf wars to get at those profits and way too many kids getting sucked into trying to make that quick dollar (even though it's worse than minimum wage for your typical scrub street dealer making his supplier rich).

Mmmmmm, that's a tough one. Whilst marijuana is psychologically addictive, it is not physically addictive (a very important distinction - same with MDMA and LSD), whereas as coke, heroin, ice and speed are highly physically addictive, which adds another dimension to the decision.

I used to utterly believe in legalising, regulating and taxing all drugs - that way you guarantee purity, take the money out of the hands of crime, and governments can tax the drugs and use the proceeds in the health system. However, societies suffer enough from the legalised drugs, nicotine and alcohol, as is, so I think society giving tacit approval to other drugs would be unwise and likely cause more harm than good.

For marijuana (and other non-physically addictive substances) I think the model used in the ACT (where I live) works very well - possession of marijuana is decriminalised under one ounce, individuals can grow two plants each, and if you're caught smoking in a public place you get a $50 fine. That way people keep it out of the public domain and it allows the cops to get on with catching real criminals.

Regulation of drugs is a very, very, very complex issue, and I certainly don't have all the answers, but I know that the US government's War on Drugs is a total fucking sham that causes more harm than it does good. Drug abuse is a health issue, not a legal and moral one.


Why wow? The drug war creates so much crime and has spectacularly failed in its attempt to halt usage. It wastes so many tax dollars while drug dealers don't pay SS, Medicare, or any kind of income tax. It keeps the police and prison budgets huge, fighting an unwinnable war of attrition. There's so much collateral damage. My friend's wife was killed by a stray bullet while walking with her son thanks to a shootout involving drug dealers. Kid got to watch his mother die on the sidewalk in front of him because some assholes in Washington want to push their agenda without any regard to the consequences; who cares? The drug war isn't in their neighborhoods.

The fact that coke is illegal makes it so much easier for kids to get than alcohol, because drug dealers don't check IDs. I know in HS I could have gotten coke or any other drug much more easily than a bottle of vodka or a 12-pack of beer, so the protecting the children angle doesn't work either. Hell, Jr. High too. If nothing else convinces you, then what about the government having no right to tell a grown person what he can and cannot put in his own body?

Shhhhhh. You're making too much sense! :lol :(

[mouse]

that's not the point.

Who said I had one?

[balli]

I hate being so cynical, but the only thing I have to say about this is what I say every time I hear about someone getting completely fucked over solely because they puff a little herb... of course.

[baseline bum]

Mmmmmm, that's a tough one. Whilst marijuana is psychologically addictive, it is not physically addictive (a very important distinction - same with MDMA and LSD), whereas as coke, heroin, ice and speed are highly physically addictive, which adds another dimension to the decision.

I used to utterly believe in legalising, regulating and taxing all drugs - that way you guarantee purity, take the money out of the hands of crime, and governments can tax the drugs and use the proceeds in the health system. However, societies suffer enough from the legalised drugs, nicotine and alcohol, as is, so I think society giving tacit approval to other drugs would be unwise and likely cause more harm than good.

For marijuana (and other non-physically addictive substances) I think the model used in the ACT (where I live) works very well - possession of marijuana is decriminalised under one ounce, individuals can grow two plants each, and if you're caught smoking in a public place you get a $50 fine. That way people keep it out of the public domain and it allows the cops to get on with catching real criminals.

Regulation of drugs is a very, very, very complex issue, and I certainly don't have all the answers, but I know that the US government's War on Drugs is a total fucking sham that causes more harm than it does good. Drug abuse is a health issue, not a legal and moral one.


I see where you're coming from; I certainly don't want to see Joe Camel on TV teaching kids how cool it is to smoke crack. It definitely could not be a hands-off enterprise like the conservatives want everything in this country to be (worked great for our gas prices BTW! Thanks, Phil Gramm, you treasonous fuck!). Because weed isn't addictive like coke and heroin, the money isn't there though, and you're not going to put much of a dent in drug profits if only weed is legal. About the only thing you'd really accomplish is stopping weed from being a gateway drug, since people wouldn't have to make connections with the coke/heroin/pcp/etc. world to buy their dime bags.

[Joe Camel]

I see where you're coming from; I certainly don't want to see Joe Camel on TV teaching kids how cool it is to smoke crack. It definitely could not be a hands-off enterprise like the conservatives want everything in this country to be (worked great for our gas prices BTW! Thanks, Phil Gramm, you treasonous fuck!). Because weed isn't addictive like coke and heroin, the money isn't there though, and you're not going to put much of a dent in drug profits if only weed is legal. About the only thing you'd really accomplish is stopping weed from being a gateway drug, since people wouldn't have to make connections with the coke/heroin/pcp/etc. world to buy their dime bags.

