AP: Marijuana decriminalization bill to be offered in Congress

[Winehole23]

no chance of passing, nonetheless it's newsworthy that legalization is being proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.


An effort is building in Congress to change U.S. marijuana laws, including moves to legalize the industrial production of hemp and establish a hefty federal pot tax.

While passage this year could be a longshot, lawmakers from both parties have been quietly working on several bills, the first of which Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jared Polis of Colorado plan to introduce Tuesday, Blumenauer told The Associated Press.


Polis' measure would regulate marijuana the way the federal government handles alcohol: In states that legalize pot, growers would have to obtain a federal permit. Oversight of marijuana would be removed from the Drug Enforcement Administration and given to the newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, and it would remain illegal to bring marijuana from a state where it's legal to one where it isn't.
The bill is based on a legalization measure previously pushed by former Reps. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul of Texas.


Blumenauer's bill would create a federal marijuana excise tax of 50 percent on the "first sale" of marijuana - typically, from a grower to a processor or retailer. It also would tax pot producers or importers $1,000 annually and other marijuana businesses $500.

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2020285860_apusmarijuanacongress.html

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If the feds wanna tax weed and regulate the hell out of it, fine by me, but that means it should be legalized at the national level.

It's gonna be hilarious if any of these bills make it to a vote and we start seeing all the tea baggers who preach small government lobbying to keep it illegal.

[boutons_deux]

"a hefty federal pot tax."

it shouldn't be any more than taxes on alcohol.

do you need a federal permit to make "craft beer", home wine? will you need a federal permit to grow a few mj plants for home consumption?

The alcohol industry, as we saw in CA's defeated mj proposition, owns enough politicians, federal and state, to block mj liberalization.

The puritanical "Christians", many of whom drink alcohol, will help block mj liberalization.

[Winehole23]

matter of time, tbh. time and policy aren't static, as you often suggest.

[boutons_deux]

Federal Court Denies Lawsuit Claiming Marijuana's Medical Benefits

a federal appeals court on Jan. 22 rejected a lawsuit intended to force the Drug Enforcement Administration to move marijuana out of Schedule I, the federal law that classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug with no valid medical use.


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that the medical-marijuana advocates who filed the suit—Americans for Safe Access, a California-based patient-advocacy group; the Coalition to Reschedule Cannabis, Patients Out of Time, and four individual medical users, including Air Force veteran Michael Krawitz—had not proved that the DEA’s decision to keep marijuana in Schedule I was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court held that marijuana had failed to meet the five standards the DEA sets for drugs to qualify as having a valid medical use.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/federal-court-denies-lawsuit-claiming-marijuanas-medical-benefits

With corporate money, the politicians its owns, and a compliant judiciary and the $Bs pocketed by the PIC from mj enforcement, plus the entire stat-padding police force against, the barriers to mj liberalization, even for medical purposes, ARE effectively "static", immovable.

[TeyshaBlue]

matter of time, tbh. time and policy aren't static, as you often suggest.

Troof.

[boutons_deux]

Troof.

We'll see, unknown for now, how the DoJ reacts to WA and CO. If a Barry's Dem DoJ prosecutes WA and CO mj offenders, then you know damn well a Repug DoJ will, too.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002481

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

The states' liberalizations are useless if DoJ blocks them.

Many stories like this one:

Montana medical marijuana grower gets 5 years in federal prisonhttp://missoulian.com/news/local/medical-marijuana-grower-gets-years-in-federal-prison/article_89211f90-6ca5-11e2-aa17-001a4bcf887a.html

[leemajors]

They are growing hemp in CO, I am more interested to see what DoJ may do about that.

[Th'Pusher]

They are growing hemp in CO, I am more interested to see what DoJ may do about that.
Related: http://www.npr.org/2013/01/28/170300215/hemp-gets-the-green-light-in-new-colorado-pot-measure

[boutons_deux]

USA is the ONLY industrial country that criminalizes hemp growing. America really, really tries to be stupid, and succeeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

[Winehole23]

DOJ backs sentencing reform. the position is advisory, but nevertheless newsworthy:


The Justice Department is formally backing a proposal (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/sesentencing-commission-reform-retroactive_n_5412762.html?1401394974) being considered by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that would shorten the amount of time that federal drug offenders currently behind bars would have to spend in prison.

The proposal would apply only to nonviolent drug offenders and would be expected to save taxpayers $2.4 billion (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/sesentencing-commission-reform-retroactive_n_5412762.html?1401394974). The U.S. Sentencing Commission, which already approved a proposal to lower certain drug sentencing guidelines, will vote next month on whether to make those changes retroactive.


“Under the department’s proposal, if your offense was nonviolent, did not involve a weapon, and you do not have a significant criminal history, then you would be eligible to apply for a reduced sentence in accordance with the new rules approved by the Commission in April,” Attorney General Eric Holder, who has made criminal justice reform a priority (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/eric-holder-smart-on-crime_n_5339035.html) in the second term of the Obama administration, said in a statement.


“Not everyone in prison for a drug-related offense would be eligible," Holder continued. "Nor would everyone who is eligible be guaranteed a reduced sentence. But this proposal strikes the best balance between protecting public safety and addressing the overcrowding of our prison system that has been exacerbated by unnecessarily long sentences.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/doj-drug-sentences_n_5479049.html

[boutons_deux]

The NV shooter loser's life really went downhill after he was busted for selling mj to family and friends, so he claims. Lost his job, etc, etc, no prospects, blamed the govt, etc, etc.

Would 2 cops be alive if mj were decriminalized?

Of course, cops everywhere love mj because it helps them JimCrow blacks and browns and run their arrest quota.

[boutons_deux]

Obama can move mj from Schedule I to Schedule lower, or even off the Schedule completely.

[Winehole23]

OTOH, DEA threatens doctors with ties to dispensaries:


Federal agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration are being accused of threatening doctors affiliated with medical marijuana dispensaries in Massachusetts, allegedly telling them they would lose their federal licenses to prescribe medications unless they cut their ties to marijuana firms.

The Boston Globe (http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/05/drug-enforcement-administration-targets-doctors-associated-with-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-physicians-say/PHsP0zRlaxXwnDazsohIOL/story.html?rss_id=Top-GNP) and MassLive.com (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/dea_targeting_doctors_linked_t.html) reported on the apparent crackdown Friday, with the Globe finding at least three doctors who had allegedly been visited at their homes or offices by DEA agents.


Dr. Samuel Mazza, chief executive of the Debilitating Medical Conditions Treatment Centers, which has preliminary state approval to open a medical marijuana dispensary, told the Globe that he came back from vacation in February and found a DEA business card on the door of his home and several messages on his answering machine. Mazza accused DEA investigator Gregory Kelly of spelling out his options quite directly.


“You either give up your [DEA] license or give up your position on the board ... or you challenge it in court," Mazza said Kelly told him. The doctor ultimately decided to surrender his prescription license since he didn't really need it in his part-time job performing surgeries at a Veterans Affairs medical center, but the Globe reported that at least two other doctors have given up their positions with medical marijuana firms.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/dea-doctors-medical-marijuana-_n_5460077.html

[boutons_deux]

Sheldon Adelson Bankrolls Florida Anti-Medical Marijuana Campaign With $2.5 Million Donation (http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2014/06/11/sheldon-adelson-bankrolls-florida-anti-medical-marijuana-initiative-with-2-5-million-donation/)


http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2014/06/11/sheldon-adelson-bankrolls-florida-anti-medical-marijuana-initiative-with-2-5-million-donation/

[boutons_deux]

War on Drugs is a PIC business

How the Government Bribes Police to Arrest People For Smoking Pot

Activists have long claimed that cops have quotas for ticketing and arresting people, but evidence to support those claims varies from state to state. However, newly obtained documents reveal that local police agencies have indeed used the number of low-level drug arrests to sustain critical law enforcement funding from the federal government under a program called the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program.