I've never smoked crack dumbass.

[J.T.]

gee, let's go hard on the charity that doesn't want to give a free home to a convicted drug dealer.

priorities.

I probably smoke 12 ounces in a month. He could've just been stocking up. I mean, if I was getting four thousand dollar disability checks you'd probably catch me with a briefcase filled with more drugs than they had in Fear and Loathing. And that "GO UTSA" sweatshirt I've always wanted.

[J.T.]

About the only thing you'd really accomplish is stopping weed from being a gateway drug, since people wouldn't have to make connections with the coke/heroin/pcp/etc. world to buy their dime bags.

The Gateway Theory, as it applies to weed, is bullshit. It's ridiculous to claim that someone does cocaine because they did weed first. The only thing smoking weed prior to doing other drugs does to a person is makes them mentally OK with putting a drug in their body, and this barrier is almost non-existent if the person is a tobacco smoker before trying weed. The only reason gateway theory is applied to weed and not alcohol is because alcohol is legal. I would blame youthful desire to party and get fucked up before blaming a substance, then I would blame alcohol, then tobacco, and then weed.

57DdviStOFo

[baseline bum]

The Gateway Theory, as it applies to weed, is bullshit. It's ridiculous to claim that someone does cocaine because they did weed first. The only thing smoking weed prior to doing other drugs does to a person is makes them mentally OK with putting a drug in their body, and this barrier is almost non-existent if the person is a tobacco smoker before trying weed. The only reason gateway theory is applied to weed and not alcohol is because alcohol is legal. I would blame youthful desire to party and get fucked up before blaming a substance, then I would blame alcohol, then tobacco, and then weed.

57DdviStOFo

You're probably right on the gateway theory, as anyone who really wants coke can go out and find his own leads pretty easily, and doesn't need networking opportunities gained through weed purchases to get there. Let me amend my statement about the gateway theory to say that social conservatives would have absolutely no leg to stand on with their gateway theory if weed was legalized.

[CuckingFunt]

You're probably right on the gateway theory, as anyone who really wants coke can go out and find his own leads pretty easily, and doesn't need networking opportunities gained through weed purchases to get there. Let me amend my statement about the gateway theory to say that social conservatives would have absolutely no leg to stand on with their gateway theory if weed was legalized.

There would still be a gateway theory, it would just start with a different drug.

[baseline bum]

There would still be a gateway theory, it would just start with a different drug.

I'm not sure there would be. Weed is the drug everyone knows is harmless. Pretty much everything else illegal is classified by most as a hard drug, probably because everyone has smoked a joint or taken a bong hit. It seems a significantly lower proportion have done the "bad" drugs like coke, acid, shrooms, heroin, speed, etc. Everyone knows, though might not readily admit, that the weed scare-tactics are bullshit, and hence the idea that the weed itself isn't so bad, but the coke 'it inevitably leads to' is the big problem.

[Cane]

Well that charity just took a nosedive for the worse in the PR department. This is a shitty situaton for both sides and the charity neglected to follow the 6 P's the military loves to follow: Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. I'm all for legalizaion of marijuana and drugs/prostitution...its crazy that idiotic Christians that believe in an unhealthy fantasy and use that crap to justify women getting beat by pimps and war vets like this guy go to jail and lose his house.

Makes me want to go Gran Torino on those pricks.:ihit:ihit:ihit:ihit

On another note, alcohol and cigarrettes are way harder to get than weed/illegal drugs if you are underage or don't have a picture ID. I can still remember seeing drug deals go on right in front of me during an art lecture of just 20-30 kids back in the 10th grade.

[JoeChalupa]

While I think weed should be decriminalized and I think the situation sucks for him the rules clearly state that the recipient not be convicted of a felony. Does it look very bad on their part? Yes. Should they have done more research? Yes.
And I know many people who have not gone into the harder drugs but just enjoy some hippie lettuce from time to time.

[Blake]

It is not a simple issue at all.

actually, in this case it is a simple issue.

[Blake]

Who said I had one?

good point

[Blake]

I probably smoke 12 ounces in a month. He could've just been stocking up. I mean, if I was getting four thousand dollar disability checks you'd probably catch me with a briefcase filled with more drugs than they had in Fear and Loathing. And that "GO UTSA" sweatshirt I've always wanted.

Well if you're just stocking up, then don't plead guilty to the felony charge.

[Blake]

Well that charity just took a nosedive for the worse in the PR department.

because they didn't give a free house to a convicted drug dealer?

I doubt it.


This is a shitty situaton for both sides and the charity neglected to follow the 6 P's the military loves to follow: Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

The charity is not the military and is not required to do background checks.


I'm all for legalizaion of marijuana and drugs/prostitution...its crazy that idiotic Christians that believe in an unhealthy fantasy and use that crap to justify women getting beat by pimps and war vets like this guy go to jail and lose his house.

huh? I don't know any Christians that believe in an unhealthy fantasy and using it to justify women getting beat by pimps.

That's a new one.

[Obstructed_View]

And I hate the "War On..." terminology - it's just bullshit dressed up to please hard right wingers who don't understand that the world is complex and full of shades of grey.

All the shades of grey folks are the ones that let shit degenerate until it requires a war. Learn your history.

[Mr. Peabody]

Well if you're just stocking up, then don't plead guilty to the felony charge.

If the amount of marijuana you are dealing with is 12 oz., it's a felony regardless of whether they charge you with intent to distribute or simple possession.

[NBAcourtsweatsweeperupper]

If the amount of marijuana you are dealing with is 12 oz., it's a felony regardless of whether they charge you with intent to distribute or simple possession.

That is a no brainer.

[Blake]

If the amount of marijuana you are dealing with is 12 oz., it's a felony regardless of whether they charge you with intent to distribute or simple possession.

and there you go

case closed.

[Mr. Peabody]

In Missouri where the case took place, you only get the misdemeanor charge if the amount is 35 grams or less.


Possession of 35 grams or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine up to $1,000. Possession of greater than 35 grams is a felony and is punishable by up to seven years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Possession of greater than 30 kilograms is considered trafficking and the penalty is 5 - 15 years in prison. Possession of 100 kilograms or more carries a penalty of 10 years - life in prison.

Sale or manufacture of 5 grams or less of marijuana is a felony, punishable by up to seven years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Sale of greater than 5 grams carries a penalty of 5 - 15 years in prison. Sale of greater than 30 kilograms is punishable by 10 years - life in prison and sale of 100 kilograms or more is punishable by 10 years - life in prison with no probation or parole.

Any sale to a minor increases the penalties by 5 - 15 years in prison. Any sale within 2,000 feet of a school or within 1,000 feet of a public housing project increases the penalties to 10 years - life in prison.

The possession of paraphernalia is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. The sale of paraphernalia is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

When you consider that just one ounce is 28 grams, it's obvious this guy had well over the misdemeanor limit.

[Bartleby]

I probably smoke 12 ounces in a month.

:wow

That's a lot! Are you using it as incense or what?

[Boris]

Talk about a buzz killer.

[Mr. Peabody]

That is what I would have said. There must have been a reason why he pleaded guilty. Those damn court appointed attorneys.

If he has enough money to buy a 65-inch flat screen, he should have been able to hire his own lawyer. Also, I don't think the "It wasn't going to sell it, just smoke it" defense works too well cases where you have a felony amount of pot and a scale.


In October 2007, a police officer pulled West and two friends over for driving without headlights or license plates.

That very day, West said he had cashed the first of his monthly $4,000 disability checks and had gone to an electronics store to buy a 65-inch television, a laptop computer and other electronics. The purchases were in the back of a pickup he'd recently purchased.

On the way home, he picked up a friend, who, West said, had gone to buy marijuana for the group.

The police officer smelled marijuana and asked to search the vehicle. He reported finding 2.5 pounds of marijuana in several containers, a scale and several pipes. (It would later be determined the actual amount of marijuana was less than 12 ounces.) The officer also found $800 in cash on West.

[peewee's lovechild]

And that "GO UTSA" sweatshirt I've always wanted.

:lol:lol

[ploto]

I think part of this story has to be missing because the guy pleaded guilty to this count, leading me to think it was a plea for a lesser charge than the original one (which obviously was even worse).

[ploto]

Possession of greater than 35 grams is a felony and is punishable by up to seven years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
So the guy actually got off with only probabtion.

[J.T.]

:wow

That's a lot! Are you using it as incense or what?

No, I just like being stoned more than I like being sober and I have the budget to support that habit, so why not? I actually do better at work when I'm stoned. I'm up for promotion in about nine days due to some baller work I did a few weeks back while ripped off my ass on the job. And one of my favorite things to do is get baked and drive around south Texas backroads while listening to rock music that came out before I was born. I could probably burn through a pound a month if I wanted to.

[JoeChalupa]

No, I just like being stoned more than I like being sober and I have the budget to support that habit, so why not? I actually do better at work when I'm stoned. I'm up for promotion in about nine days due to some baller work I did a few weeks back while ripped off my ass on the job. And one of my favorite things to do is get baked and drive around south Texas backroads while listening to rock music that came out before I was born. I could probably burn through a pound a month if I wanted to.

Mouse is gonna have a cow. :lmao

[Bigzax]

hey JT, please put me down for a half pound...
hopefully, we'll be in touch, thanks!