You may have heard of the Byrne Grant program from Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crowe. Alexander writes,

“The Byrne program was designed to encourage every federal grant recipient to help fight the War on Drugs. Millions of dollars in federal aid have been offered to state and local law enforcement agencies willing to wage the war.”


Scholars say the program has had a major impact on the precipitous rise of low-level drug arrests over the last twenty years.

“This money has helped reshape policing strategies and policies in major cities and a lot of rural areas throughout the United States,” says Harry Levine, a sociologist at Queens College, CUNY, who has studied drug policy for decades. “Although the government claims goes toward apprehending high level traffickers, it’s often very low level people who get arrested. It targets low-income people and people of color much more than anyone understands.”

Nationwide, reforming our bloated prison system—the largest in the world—and the drug laws that fed its growth is coming into vogue, after decades of either willful ignorance or complicity by political and media establishments. Yet little attention is being given to pieces of the apparatus that sustain racist and class-based patterns of arrests and prosecutions. The Byrne grant program may well be at the heart of this arrangement.

Launched in 1988, the Byrne grant program was most recently invigorated in 2009 with $2 billion from President Obama’s signature recovery act. Here’s how it works: At the beginning of every fiscal year, states participating in the program receive a certain amount of funds from the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance. The money first goes to the highest criminal justice agency in a given state (for example, the State Division Criminal Justice Services in New York), which then doles out the money to local precincts based on a competitive application process. At the end of the fiscal year, a state’s criminal justice agency must submit a “state annual report” to the federal government indicating how the Byrne funds were spent, using certain “performance measures” to show productivity and qualify for renewed funding.

These performance measures are universal across all states, and have not changed in the program’s 26-year existence. And here’s what they are, taken directly from one of the reports:
http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/performance_measures.jpg
Source: Tennessee 2004 Byrne Annual Report

The Marijuana Arrest Research Project obtained a total of 20 state annual reports from 10 states and territories. The documents span from fiscal year 2000 to 2013. Across all the reports, we found similar trends. Below are some of our most significant findings.
[B]
1. Marijuana related arrests and seizures are, by far, the most common “productivity measure” across states

In the reports we examined, states listed the raw volume of drugs seized to show productivity. In nearly all of the reports, the amount of cannabis seized significantly dwarfs all other drugs. Here's a typical example from Missouri's state annual report showing total volume of drugs seized:

http://www.alternet.org/files/screen_shot_2014-06-10_at_4.26.42_pm_0.png

We also discovered that the simple possession of marijuana is, overall among all states examined, the most frequent arrest and conviction cited as a productivity measure. Here's a chart showing top drug arrests and prosecutions in Arizona in 2013:

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/arrests_by_drug_type.jpg
http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/prosecution_activity.jpg
Source: Arizona 2013 Edge Report (its version of Byrne Annual Reports)

Culling together data from Byrne grant state annual reports and a 2013 ACLU report called “Marijuana Arrests in Black and White” reveals an ugly reality about the war on drugs: through the promise of Byrne grant funding, the federal government is using tax dollars that incentivize local police forces to arrest non-criminal young men of color.

The ACLU report reveals that nationwide, the number of marijuana-related arrests rose 18% between 2001 and 2010, and of those, 7 million (out of 8 million) were for simple possession. In 2010, over half (52%) of all drug arrests were for marijuana, and of those, 88% were for simple possession.

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/number_of_arrests_for_marijuana_possession.jpg
Source: ACLU

Even more startling, the ACLU report notes that blacks are nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested for marijuana possession (data on Latino marijuana arrests is inconclusive due to outdated modes of categorizing arrestees by race). Furthermore, 71% of all marijuana possession arrestees were between the ages of 16 and 29, and 6% were 15 or younger.

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/breakdown_of_marijuana_possession_arrests.jpg
Source: ACLU

The state annual reports do not usually break down arrests by any sort of personal identifies—race, age, etc.—but a cross comparison with the ACLU’s data, along with a trip to any probation office or jailhouse in the country, more than affirms the assertion that Byrne dollars create motives to arrest black and brown youth, saddling them with all the baggage that comes with an arrest and possible criminal conviction. But no matter to the police: they get paid to haul in people for low-level drug crimes, and for some officers, their jobs literally depend on making those arrests.

2. Police used Byrne grant funds for officer payroll

Byrne grant money is officially meant for special narcotics squads called multijurisdictional task forces, but the money can also be allotted to prosecutors and police officers, especially in the service of drug crime. Although Byrne money can be put toward non-enforcement endeavors like drug treatment, courts, and crime prevention, the vast majority (https://www.bja.gov/Publications/JAG_Spending_Report_03-13.pdf) [3] of Byrne money is spent on “law enforcement.”

Some of the state annual reports are surprisingly candid about how necessary the Byrne money is for sustaining certain law enforcement operations. This is from Missouri’s 2013 report:

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/missouri_2013_byrne_annual_report.jpg
Source: Missouri 2013 Byrne Annual Report

Similar language is found in Iowa’s 2006 report:

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/iowa_2006_byrne_annual_report.jpg

Source: Iowa 2006 Byrne Annual Report 2013

New York’s 2013 report notes that a whole investigative unit was supported with Byrne money. Although many would agree that violent crimes should be investigated, keep in mind how often states use low-level possession arrests to keep the spigot of salary-sustaining federal money flowing.

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/ny_2013_byrne_report.jpg
Source: New York 2013 Byrne Annual Report

Louisiana’s 2013 state annual report shows that federal funds were used to subsidizethousands of overtime hours for dozens of officers in a twelve-month period, and officers themselves noted how invaluable those hours were to the livelihoods of their officers:

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/louisiana_byrne_report.jpg
http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/louisiana_byrne_report_2.jpg
Source: Louisiana 2013 Byrne Annual Report

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the more low-level drug arrests cops make, the more assured their federal funds will be, and the more stable the salaries of officers will remain.

But it isn’t only overtime hours that Byrne money pays for: local police have also used federal dollars to buy virtually any kind of equipment they need, rendering the funds even more sacrosanct.

3. Cash-starved precincts use Byrne funds to seize and buy anything they need

As states have cut funding to virtually all public services in the last few years, subsidies from Washington have become even more critical to police, according to the reports we examined.
“With Byrne grant money,” says Harry Levine, “the police can buy all kinds of stuff - police cars, bullet proof vests, computers, bullets - buy whatever they want.” The state annual reports confirm just that.

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/lleg_program.jpg
Source: Missouri 2013 Byrne Annual Report

Many of the firearms obtained through Byrne grant funding aren’t directly purchased with the funds; rather, the federal dollars pay for programs that enable cops to seize weapons from people they apprehend. Even if those arrested are acquitted on all charges, police can still keep anything they confiscate in the course of making an arrest, under an overarching policy called civil asset forfeiture.

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/asset_seizures.jpg
Source: Arizona 2013 Edge Report (its version of Byrne Annual Reports)

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/ny_2013_byrne_annual_report.jpg
Source: New York 2013 Byrne Annual Report

Budget tightening has made federal dollars even more precious. Missouri’s 2013 state annual report explicitly makes that point:

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/kansas_city_police_department.jpg
Source: Missouri 2013 Byrne Annual Report

In rural communities, where funds for law enforcement are slim, Byrne money is even more critical than for urban places:

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/idaho_2003_byrne_annual_report_.jpg
Source: Idaho 2003 Byrne Annual Report

To summarize: states can only renew their Byrne grant funding if they impress the government with their state annual reports. States show they’re putting funds to good use by touting the number of drug arrests made and prosecutions opened, along with the volume of assets and drugs seized. This funding lifeline has shifted policing tactics to focus heavily on the apprehension of low-level drug offenders, especially on those in possession of the most benign and abundant illegal drug: marijuana.