:smokin

[JoeChalupa]

I knew Bigzak wouldn't be far behind. :lmao

[JudynTX]

Mouse is gonna have a cow. :lmao

No shit. :lol

[Re-Animator]

Most of all the weed fear is just propaganda started back in the refer madness days.

They said marijuana was a gateway drug but in fact the reason people did other drugs after weed was because when the dealer would show up with the weed he would also have other drugs and therefore most people just out of curiosity would say sure let me try that coke or acid. But to say Weed is a gateway drug to heroin is like saying drinking milk is a gateway to beer.


Look at this great documentary and then come back with your opinions.


kMDVveEZjI8

4WISq1kVGt8

XOnS1zgU7iM

d1A8XUhP7-A

XL4qXjkppJc

iam-qtWe7k4

RXgDs5ybfqs

qVb4qgg9Rkc

T_6rmboZR9s

6ld9yKDBX5A

XnuKjNQvcq0

[mouse]

The Union: The Business Behind Getting High-2007

3HLzmH9VB6A


Highly entertaining as well as informative, The Union takes a look at British Columbia's ever-expanding marijuana industry. Beginning with a brief history of the use of marijuana in North America, director Brett Harvey takes us on a journey that includes interviews with growers, clippers, criminologists, politicians, doctors, police officers and pop culture icons to illuminate the business of BC bud and how it is that such a powerful industry can function so successfully while remaining illegal. With enormous profits to be made, he questions who benefits the most from the current state of affairs and comes up with some not-so-surprising answers.

In examining more closely the propaganda of the anti-marijuana lobby, some unexpected facts and figures surface regarding the health risks of marijuana as well as the economic, agricultural and societal benefits of growing hemp, and the current laws prohibiting such crops in North America. As an industry that brings in seven billion dollars annually, the business of growing and distributing marijuana is even more profitable for those involved on both sides of the law due to the prohibition. The Union is a fascinating and in-depth look at one of BC's most profitable industries and the players involved, from the growers and dealers to pharmaceutical companies and builders of private prisons.


Winner, Outstanding Documentary Feature, 2007 Winnipeg International Film Festival.


This film is nominated for the National Film Board's Best Canadian Documentary Award.

[mouse]

Have you seen any good Documentary's or bad ones you would like to comment on? I was doing a search one night and I downloaded a few.

I know I am behind the times but I saw this month the following Documentaries.


outfoxed

http://www.outfoxed.org/

I found it fascinating to watch given the history of what I already suspected with Fox news. It was refreshing to see I was not alone in my opinions.

HIVnwYGU9Qo



Last night I saw a very entertaining Documentary about ENRON

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1016268/

It was cool to see the behind the scenes of cooperate greed at its best.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=g7z&resnum=0&q=enron%20documentary&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

aERv_sEjkXA

[The Power Hour.]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110683

[Cane]

because they didn't give a free house to a convicted drug dealer?

I doubt it.



The charity is not the military and is not required to do background checks.


Yes they lost PR rep because of this, don't be naive. They didn't follow the 5 P's and deserve to pay for it with their shitty job.




huh? I don't know any Christians that believe in an unhealthy fantasy and using it to justify women getting beat by pimps.

That's a new one.

New one? Not really. This nation is run by idiotic Christians with their own individual agendas. The incredibly inept and unhealthy fantasy Christians preach but rarely practice have shaped the very laws and mindsets of this nation and I strongly believe the Christian mindset and Christians themselves are keeping acts like prostitution illegal. If it was legalized there'd be rules and regulations and pimps would actually face serious legal consequences for their actions rather than letting them practice street justice.

Christianity is one of the major, if not THE major problem in this country.

[Obstructed_View]

Look at this great documentary and then come back with your opinions.


How about a fact?

Pot = Illegal

/thread

[baseline bum]

How about a fact?

Pot = Illegal

/thread

Going to Canada to buy your prescription drugs = illegal too, to protect the profits of our pharmaceutical industry.

I figured a right-winger like you would understand that government is often wrong and often makes laws for stupid or even criminal reasons.

/thread

[baseline bum]

Yes they lost PR rep because of this, don't be naive. They didn't follow the 5 P's and deserve to pay for it with their shitty job.



New one? Not really. This nation is run by idiotic Christians with their own individual agendas. The incredibly inept and unhealthy fantasy Christians preach but rarely practice have shaped the very laws and mindsets of this nation and I strongly believe the Christian mindset and Christians themselves are keeping acts like prostitution illegal. If it was legalized there'd be rules and regulations and pimps would actually face serious legal consequences for their actions rather than letting them practice street justice.

Christianity is one of the major, if not THE major problem in this country.

I don't think you could ever bring pimps to trial. All a pimp does in convince a woman she's not shit and that she needs him, while taking her money. A pimp takes an emotionally fragile woman, fills her head with crap about how the world is such a shitty place, and then cons her into putting him on a pedestal as some shining beacon of hope. A pimp doesn't go out and collect or beat down customers who mistreat his women. He beats the woman down if she doesn't pay him enough; it's on her to handle the violent assholes and the cheapskates. A pimp is the lowest of the low, but the police going after parasitic relationships is going too far IMO, unless the woman is making domestic violence claims. Make no mistake though, pimping will never die whether or not prostitution is legalized.

[mouse]

How about a fact?

Pot = Illegal

/thread


How about another fact?

Using Tim Duncan in your avatar without his permission or written consent of the NBA = Illegal

/Your glass house

[Obstructed_View]

Going to Canada to buy your prescription drugs = illegal too, to protect the profits of our pharmaceutical industry.
That's not actually true, as the laws were changed in 2006 to allow people to purchase a 90 day supply for their own personal use and bring it back into the states, but what's that have to do with this discussion, anyway?


I figured a right-winger like you would understand that government is often wrong and often makes laws for stupid or even criminal reasons.

I figured a dumbass liberal like you would try to change the subject and resort to political rock-throwing when faced with irrefutable facts, or to just cry about laws that he doesn't like as though citizens can pick and choose which ones we follow. If you don't like the law, then work to get it changed, but don't be surprised that people get prosecuted for breaking it.

[baseline bum]

I figured a dumbass liberal like you would try to change the subject and resort to political rock-throwing when faced with irrefutable facts, or to just cry about laws that he doesn't like as though citizens can pick and choose which ones we follow. If you don't like the law, then work to get it changed, but don't be surprised that people get prosecuted for breaking it.

So your side is really full of shit when they say government isn't the solution, it's the problem?

[Obstructed_View]

How about another fact?

Using Tim Duncan in your avatar without his permission or written consent of the NBA = Illegal

/Your glass house

Again, no it's not illegal. But comparing my avatar to felony drug possession is about as sensible as any other argument you've ever made.

[baseline bum]

That's not actually true, as the laws were changed in 2006 to allow people to purchase a 90 day supply for their own personal use and bring it back into the states, but what's that have to do with this discussion, anyway?


Ooh... a whole 90 days if you physically go buy it. Can't have it shipped or you're breaking the law. Everyone can afford that plane ticket to Toronto 4 times a year.

[Obstructed_View]

Ooh... a whole 90 days if you physically go buy it. Can't have it shipped or you're breaking the law. Everyone can afford that plane ticket to Toronto 4 times a year.

Again, what does it have to do with this discussion aside from serving as a warning for people not to trust your fact checking? If the guy had pled guilty to having enough Percodan shipped from Canada for it to be a felony would you still be in here whining?

[baseline bum]

Again, what does it have to do with this discussion aside from serving as a warning for people not to trust your fact checking? If the guy had pled guilty to having enough Percodan shipped from Canada for it to be a felony would you still be in here whining?

What do you mean what does it have to do with the situation? It's an example of our government making bullshit laws to protect the profits of a few, just like with keeping weed illegal to satisfy the tobacco lobby.

[mouse]

Again, no it's not illegal. But comparing my avatar to felony drug possession is about as sensible as any other argument you've ever made.



Not really, If I was to go to jail I would rather tell the other inmates I was there for selling pot than to be there for using Tim Duncan in my avatar. Your just pissed because all the party animals in school got the hot babes and you had to settle for a Janet Reno look a likes.
Don't come in here like your Susan Reed and gives us your Nancy Regan just say no propaganda bullshit. Just admit your pissed your job requires a random drug test and that is why your boring and some what of a turd on line.

[Obstructed_View]

What do you mean what does it have to do with the situation? It's an example of our government making bullshit laws to protect the profits of a few, just like with keeping weed illegal to satisfy the tobacco lobby.

So are you saying that people don't have to follow the laws that they have incorrect facts about? Wow, you must be bullet-proof. :lol

A bullshit law is still a law.

Once more:

/thread

[mouse]

So are you saying that people don't have to follow the laws that they have incorrect facts about? Wow, you must be bullet-proof. :lol

A bullshit law is still a law.

Once more:

/thread


http://wackyiraqi.com/wtf/get_off_your_high_horse.jpg

[baseline bum]

So are you saying that people don't have to follow the laws that they have incorrect facts about? Wow, you must be bullet-proof. :lol

A bullshit law is still a law.

Once more:

/thread

I love your argument. Any time someone points out a law is crap your answer is "shut the fuck and take it". I thought you assholes were for government staying out of peoples' lives?

[mouse]

You want to see Obstructed_View do a 360? have Tim Duncan get caught with a roach in his ashtray and then you will see him turn into Tommy Chong overnight.