Data from the ACLU shows that the overwhelming majority of those arrested for minor marijuana possession are non-white youth. These young people are the cash cows that police apprehend in order to fatten arrest statistics submitted in state annual reports. Without these arrests, police in cash-strapped states could not sustain federal funding for vital priorities: overtime salaries, vehicles, ballistic vests, and so on.

Any program that pegs law enforcement funding to a raw volume of arrests and prosecutions, without acknowledging systemic racial and class-based biases in policing, will inevitably exacerbate and perpetuate the racial disparities that exist at every level of our criminal justice system. The Byrne grant program not only demands the arrest and prosecution of low-level offenders, but also ties the livelihoods of dozens of police precincts across the country to those numbers. If we are ready to undo the harm wrought by decades of aggressive policing and incarceration, then we must decide to finally kill the Byrne grant program.

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-government-bribes-police-arrest-people-smoking-pot

[boutons_deux]

Yes, We Can ... nabis

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the legalization of marijuana is inevitable. We’ll soon find out if they’re right.

Voters in Alaska and possibly Oregon will decide this November whether their states will join Colorado and Washington in legalizing the commercial sale and recreational use of pot. Similar initiatives are at varying stages in more than a half-dozen other states—Nevada, Arizona, and California among them—where advocates are looking toward 2016, when they hope the presidential election will turn out enough liberals to push those efforts across the finish line. All told, more than 1 in 5 Americans live in states where marijuana use has a legitimate chance to become legal between now and when President Obama leaves office.

It’s not just at the ballot box where the pro-pot crowd is putting points on the board. Lawmakers in at least 40 states have eased at least some drug laws since 2009, according to a recent Pew Research Center analysis (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/02/feds-may-be-rethinking-the-drug-war-but-states-have-been-leading-the-way/). According to the Marijuana Policy Project (http://www.mpp.org/states/key-marijuana-policy-reform.html), proposals to treat pot like alcohol have been introduced in 18 states and the District of Columbia this year alone. Meanwhile, 16 states have already decriminalized marijuana, according to the pro-pot group NORML—Maryland will become the 17th in October. In large swaths of the country getting caught with a small amount of weed at a concert is now roughly the same as getting a speeding ticket on the way to the show. While not leading the charge, the Obama administration is allowing states the chance to experiment.

The feds have given a qualified greenlight to Colorado and Washington to dabble in recreational weed, and have even taken small steps to encourage banks to do business with those companies involved in the quasi-legal pot trade.

...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/06/marijuana_legalization_will_weed_soon_be_legal_eve rywhere_in_the_united.html

Will BigAlcohol, the PIC, BigPolice, BigPuritan/Baptist keep the War on Drugs going?

[boutons_deux]

Limiting DEA’s Reach: House Votes on Bills Allowing States to Grow Hemp W/O Interference

After Kentucky’s recent dance with the DEA over confiscated hemp seeds, it is clear that an amendment (http://ssdp.org/assets/MASSIE_022_xml.pdf) is needed to keep the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from interfering in industrial hemp cultivation.

Recently, the U.S. House voted on two amendments that would prohibit the DEA from over-stepping their boundaries when it comes to cultivation – a right states were already granted in the recent Farm Bill changes.

States have already been granted hemp (http://naturalsociety.com/hemp/) cultivation rights, and shouldn’t have to worry about the DEA militants taking their seed from them, to be held for unknown periods, and interfering with planting seasons and the important timing for starting hemp seedlings.

Twelve states—California, Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia—currently have laws to provide for hemp production as described by the Farm Bill stipulations (http://www.ncsl.org/research/agriculture-and-rural-development/state-industrial-hemp-statutes.aspx). As long as the hemp grown has low levels of THC – the chemical compound of cannabis that is responsible for the ‘high’ – the DEA has no reason to interfere.


One amendment would prohibit the Department of Justice (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/industrial-hemp-amendments_n_5411440.html), including its DEA arm, from importing hemp seeds and conducting research on the crop. The amendment is to the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4660), which controls the DEA’s budget, and was offered by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

Amendment number two (HR 4660 (http://ssdp.org/assets/BONAMI_045_xml.pdf)), presented by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) keeps the DEA from spending federal funds to prevent states from growing hemp, implementing its own laws to govern its cultivation, distribution, possession, and use.

http://naturalsociety.com/limiting-deas-reach-house-vote-week-bills-allow-states-go-grow-hemp-without-interference/

[CavsSuperFan]

Lawmakers in Jamaica are now considering a bill that would legalize marijuana...In related news, lawmakers in Italy are considering a bill to legalize spaghetti, and lawmakers in Ireland are considering a bill to legalize whiskey...

[Wild Cobra]

Lawmakers in Jamaica are now considering a bill that would legalize marijuana...In related news, lawmakers in Italy are considering a bill to legalize spaghetti, and lawmakers in Ireland are considering a bill to legalize whiskey...
Who would ever be against "water of life" except for the USA?

[boutons_deux]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Anslinger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937

[Winehole23]

The Supreme Judicial Court Wednesday said that because voters decriminalized small amounts of marijuana in 2008, police officers in Massachusetts can no longer rely on the odor of unburnt marijuana to justify searching a person’s car.

In two unanimous rulings, the state’s highest court said they had already decided in 2011 that the odor of smoked marijuana by itself did not provide police with probable cause to stop people on the street or search the vehicles people are riding in.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/09/sjc-odor-unburnt-marijuana-cannot-justify-police-search-person-car/OpBSEn0BJrZlBwJSMQpbvO/story.html

[Winehole23]

The U.S. House of Representatives approved an amendment Wednesday afternoon that will make it easier for legitimate marijuana businesses operating in states where the drug has been legalized to obtain financial services.

The House passed the Heck-Perlmutter-Lee-Rohrabacher amendment -- or “Heck amendment” -- to the H.R. 5016 spending bill by a vote of 231-192. The amendment blocks the Securities and Exchange Commission and Treasury Department from spending money to penalize banks and other financial institutions for working with pot businesses that do not break state law.

http://www.ibtimes.com/pro-marijuana-banking-amendment-passes-house-1630408

[boutons_deux]

In the first five months of legal retail sales, Colorado dispensaries sold about $90 million worth of recreational marijuana, The Denver Post reported (http://www.thecannabist.co/2014/07/09/colorado-marijuana-consumption-estimate-130-metric-tons-study-medical-marijuana-recreational/16000/) Thursday.
Yet it was still outsold by its medical counterpart, which has been legal in the state since 2000. Medical marijuana brought in about $165 million (http://www.thecannabist.co/2014/07/09/colorado-marijuana-consumption-estimate-130-metric-tons-study-medical-marijuana-recreational/16000/) in revenue during the same January-through-May period.

According to a May report (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1252008576389&ssbinary=true) from the Colorado Department of Revenue, the state earned about $35 million in taxes, licensing and other fees from both recreational and medical marijuana sales in the first 11 months of the past fiscal year (which ran from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/colorado-marijuana-revenue_n_5574650.html

Repugs and tea baggers will block mj legislation because it "increases tax revenue" :)

[Winehole23]

Repugs just passed the Heck amendment in the US House.

so much for the monolithic, lockstep VRWC.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs just passed the Heck amendment in the US House.

so much for the monolithic, lockstep VRWC.

Heck restricts the govt ability to police/prosecute banks, IN LOCKSTEP with Repug/tea bagger/VRWC strategy to emasculate govt.

[Winehole23]

lol boutons defending the ability of the US Treasury to punish banks who do business with (legal at the state level) pot dispensaries.

true colors.

:lol boutons the drug warrior.

[boutons_deux]

lol boutons defending the ability of the US Treasury to punish banks who do business with (legal at the state level) pot dispensaries.

true colors.

:lol boutons the drug warrior.

what?

[Winehole23]

Heck restricts the govt ability to police/prosecute banksdon't you read your own posts? don't forget, others can...