[Obstructed_View]

Not really, If I was to go to jail I would rather tell the other inmates I was there for selling pot than to be there for using Tim Duncan in my avatar.
Good, because since putting Tim Duncan in your avatar is NOT ILLEGAL, you'd only be in jail for one of those offenses.


Your just pissed because all the party animals in school got the hot babes and you had to settle for a Janet Reno look a likes.
Yeah, I'm sure they're lining up for you, slick. The only chance you have to be popular is if you get yourself locked up.


Don't come in here like your Susan Reed and gives us your Nancy Regan just say no propaganda bullshit. Just admit your pissed your job requires a random drug test and that is why your boring and some what of a turd on line.
Okay, I won't do that. Instead I'll do the exact same thing I've always been doing and simply pointing out one simple fact: Pot is illegal. If you don't have the fuckin' balls to pay the price when you break a law then maybe you shouldn't break it.

/thread

[mouse]

Pot is illegal. If you don't have the fuckin' balls to pay the price when you break a law then maybe you shouldn't break it.

/thread


Dude I know Cops that aren't as anal as yourself. Do you ever have sex? I bet the last time you got any pussy people where still standing in line for the arrival of the game cube.

[Blake]

Yes they lost PR rep because of this, don't be naive. They didn't follow the 5 P's and deserve to pay for it with their shitty job.

link?



New one? Not really. This nation is run by idiotic Christians with their own individual agendas. The incredibly inept and unhealthy fantasy Christians preach but rarely practice have shaped the very laws and mindsets of this nation and I strongly believe the Christian mindset and Christians themselves are keeping acts like prostitution illegal. If it was legalized there'd be rules and regulations and pimps would actually face serious legal consequences for their actions rather than letting them practice street justice.

so legalizing prostitution would solve whatver pimp street justice problems you think there are out there?

I'm not sure if you are aware, but it is currently illegal to beat women and whoever does so faces serious legal consequences for their actions.

I also don't know any Christians that condone such behavior.

Sometimes I don't know if you are joking or you are just stupid.


Christianity is one of the major, if not THE major problem in this country.

Link?

[Blake]

What do you mean what does it have to do with the situation? It's an example of our government making bullshit laws to protect the profits of a few, just like with keeping weed illegal to satisfy the tobacco lobby.

He's right, it really has nothing to do with this situation.

The provision stated that they have the right to not give the house to a felon.

The guy pleaded guilty and was found with a scale along with the pot in his car.

Yeah, it sucks and the law is BS but this guy should have known the rules if he wanted to keep the house.

[Boris]

NORML should pick up the tab.

[baseline bum]

Obstructed View must have been really pissed off during Jindal's speech a couple of days ago, when he and that sheriff decided people didn't need insurance cards and licenses to use their boats in rescue efforts during Katrina. I mean, it was the law, no matter whether it made any sense at all in that current context.

[Obstructed_View]

Obstructed View must have been really pissed off during Jindal's speech a couple of days ago, when he and that sheriff decided people didn't need insurance cards and licenses to use their boats in rescue efforts during Katrina. I mean, it was the law, no matter whether it made any sense at all in that current context.

You must be really pissed that you have to start inventing things to be superior about just because I destroyed you with one simple fact that had no political opinion attached to it.

[baseline bum]

You must be really pissed that you have to start inventing things to be superior about just because I destroyed you with one simple fact that had no political opinion attached to it.

So Big Brother's always right. :tu

[Summers]

So are you saying that people don't have to follow the laws that they have incorrect facts about? Wow, you must be bullet-proof. :lol

A bullshit law is still a law.

Once more:

/thread

I can't believe I'm taking Mouse's side... but just to play Devil's advocate:


You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Before you say I'm trivializing Dr King's words by using them in this argument, I'd like you to think about how many people get arrested and put in jail/prison for doing something that some people might argue is less dangerous than drinking alcohol.

[baseline bum]

And I hate the "War On..." terminology - it's just bullshit dressed up to please hard right wingers who don't understand that the world is complex and full of shades of grey.

All the shades of grey folks are the ones that let shit degenerate until it requires a war. Learn your history.

I'd like to hear this. Explain how you would have actually made prohibition work. Explain how you'd make laws the people would respect that go against the very nature of the vast majority of people alive in this world.

[The Power Hour.]

I can't believe I'm taking Mouse's side...

Translation: I always agree with mouse I just can't believe I am going to publicly say so! :tu

[Blake]

Before you say I'm trivializing Dr King's words by using them in this argument, I'd like you to think about how many people get arrested and put in jail/prison for doing something that some people might argue is less dangerous than drinking alcohol.

so because drinking alcohol is legal, that is your justification that people should have a moral responsibility to sell pot?

I wonder what the Dr. would think.

[Chief]

Going to a foreign country and killing it's citizens over false WMD is a true crime,
how can weed be compared to that, if killing is ok, smoking is ok

let him keep his house
..This court is adjourned.

[Blake]

Going to a foreign country and killing it's citizens over false WMD is a true crime,
how can weed be compared to that, if killing is ok, smoking is ok

let him keep his house
..This court is adjourned.

killing is ok in your court?

[Chief]

killing is ok in your court?

hell no that's why i sad it's a true crime

but killing people is ok , ok as in allowable by a soldier of the armed forces , but for him to smoke some weed to relieve himself is not , it's stupid.

[Blake]

hell no that's why i sad it's a true crime

you also said that if killing is ok then smoking is ok.

if killing is actually not ok, then......?


but killing people is ok , ok as in allowable by a soldier of the armed forces , but for him to smoke some weed to relieve himself is not , it's stupid.

I think weed should be legalized, but not because a soldier that puts himself on the line should be able to relieve himself.

[ploto]

Did someone really compare selling drugs to opposing segregation? I really don't think this guy was taking a moral stand with his pounds of pot and a scale.

To get back to the original story: This is a private entity and they can set the criteria under which they give a house away and they clearly will not give it to a convicted felon. If he has such a strong moral stand against the drug laws of this country, he will gladly sacrifice material gain for his moral victory.

[Blake]

Did someone really compare selling drugs to opposing segregation? I really don't think this guy was taking a moral stand with his pounds of pot and a scale.

To get back to the original story: This is a private entity and they can set the criteria under which they give a house away and they clearly will not give it to a convicted felon. If he has such a strong moral stand against the drug laws of this country, he will gladly sacrifice material gain for his moral victory.

that's pretty much it right there

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Let's see, as a proxy for general harm caused by various lifestyle factors, deaths from:

cigarettes - 435k/yr
inactivity and poor diet - 400k/yr
alcohol - 85k/yr
illicit drugs - 17k/yr

So why not outlaw fast food, cigarettes and alcohol, and make exercise compulsory for all Americans?

The War on Drugs is about protecting the status quo - entrenched alcohol and cigarette lobbies reinforce the policy. It has nothing to do with the actual harm caused by illegal drugs, nor does it make sense from a law enforcement or health perspective: if something like marijuana were legalised and regulated, police could concentrate on real crime (if you think a person smoking a bit of weed is a real crime you need to check your head and ask yourself how it is any different from having a few drinks), prisons wouldn't be overcrowded to breaking point, and the health budget would be swimming in money from tax revenue. You'd also take hundreds of billions of dollars from the hands of organised crime and transfer it to the Federal Govt budget.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Let's see, as a proxy for general harm caused by various lifestyle factors, deaths from:

cigarettes - 435k/yr
inactivity and poor diet - 400k/yr
alcohol - 85k/yr
illicit drugs - 17k/yr

So why not outlaw fast food, cigarettes and alcohol, and make exercise compulsory for all Americans?

The War on Drugs is about protecting the status quo - entrenched alcohol and cigarette lobbies reinforce the policy. It has nothing to do with the actual harm caused by illegal drugs, nor does it make sense from a law enforcement or health perspective: if something like marijuana were legalised and regulated, police could concentrate on real crime (if you think a person smoking a bit of weed is a real crime you need to check your head and ask yourself how it is any different from having a few drinks), prisons wouldn't be overcrowded to breaking point, and the health budget would be swimming in money from tax revenue. You'd also take hundreds of billions of dollars from the hands of organised crime and transfer it to the Federal Govt budget.

[Earth]

Let's see, as a proxy for general harm caused by various lifestyle factors, deaths from:

cigarettes - 435k/yr
inactivity and poor diet - 400k/yr
alcohol - 85k/yr
illicit drugs - 17k/yr

So why not outlaw fast food, cigarettes and alcohol, and make exercise compulsory for all Americans?

The War on Drugs is about protecting the status quo - entrenched alcohol and cigarette lobbies reinforce the policy. It has nothing to do with the actual harm caused by illegal drugs, nor does it make sense from a law enforcement or health perspective: if something like marijuana were legalised and regulated, police could concentrate on real crime (if you think a person smoking a bit of weed is a real crime you need to check your head and ask yourself how it is any different from having a few drinks), prisons wouldn't be overcrowded to breaking point, and the health budget would be swimming in money from tax revenue. You'd also take hundreds of billions of dollars from the hands of organised crime and transfer it to the Federal Govt budget.

:tu

[Boris]

"You'd also take hundreds of billions of dollars from the hands of organised crime and transfer it to the Federal Govt budget."


So move it from one criminal element to another? I better fire it up before that happens and the price goes through the roof!!

[Obstructed_View]

I can't believe I'm taking Mouse's side... but just to play Devil's advocate:



Before you say I'm trivializing Dr King's words by using them in this argument, I'd like you to think about how many people get arrested and put in jail/prison for doing something that some people might argue is less dangerous than drinking alcohol.