[Winehole23]

prosecuting banks for doing business with legal (at the state level) pot dispensaries? topicality, hello?

[boutons_deux]

Heck restricts the govt ability to police/prosecute banks

don't you read your own posts? don't forget, others can...

RIF, "Heck restricts the govt ability to police/prosecute banks", RIF.

My point is that the Repugs voted FOR Heck because it RESTRICTS (SELECTIVELY) LAW ENFORCEMENT by the DEM EXEC from interfering with the Repugs' owners and their profits.

[Winehole23]

drug warrior when it suits you, like i said

[boutons_deux]

drug warrior when it suits you, like i said

You Lie

Link where I'm FOR the drug war.

Repugs voting for HECK aren't AGAINST the drug war, they get $Ms from BigAlcohol and BigPharma and BigPolice and BigPIC to be FOR the drug war. The Repugs are FOR their benefactors the BigBanks.

[Winehole23]

you criticize Republicans for allowing banks to do business with pot dispensaries. do you prefer the status quo ante?

[boutons_deux]

you criticize Republicans for allowing banks to do business with pot dispensaries. do you prefer the status quo ante?

two separate issues, my confused little bitch.

Repugs don't GAF about mj, or your status quo ante. They only care about, in HECK, blocking the Exec's law enforcement, and enriching/protecting their banking benefactors.

[Winehole23]

you're the one who's cracked my friend: you pretend to be on both sides of the fence.

[boutons_deux]

you're the one who's cracked my friend: you pretend to be on both sides of the fence.

absolutely not. I'm talking about the Repugs, not myself

[Winehole23]

tens of thousands could have their sentences shortened retroactively:


Amid all the far-flung examples given about the Obama administration’s hatred for the rule of law and the “imperial presidency,” there’s one issue that’s largely flown under the radar: Eric Holder and the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s attempts to reduce the prison sentences of non-violent drug criminals during the administration’s second term.


The Sentencing Commission, which recommends guidelines for federal crimes that judges look to when applying sentences, voted earlier this year to alter its formula for certain non-violent drug trafficking sentences — in effect lowering those sentences. Those guidelines go into place this November, barring congressional action to block them.


On Friday, the Sentencing Commission made an even more dramatic move: it voted, unanimously, (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/07/18/vote-makes-early-release-possible-for-nearly-50000-prisoners/) to apply full retroactivity of the new guidelines to those sentenced before they go into effect. Once again, unless Congress gets in the way, some 46,000 prisoners — about a quarter of the federal prison population — will be able to petition judges to have their sentences reduced, perhaps by a matter of years. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/drug-sentencing-retroactivity_n_5600121.html)http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/drug_wars_massive_defeat_an_under_the_radar_early_ release_transformation/

[boutons_deux]

I hope shortened means "release immediately", but I'm sure the for-profit PIC has 100s of lawyers lined up to challenge, string out every case.

[Winehole23]

NYT calls for legalization: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html?ref=opinion&_r=3

[Shastafarian]

NYT calls for legalization: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html?ref=opinion&_r=3

Hopefully the movement continues to gain steam. Tobacco and alcohol lobbyists, at least I assume, are the main opposition to legalization. The revenue + money saved from legalization are just too overwhelming for any reasonable opposition IMO.

[Winehole23]

there's no requirement that support of opposition to anything has to be reasonable, but yeah. it should be a no-brainer.

[Shastafarian]

there's no requirement that support of opposition to anything has to be reasonable, but yeah. it should be a no-brainer.

No doubt but you'd think without reasonable opposition, something will eventually come to fruition. I think in the next 5 years there will be nationwide legislation on legalization (not just decriminalization). I think bigpharma will even play a role in that since more research is being done on anti-cancer effects of THC.

[Wild Cobra]

Blumenauer is my representative, and I voted for him in the last election.

https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/689

https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/501

[boutons_deux]

Legalize pot? Feds could at least loosen up on medical marijuana
http://www.trbimg.com/img-53d6d039/turbine/la-ol-legalize-pot-medical-marijuana-20140728-001/750/16x9
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-legalize-pot-medical-marijuana-20140728-story.html

[Th'Pusher]

Texas Sheriff's Association comes out against legalization...shocking

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/07/29/texas-sheriffs-association-against-legalization-of-marijuana/

[boutons_deux]

Texas Sheriff's Association comes out against legalization...shocking

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/07/29/texas-sheriffs-association-against-legalization-of-marijuana/

marijuana is a business, a quota filler, for law enforcement.

[Shastafarian]

Texas Sheriff's Association comes out against legalization...shocking

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/07/29/texas-sheriffs-association-against-legalization-of-marijuana/

huge oversight on my part when I labeled tobacco and alcohol lobbyists as the main opposition. Neglected to think about law enforcement and their sizable drug enforcement budgets.

[boutons_deux]

huge oversight on my part when I labeled tobacco and alcohol lobbyists as the main opposition. Neglected to think about law enforcement and their sizable drug enforcement budgets.

Prison Industrial Complex, prison staff unions, also have interest in max prisoners.

Some for-profit prisons are built under contract stipulaitng that the govt will keep the prisons at some %age occupancy, or pay a penalty to the prison corporation.

Filling the prisons up with poor, young blacks, browns, and mandatory heavy sentences, etc. make USA a fucking wonderful civilization (if your pocketing the tax payer $Ms).

There was a juvenile judge in PA who got a kickback for every kid he sent to jail, pretty much destroying the kids' job and life opportunities.

[boutons_deux]

See How Easy It Would Be for the Obama Administration to Reschedule Marijuana (http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2014/08/22/see-how-easy-it-would-be-for-the-obama-administration-to-reschedule-marijuana/)


Marijuana is currently listed as a Schedule I drug, classifying it as a having no acceptable medical value, which creates a lot of legal issues for those needing medical marijuana. It was put in that schedule decades ago by Congress, but the Obama administration has the power to move it to a more appropriate classification at any time.

The recent executive decision to move Hydrocodone Combination from Schedule III to II shows how it works, this same basic process could be used to move marijuana from Schedule I to II, III or IV.

From the DEA press release (http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/hq/2014/hq082114.shtml):

When Congress passed the CSA in 1970, it placed HCPs in Schedule III even though it had placed hydrocodone itself in Schedule II. The current analysis of HCPs by HHS and the DEA shows they have a high potential for abuse, and abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. Adding nonnarcotic substances like acetaminophen to hydrocodone does not diminish its abuse potential. The many findings by the DEA and HHS and the data that support these findings are presented in detail in the Final Rule on the website. Data and surveys from multiple federal and non-federal agencies show the extent of abuse of HCPs.

For example, Monitoring the Future surveys of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders from 2002 to 2011 found that twice as many high school seniors used Vicodin®, an HCP, nonmedically as used OxyContin®, a Schedule II substance, which is more tightly controlled.

In general, substances placed under the control of the CSA since it was passed by Congress in 1970 are scheduled or rescheduled by the DEA, as required by the CSA and its implementing regulations, found in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Scheduling or rescheduling of a substance can be initiated by the DEA, by the HHS Assistant Secretary of Health, or on the petition of any interested party.



The executive branch doesn’t just theoretically have the power to reschedule any drug without Congress, it is actually expected to use this power as needed based on the latest research. As we see here, drugs get moved to a lower or higher schedule all the time by the executive branch.

Since there is plenty of research showing marijuana has potential medical uses, it is basically a dereliction of duty for Attorney General Eric Holder to not reschedule marijuana, but instead of doing his job when it comes to marijuana rescheduling the administration has mostly fought and dragged its heels at every turn. Holder’s refusal to do so is a decision, which he effectively admitted (http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2014/04/15/holder-admits-to-putting-politics-ahead-of-science-on-medical-marijuana/); it’s not about legal constraints or science but about politics.

http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2014/08/22/see-how-easy-it-would-be-for-the-obama-administration-to-reschedule-marijuana/

[boutons_deux]

TV Reporter Just Said ‘F*ck It’ And Quit On-Air Over Marijuana (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/22/3570291/why-this-tv-reporter-just-said-fck-it-and-quit-on-air-over-marijuana/)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYcSqIuqkz4#t=24

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/22/3570291/why-this-tv-reporter-just-said-fck-it-and-quit-on-air-over-marijuana/

[velik_m]

Would the President pardon all the people in jail if marijuana was de-criminalized?

[boutons_deux]

Would the President pardon all the people in jail if marijuana was de-criminalized?

probably not, the PIC would lose $Bs

[Winehole23]

I hope shortened means "release immediately", but I'm sure the for-profit PIC has 100s of lawyers lined up to challenge, string out every case.something like this is about to happen in California. Proposition 47 passed and makes personal drug possession cases misdemeanors.



Los Angeles County Public Defender Ron Brown walked into a Pomona court Wednesday and saw first-hand the impact of Proposition 47 — the voter-approved initiative that reduces penalties for drug possession and other nonviolent crimes.
His office had deliberately postponed sentencing for a defendant facing more than a year behind bars for possessing heroin and methamphetamine to the day after Tuesday's election, waiting to see what voters would do.


The gambit worked. The man was sentenced and released from custody with no further jail time.


"They were felonies yesterday. They're misdemeanors today," Brown said. "This is the law now."


The day after California voted to reduce punishments, police agencies, defense attorneys, prosecutors and even some advocates were scrambling to figure out exactly how it was going to work.

The greatest effect, experts said, would be in drug possession cases, noting that California is now the first state in the nation to downgrade those cases from felonies to misdemeanors. Thousands of felons are now eligible for immediate release from prisons and jails.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-ff-pol-proposition47-20141106-story.html#page=1

[Winehole23]

people can make a difference, boutons. our corporate overlords don't decide everything -- sometimes the little guy wins. big win for the little guy in California yesterday.

[boutons_deux]

people can make a difference, boutons. our corporate overlords don't decide everything -- sometimes the little guy wins. big win for the little guy in California yesterday.

yes, chevron got beat in Richmond. but it's VERY BLUE California, offset by blue OR and WA getting beat by BigFood over GMO labelling.

"people" making a "rare" diff is the exception that proves the rule that the 1%/BigCorp run the USA for their own benefit by owning legislators at all levels.

USA is an oligarchy, as this election demonstrated ever more indisputably, thanks, VRWC/Repugs and their SCOTUS5 puppets and extreme conservative judges everywhere (eg 5th circuit/NO).

USA is a plutocracy with nearly every candidate for Congress running for office to get (more) wealthy, NOT to serve the country.

Avg net wealth in plutocratic Congress is now over $1M.

But don't fret, those below $1M are on their inevitable way UP. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus/

Human-Americans, not having $Bs to spend on lobbyists, "win" a hell of a lot less than Corporate-Americans.

[TheSanityAnnex]

something like this is about to happen in California. Proposition 47 passed and makes personal drug possession cases misdemeanors.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-ff-pol-proposition47-20141106-story.html#page=1

The drug possessions being reduced was great, but what many didn't know about this proposition was what else was reduced. Stealing guns is now just a misdemeanor.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/47/arguments-rebuttals.htm


Prop. 47 will require the release of thousands of dangerous inmates. Felons with prior convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, carjacking, child abuse, residential burglary, arson, assault with a deadly weapon, and many other serious crimes will be eligible for early release under Prop. 47. These early releases will be virtually mandated by Proposition 47. While Prop. 47's backers say judges will be able to keep dangerous offenders from being released early, this is simply not true. Prop. 47 prevents judges from blocking the early release of prisoners except in very rare cases. For example, even if the judge finds that the inmate poses a risk of committing crimes like kidnapping, robbery, assault, spousal abuse, torture of small animals, carjacking or felonies committed on behalf of a criminal street gang, Proposition 47 requires their release.

Prop. 47 would eliminate automatic felony prosecution for stealing a gun. Under current law, stealing a gun is a felony, period. Prop. 47 would redefine grand theft in such a way that theft of a firearm could only be considered a felony if the value of the gun is greater than $950. Almost all handguns (which are the most stolen kind of firearm) retail for well below $950. People don't steal guns just so they can add to their gun collection. They steal guns to commit another crime. People stealing guns are protected under Proposition 47.



Prop. 47 undermines laws against sex-crimes. Proposition 47 will reduce the penalty for possession of drugs used to facilitate date-rape to a simple misdemeanor. No matter how many times the suspected sexual predator has been charged with possession of date-rape drugs, it will only be a misdemeanor, and the judge will be forced to sentence them as if it were their very first time in court.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The drug possessions being reduced was great, but what many didn't know about this proposition was what else was reduced. Stealing guns is now just a misdemeanor.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/47/arguments-rebuttals.htm


Prop. 47 will require the release of thousands of dangerous inmates. Felons with prior convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, carjacking, child abuse, residential burglary, arson, assault with a deadly weapon, and many other serious crimes will be eligible for early release under Prop. 47. These early releases will be virtually mandated by Proposition 47. While Prop. 47's backers say judges will be able to keep dangerous offenders from being released early, this is simply not true. Prop. 47 prevents judges from blocking the early release of prisoners except in very rare cases. For example, even if the judge finds that the inmate poses a risk of committing crimes like kidnapping, robbery, assault, spousal abuse, torture of small animals, carjacking or felonies committed on behalf of a criminal street gang, Proposition 47 requires their release.

Prop. 47 would eliminate automatic felony prosecution for stealing a gun. Under current law, stealing a gun is a felony, period. Prop. 47 would redefine grand theft in such a way that theft of a firearm could only be considered a felony if the value of the gun is greater than $950. Almost all handguns (which are the most stolen kind of firearm) retail for well below $950. People don't steal guns just so they can add to their gun collection. They steal guns to commit another crime. People stealing guns are protected under Proposition 47.



Prop. 47 undermines laws against sex-crimes. Proposition 47 will reduce the penalty for possession of drugs used to facilitate date-rape to a simple misdemeanor. No matter how many times the suspected sexual predator has been charged with possession of date-rape drugs, it will only be a misdemeanor, and the judge will be forced to sentence them as if it were their very first time in court.

So let me get this straight. You rely on the meme of 'guns don't commit crimes people do' yet you post this shit about how roofies could be used for date rape and therefor need to be regulated more?

Your critical thinking skills on display once more.

[Spur-Addict]

:lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

So let me get this straight. You rely on the meme of 'guns don't commit crimes people do' yet you post this shit about how roofies could be used for date rape and therefor need to be regulated more?

Your critical thinking skills on display once more.Where did I mention roofies? I specifically commented on stolen guns. Do you think it was wise to attach a misdemeanor charge for a stolen gun to this proposition?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where did I mention roofies? I specifically commented on stolen guns. Do you think it was wise to attach a misdemeanor charge for a stolen gun to this proposition?

:lol I can only smh.

TSA posting without reading what he is quoting. Last paragraph of your quote, dipshit. I'll help since you are so slow and limited:


Prop. 47 undermines laws against sex-crimes. Proposition 47 will reduce the penalty for possession of drugs used to facilitate date-rape to a simple misdemeanor. No matter how many times the suspected sexual predator has been charged with possession of date-rape drugs, it will only be a misdemeanor, and the judge will be forced to sentence them as if it were their very first time in court.

You even italicized some it it seems.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol I can only smh.

TSA posting without reading what he is quoting. Last paragraph of your quote, dipshit. I'll help since you are so slow and limited:



You even italicized some it it seems.