You should probably go back and read my posts and then look up the definition of "civil disobedience", because coupled with disobeying an unjust law is the willingness to serve the penalty for breaking it.

[Obstructed_View]

So Big Brother's always right. :tu

All that pot must have rendered you unable to focus. This has nothing to do with George Orwell. Keep your eye on the topic.

[Summers]

For the record, I wasn't comparing pot laws with segregation laws, except to point out that holding up a law simply because it's a law is circular logic.

[baseline bum]

All that pot must have rendered you unable to focus. This has nothing to do with George Orwell. Keep your eye on the topic.

You've learned well, young Republican, in the ways of ignoring logic and hiding behind stupid antiquated ideas. Still, tell me how you'd make prohibition work and quit being such a pussy, since you said shades of gray thought is the reason we need to have a full war on drugs in the first place.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

"You'd also take hundreds of billions of dollars from the hands of organised crime and transfer it to the Federal Govt budget."

So move it from one criminal element to another? I better fire it up before that happens and the price goes through the roof!!

Running a massive deficit, and a dangerous debt load (public debt is over $10trillion, compared to GDP of about $14trillion, which is far over 40%, the point at which economists say the debt becomes a concern), your government needs all the fiscal help it can get! :lmao

As for legalisation and regulation, that doesn't mean the government runs the business, it just sets the rules for the business. Any legalisation of drugs would necessarily require those drugs to be far cheaper than the black market, coupled with stated purity, in order to "capture the market". However, this is not a problem as drugs cost a tiny proportion to produce compared to what you pay for them.

[Obstructed_View]

You've learned well, young Republican, in the ways of ignoring logic and hiding behind stupid antiquated ideas. Still, tell me how you'd make prohibition work and quit being such a pussy, since you said shades of gray thought is the reason we need to have a full war on drugs in the first place.

Suggesting that those who break the law shouldn't whine when they are punished is a stupid antiquated idea? I'm not exactly sure how you infer that I'm a republican because of that, but you are, as usual, wrong. Not surprising from someone who's threatened by the idea of an old lady telling children that they shouldn't take drugs or who rails against the drug companies while suggesting that they should take over the narcotics trade. :lol

I care little to nothing about this debate. I only check the thread because it's funny seeing you guys pee your panties and read nefarious ulterior motives into my having stated one simple fact.

[J.T.]

It's a bit of green, for fucksake. Who cares? The "War on Drugs" is a freakin joke. Dope is no worse than alcohol, and to punish people for smoking it is a travesty.

Wow, I haven't heard anyone refer to weed as "dope" in years. These days "dope" is dually applied to heroin and meth but you never hear it in reference to weed anymore. "Reefer" and "Ganja" are dying too.

[Obstructed_View]

Wow, I haven't heard anyone refer to weed as "dope" in years. These days "dope" is dually applied to heroin and meth but you never hear it in reference to weed anymore. "Reefer" and "Ganja" are dying too.

How about doobage and groob?

[J.T.]

True story. Two days ago I was driving down this quiet road with little traffic into town. I like driving in that way because I can smoke my pipe in my car and not run into any trouble. Well on that day I was hitting my pipe as I turned a corner, and wouldn't you know a cop turned the corner coming the other direction at the same time. I quickly tossed my pipe on the floor and stashed the bag in a cargo hold I typically use for smuggling spices for Jabba the Hutt. Lucky for me, the cop kept going but as soon as he was out of sight I made sure to burn enough rubber to put distance between us to not get caught. That happened to me once before, but in a neighborhood and the cop actually did turn around and I was able to lose him with a few quick turns and gtfo of there.

[J.T.]

How about doobage and groob?

Actually, one of my father's friends always busts my balls for smoking cigarettes whenever I see him. He's recently started saying "You been smoking the doobage too boy?" and it kind of pisses me off since this guy was a career stoner until he got married.

[baseline bum]

Suggesting that those who break the law shouldn't whine when they are punished is a stupid antiquated idea? I'm not exactly sure how you infer that I'm a republican because of that, but you are, as usual, wrong. Not surprising from someone who's threatened by the idea of an old lady telling children that they shouldn't take drugs or who rails against the drug companies while suggesting that they should take over the narcotics trade. :lol

I care little to nothing about this debate. I only check the thread because it's funny seeing you guys pee your panties and read nefarious ulterior motives into my having stated one simple fact.

The antiquated notion is that you can enforce prohibition. Nice way to punk out. No nuts, no glory. I knew you were full of shit when you made your idiotic statement about the need for the all-out war on drugs that you cannot justify in any meaningful way. Might as well just keep your mouth shut in the thread if you can't elaborate on your idea.