Talk about smh. I copied and pasted the cons from the CA voters guide, I didn't italicize anything. Had you clicked the link I wouldn't need to explain this. I specifically mentioned the reduction from auto felony to misdemeanor for stealing a gun. Now again, do you think it was wise to attach the change to misdemeanor charge for a stolen gun to this proposition?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Talk about smh. I copied and pasted the cons from the CA voters guide, I didn't italicize anything. Had you clicked the link I wouldn't need to explain this. I specifically mentioned the reduction from auto felony to misdemeanor for stealing a gun. Now again, do you think it was wise to attach the change to misdemeanor charge for a stolen gun to this proposition?

So you quote things that you don't actually believe but give no qualification beforehand of such.

My point is still valid, dipshit. You are posting something that shits all over your 'guns don't kill, people do' meme.

I am not going to discuss gun control with you, dipshit. We already know your position.

[TheSanityAnnex]

So you quote things that you don't actually believe but give no qualification beforehand of such.You are just grasping for straws now. I specifically spoke of the stolen gun charges.


My point is still valid, dipshit. You are posting something that shits all over your 'guns don't kill, people do' meme.

I am not going to discuss gun control with you, dipshit. We already know your position.

You don't have point though, you continue to ramble and get off track. You are harping on my quoting of all the cons, big fucking deal, I specifically said the reduction of charges for gun theft to misdemeanor was a problem. This doesn't shit on my stance in any way whatsoever. I've always been against criminals acquiring guns, why would it be a good idea to now slap them with a misdemeanor for stealing a gun. Why do you continue to dodge my question? Did you even know this was part of the proposition?

Once again, do you think it was wise to attach the reduction to misdemeanor charge for a stolen gun to this proposition, yes or no?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Let's try this again pea brain.


The drug possessions being reduced was great, but what many didn't know about this proposition was what else was reduced. Stealing guns is now just a misdemeanor.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/47/arguments-rebuttals.htm




Prop. 47 would eliminate automatic felony prosecution for stealing a gun. Under current law, stealing a gun is a felony, period. Prop. 47 would redefine grand theft in such a way that theft of a firearm could only be considered a felony if the value of the gun is greater than $950. Almost all handguns (which are the most stolen kind of firearm) retail for well below $950. People don't steal guns just so they can add to their gun collection. They steal guns to commit another crime. People stealing guns are protected under Proposition 47.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Let's try this again pea brain.

You can call me a pea brain all you like but it is quite clear that you quote things without having read and/or understanding them.

That it took you hours to finally get it right just speaks to your limitations further.

This is not the first time I have pointed out. If pointing out how your methodology is unreliable and you are not credible is grasping at straws then so be it. You are still not reliable and lack credibility.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You can call me a pea brain all you like but it is quite clear that you quote things without having read and/or understanding them.

That it took you hours to finally get it right just speaks to your limitations further.

This is not the first time I have pointed out. If pointing out how your methodology is unreliable and you are not credible is grasping at straws then so be it. You are still not reliable and lack credibility.

You are just being a coward and grasping at straws, simple as that.

My first sentence in this thread clearly states that with this proposition passed, "the drug possession being reduced was great, but what many didn't know about this proposition was what else was reduced. Stealing guns is now just a misdemeanor".

Why are you so hung up that I posted the entirety of the cons listed in the voters guide? I never brought them up or argued they were also a negative about this proposition. The fact that this is all you have left to argue, without ONCE addressing my concerns with this proposition is quite telling. You are a fucking pea brain who just wants to win another internet battle, you are truly pathetic.

It shouldn't have taken hours to get to this point, your pea brain should have realized I was concerned about the stolen gun charge being reduced to a misdemeanor, being that it was the only fucking thing I brought up. For fucks sake set your fragile internet ego aside and address the issue at hand.

Were you aware prop 47 also reduced a stolen gun charge (previously an automatic felony) to a misdemeanor, yes or no?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are just being a coward and grasping at straws, simple as that.

My first sentence in this thread clearly states that with this proposition passed, "the drug possession being reduced was great, but what many didn't know about this proposition was what else was reduced. Stealing guns is now just a misdemeanor".

Why are you so hung up that I posted the entirety of the cons listed in the voters guide? I never brought them up or argued they were also a negative about this proposition. The fact that this is all you have left to argue, without ONCE addressing my concerns with this proposition is quite telling. You are a fucking pea brain who just wants to win another internet battle, you are truly pathetic.

It shouldn't have taken hours to get to this point, your pea brain should have realized I was concerned about the stolen gun charge being reduced to a misdemeanor, being that it was the only fucking thing I brought up. For fucks sake set your fragile internet ego aside and address the issue at hand.

Were you aware prop 47 also reduced a stolen gun charge (previously an automatic felony) to a misdemeanor, yes or no?

It didn't take me an hour to realize that you are fixated on gun laws. Nonetheless

You quoted the portion about roofies. It is what it is.

It is very clear that you did not read what you had quoted. It is what it is.

Your lack of reading and critical thinking skills speak to your credibility. It is what it is.

I don't give a shit about CA theft laws. It is what it is.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It didn't take me an hour to realize that you are fixated on gun laws. Nonetheless

You quoted the portion about roofies. It is what it is.

It is very clear that you did not read what you had quoted. It is what it is.

Your lack of reading and critical thinking skills speak to your credibility. It is what it is.

I don't give a shit about CA theft laws. It is what it is.Why do you continue to dodge the question coward?

I live in CA and voted on this proposition you stupid fuck of course I read and knew the proposition. Why do you think I brought up the negative aspect that no one here was talking about. You clearly knew nothing about this prop and obviously care too much some Internet beef with me you are willing to make yourself look like a complete dipshit instead of just admitting you were wrong. Nothing new though.

Lack of reading and critical thinking skills, the fucking irony. Go sit in the corner until you are ready to discuss the issue.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why do you continue to dodge the question coward?

I live in CA and voted on this proposition you stupid fuck of course I read and knew the proposition. Why do you think I brought up the negative aspect that no one here was talking about. You clearly knew nothing about this prop and obviously care too much some Internet beef with me you are willing to make yourself look like a complete dipshit instead of just admitting you were wrong. Nothing new though.

Lack of reading and critical thinking skills, the fucking irony. Go sit in the corner until you are ready to discuss the issue.

So says the one fixated by which mediums alcohol advertises in.

Just because I did not answer the question in the manner that you would like does not mean that I did not answer the question. Your premise is as usual is shit.

I don't give a shit about CA gun theft classification although to my understanding all it does is remove the special classification of firearms and makes it like most other properties in the $950 felony threshold. :cry

This thread is about the pot initiatives across the country. Maybe start your own thread?

[TheSanityAnnex]

You didn't answer the question period. Back in the corner you go.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"Did you know about the gun law changes in CA?" asked dipshit.

"I don't give a shit about the gun laws in CA," Fuzzy answered.


Just because I did not answer the question in the manner that you would like does not mean that I did not answer the question. Your premise is as usual is shit.

Your stupidity is boring again. I have to hold your hand through things middle schoolers grasp on the first read through.

[TheSanityAnnex]

"Did you know about the gun law changes in CA?" asked dipshit.

"I don't give a shit about the gun laws in CA," Fuzzy answered.



Your stupidity is boring again. I have to hold your hand through things middle schoolers grasp on the first read through.
Now that I've got your hand I'll ask again. Do you support proposition 47 decriminalizing drug charges and at the same time also decriminalizing gun theft charges?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now that I've got your hand I'll ask again. Do you support proposition 47 decriminalizing drug charges and at the same time also decriminalizing gun theft charges?

That is not decriminalization.


I don't give a shit about CA gun theft classification although to my understanding all it does is remove the special classification of firearms and makes it like most other properties in the $950 felony threshold. :cry

:cry guns are not treated differently than other properties.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are all kinds of online resources that can help you with your reading and critical thinking. I answered your question several posts ago and you were not able to discern that. You were unable to determine that stealing guns would still be a criminal act or did not understand the meaning of the word decriminalize despite the simple prefix "de-" giving a very easy context clue.

It is obvious the CA education system did you a serious disservice.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You know exactly what I meant. It's funny you are such a stoner that you are okay with gun theft getting a slap on the wrist instead of a felony.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You know exactly what I meant. It's funny you are such a stoner that you are okay with gun theft getting a slap on the wrist instead of a felony.

:lol I'll take stoned over being barely literate such as yourself.

Of course I knew what you meant, dipshit. It's not like you are difficult to follow. You are quite simpleminded frankly.

As it stands now, if you steal a $500 TV you get a 'slap on the wrist' and if you steal a $500 firearm, it is a felony. The change simply makes the punishments the same.

Don't worry, dipshit, if someone steals your gun collection it will still be a felony. Unless you have a bunch of trash of course.

I get that you think that you should get special privilege because you are a gun enthusiast but frankly I think such disproportionate punishments are unfair and as such has no place in legal statute. I would support the change even without the marijuana provision.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol I'll take stoned over being barely literate such as yourself.

Of course I knew what you meant, dipshit. It's not like you are difficult to follow. You are quite simpleminded frankly.

As it stands now, if you steal a $500 TV you get a 'slap on the wrist' and if you steal a $500 firearm, it is a felony. The change simply makes the punishments the same.

Don't worry, dipshit, if someone steals your gun collection it will still be a felony. Unless you have a bunch of trash of course.

I get that you think that you should get special privilege because you are a gun enthusiast but frankly I think such disproportionate punishments are unfair and as such has no place in legal statute. I would support the change even without the marijuana provision.
Wait a sec....you think this about my guns? unreal.
This has absolutely nothing to do with me being a gun enthusiast, nor anything to do with my guns.

I am all for having their drug charges dropped from felony to misdemeanor. I am not for having their gun theft charges dropped from felony to misdemeanor.

Your stupidity shined with the TV/firearm comparison, makes perfect sense to punish them equally, stolen guns aren't used in much crime.

[boutons_deux]

I'd love to get the House scrotum suckers to impeach Obama if/when he rescheduled mj from I to V.

Pure Kafka-esque insanity:


Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:


heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin


Schedule III

Schedule III drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs abuse potential is less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs but more than Schedule IV. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are:


Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine), ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone


Schedule IV

Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are:


Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien


Schedule V

Schedule V drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule IV and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. Schedule V drugs are generally used for antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes. Some examples of Schedule V drugs are:


cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine or per 100 milliliters

http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml

BigAlcohol and BigTobacco own enough politicians to keep alcohol and nicotine, both addictive and responsible for 100Ks deaths/year, from DEA scheduling.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wait a sec....you think this about my guns? unreal.
This has absolutely nothing to do with me being a gun enthusiast, nor anything to do with my guns.

I am all for having their drug charges dropped from felony to misdemeanor. I am not for having their gun theft charges dropped from felony to misdemeanor.

Your stupidity shined with the TV/firearm comparison, makes perfect sense to punish them equally, stolen guns aren't used in much crime.

:lol you still don't understand what I am getting at regarding price thresholds and thus me naming a random good without special protections.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol you still don't understand what I am getting at regarding price thresholds and thus me naming a random good without special protections.
Please explain how you think stealing a firearm valued under $950 should be punished the same as _________ under $950.

[CosmicCowboy]

Boo apparently hasn't realized that the Republican party has already started addressing the extremist T party fringe problem by focusing on pruning them out during the primaries.

[boutons_deux]

Boo apparently hasn't realized that the Republican party has already started addressing the extremist T party fringe problem by focusing on pruning them out during the primaries.

There are still 30+ tea baggers in the House, so Boner's 250 might be enough to get 218 without the tea baggers.

Several extremsist nutty Repugs were elected to House and Senate, so where do you see the tea baggers/nutters decreasing in number?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please explain how you think stealing a firearm valued under $950 should be punished the same as _________ under $950.

Because they are properties valued the same.

You want special protections. Typical self serving nonsense.

[CosmicCowboy]

Because they are properties valued the same.

You want special protections. Typical self serving nonsense.

bet Fuzzball loves the Hate Crime laws though.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Because they are properties valued the same. Except for the fact that stolen guns will most likely be used to commit more crimes. It's strange hearing your line of reasoning considering how anti-gun you are.


You want special protections. Typical self serving nonsense.Has nothing to do with me or my guns.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Except for the fact that stolen guns will most likely be used to commit more crimes. It's strange hearing your line of reasoning considering how anti-gun you are.

Has nothing to do with me or my guns.

Most likely? What quality database do you base this assertion off? Something that doesn't come from a subjective blog. Like a report from the ATF or similar law enforcement body.

And moreso you are punishing someone more because they could commit another crime? That is asinine reasoning. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental value.

Fact is that it is not inherent that a stolen gun will be used in further crime and most guns used in crime come from proxy purchases, gun shows, and the like. Stolen guns are way down the list.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol waiting as he googles furiously.

Guilt by association is wrong.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Most likely? What quality database do you base this assertion off? Something that doesn't come from a subjective blog. Like a report from the ATF or similar law enforcement body.

And moreso you are punishing someone more because they could commit another crime? That is asinine reasoning. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental value.

Fact is that it is not inherent that a stolen gun will be used in further crime and most guns used in crime come from proxy purchases, gun shows, and the like. Stolen guns are way down the list.

Gun shows :lol It's somewhere under 1% of criminals obtaining guns from shows.

Obama thought is was an important enough issue.

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/2012-firearms-reported-lost-and-stolen.pdf

On January 16, 2013, President Obama announced a plan to reduce gun violence in the United States. This plan included 23 executive actions, one of which called on the Department of Justice to prepare a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and to make that report widely available to law enforcement. The following report was generated by ATF in response to the President’s directive. The report gives an overview, for calendar year 2012, of the lost and stolen gun file entries in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and of the lost and stolen firearm reports submitted by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to ATF. This report will be updated and published annually.
Lost and stolen firearms pose a substantial threat to public safety and to law enforcement. Those that steal firearms commit violent crimes with stolen guns, transfer stolen firearms to others who commit crimes, and create an unregulated secondary market for firearms, including a market for those who are prohibited by law from possessing a gun. Moreover, thieves and illicit traffickers often obliterate the serial numbers of stolen firearms so that if a stolen firearm is later recovered by law enforcement, it cannot identified as stolen or traced to the original purchaser.

[TheSanityAnnex]

183,660 guns reported stolen in 2012. Slap them on the wrist Fuzzy says.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Feels good to take a nice big shit on you to start the weekend off.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gun shows :lol It's somewhere under 1% of criminals obtaining guns from shows.

Obama thought is was an important enough issue.

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/2012-firearms-reported-lost-and-stolen.pdf

On January 16, 2013, President Obama announced a plan to reduce gun violence in the United States. This plan included 23 executive actions, one of which called on the Department of Justice to prepare a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and to make that report widely available to law enforcement. The following report was generated by ATF in response to the President’s directive. The report gives an overview, for calendar year 2012, of the lost and stolen gun file entries in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and of the lost and stolen firearm reports submitted by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to ATF. This report will be updated and published annually.
Lost and stolen firearms pose a substantial threat to public safety and to law enforcement. Those that steal firearms commit violent crimes with stolen guns, transfer stolen firearms to others who commit crimes, and create an unregulated secondary market for firearms, including a market for those who are prohibited by law from possessing a gun. Moreover, thieves and illicit traffickers often obliterate the serial numbers of stolen firearms so that if a stolen firearm is later recovered by law enforcement, it cannot identified as stolen or traced to the original purchaser.


Twenty minutes and you could not even quantify anything but guns reported stolen. That is pretty sad. The above is little more than fearmongering.

You ignore the guilt by association and presumption argument completely despite it subsuming your google search. I find it likely you are too stupid to even begin arguing the point.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Twenty minutes and you could not even quantify anything but guns reported stolen. That is pretty sad. The above is little more than fearmongering.

You ignore the guilt by association and presumption argument completely despite it subsuming your google search. I find it likely you are too stupid to even begin arguing the point.

You asked for ATF were given it and now the Obama and the ATF are just fearmongering? Do you think the criminals who stole the guns go deer hunting the following weekend?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You asked for ATF were given it and now the Obama and the ATF are just fearmongering? Do you think the criminals who stole the guns go deer hunting the following weekend?

I asked for data from the ATF or similar body. Perhaps that is confusing but I was speaking to quantities not emotional generalizations.

So now you are appealing to Obama's authority on the matter?

Barking up the wrong tree.

Not all people that steal guns are intending on using it for a crime. It is straight up guilt by association in anticipation of crimes that have not been committed. Love how you pick and choose the association. There is a common denominator in all gun crimes.

You once again do not even acknowledge this, likely because you -like the quantity versus quality nuance from above- do not understand the concept.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I asked for data from the ATF or similar body. Perhaps that is confusing but I was speaking to quantities not emotional generalizations.

So now you are appealing to Obama's authority on the matter?

Barking up the wrong tree.

Not all people that steal guns are intending on using it for a crime. It is straight up guilt by association in anticipation of crimes that have not been committed. Love how you pick and choose the association. There is a common denominator in all gun crimes.

You once again do not even acknowledge this, likely because you -like the quantity versus quality nuance from above- do not understand the concept.

Please share what you think they intend on doing with the stolen guns other than committing crimes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please share what you think they intend on doing with the stolen guns other than committing crimes.

That is besides the point.

Fact is that some people don't. I know people that have stolen/bought stolen guns to go hunting and for personal protection. If you punish one man for a crime that he was not going to commit then you have done that man an injustice.

Notions of equal protection and fairness seem to elude your understanding. You have still yet to acknowledge the point.

You just abandoned the quantification.

Your limited capacity is boring again.

[TheSanityAnnex]

That is besides the point.

Fact is that some people don't. I know people that have stolen/bought stolen guns to go hunting and for personal protection. If you punish one man for a crime that he was not going to commit then you have done that man an injustice.

Notions of equal protection and fairness seem to elude your understanding. You have still yet to acknowledge the point.

You just abandoned the quantification.

Your limited capacity is boring again.


You can't weasel out of this by saying that is besides the point. I'm really curious to see the mental gymnastics you'll go through to come up with what people can do with a stolen gun that is not committing a crime. Answer the question.


Please share what you think they intend on doing with the stolen guns other than committing crimes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can't weasel out of this by saying that is besides the point. I'm really curious to see the mental gymnastics you'll go through to come up with what people can do with a stolen gun that is not committing a crime. Answer the question.

:lol weasel out of it.

If it's besides the point then it is besides the point. I laid out my argument why which once again you don't even acknowledge. Crying about it and derisive characterizations are not enough to overcome that.

I made fun of chinook for not being able to think outside his box and with you we are dealing with a matchbox sized region of knowledge.

You not understanding does not make me wrong and your inability to so much as acknowledge the injustice of punishing even one innocent man says all that needs to be said. I even gave other lawful activities that people use guns they have stolen for. Your critical thinking ability remains god awful.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol weasel out of it.

If it's besides the point then it is besides the point. I laid out my argument why which once again you don't even acknowledge. Crying about it and derisive characterizations are not enough to overcome that.

I made fun of chinook for not being able to think outside his box and with you we are dealing with a matchbox sized region of knowledge.

You not understanding does not make me wrong and your inability to so much as acknowledge the injustice of punishing even one innocent man says all that needs to be said. I even gave other lawful activities that people use guns they have stolen for. Your critical thinking ability remains god awful.

Your examples of lawful activities with stolen guns were not examples of lawful activities. Do you believe hunting with a stolen gun is lawful? How do you think your self defense claim will work out once the gun used comes up as stolen?

I have been trying to think of lawful activities one could do with a stolen gun and am drawing blanks, looks like you are as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, FuzzyWeasel!

That's all you ever do with your deceptions is weasel out of things.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You not understanding does not make me wrong and your inability to so much as acknowledge the injustice of punishing even one innocent man says all that needs to be said. lol wut? Gun thief is now an innocent man?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Like begets like.

There you go TSA. WC is your ally.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol wut? Gun thief is now an innocent man?

smh.

[boutons_deux]

Judge Could Smash Marijuana Law

A judge in California is examining the legality of America’s marijuana laws, she may be on the verge of throwing the entire system into chaos.

Three states, one district, and two cities will vote on various aspects of the nation’s drug laws on Tuesday but the most crucial marijuana decision being weighed in the coming days will be made by just one person. U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller could be about to start a legal revolution.

After a five-day hearing in California, she is considering the validity of the science surrounding pot’s classification as one of the most dangerous drugs in the world.

In May, she became the first judge in decades (http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Marijuana-ban-to-have-rare-hearing-in-federal-5849294.php) to agree to hear evidence relating to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s classification of marijuana which puts it in the same category as heroin and meth. Over the next few weeks, Mueller will comb through hundreds of pages of witness testimony, scientific research, and public health policy to determine whether the Schedule I Substance classification of marijuana is unconstitutional.

Her ruling will only apply in the specific case she is hearing, but some argue that a first judicial ruling against the legality of the DEA’s current drug classifications would invite a flood of similar legal challenges all over the country.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/04/pot-s-day-in-court.html

if mj wins, the judge could order DEA, they work for Barry who could move it to V or off schedule, to move mj from schedule I to .... II! :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

Like begets like.

There you go TSA. WC is your ally.

Still waiting for lawful activities to do with a stolen gun

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol as he google furiously

45 mins and not a single lawful activity with a stolen gun

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol as he google furiously

45 mins and not a single lawful activity with a stolen gun

Nah I just don't think you're intelligent enough to have a worthwhile debate with so I stopped.

You can go round and round with self fulfilling legal premises. You as usual miss the point.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Nah I just don't think you're intelligent enough to have a worthwhile debate with so I stopped.

You can go round and round with self fulfilling legal premises. You as usual miss the point.
You stopped because you realized you ran your mouth and have no rebuttal whatsoever. You've yet to come up with a SINGLE lawful act with a stolen gun.

We are so far off track now because of you trying to win the argument and you just continue to keep digging yourself deeper and deeper trying to justify it being okay to reduce stealing a gun to a misdemeanor.

There is no debate to be had, you've yet to even give an argument on why the reduction of gun theft from felony to misdemeanor is positive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol keep telling yourself that dimwit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is besides the point.

Fact is that some people don't. I know people that have stolen/bought stolen guns to go hunting and for personal protection. If you punish one man for a crime that he was not going to commit then you have done that man an injustice.

Notions of equal protection and fairness seem to elude your understanding. You have still yet to acknowledge the point.

You just abandoned the quantification.

Your limited capacity is boring again.

As anyone can see. I already answered his question but he is too stupid to realize it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

As anyone can see. I already answered his question but he is too stupid to realize it.
Hunting with a stolen gun is a crime. Using a stolen gun for self defense is a crime. You've failed to provide a lawful act to commit with a stolen gun. Fine display of critical thinking you're exhibiting tonight.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hunting with a stolen gun is a crime. Using a stolen gun for self defense is a crime. You've failed to provide a lawful act to commit with a stolen gun. Fine display of critical thinking you're exhibiting tonight.


Nah I just don't think you're intelligent enough to have a worthwhile debate with so I stopped.

You can go round and round with self fulfilling legal premises. You as usual miss the point.

One step ahead of you dumbass. I could tie it all into what I was talking about special status and the like but you're boring and dumb. It's a waste of my time.

Now fill a syringe with air and inject it into your carotid artery.

[TheSanityAnnex]

One step ahead of you dumbass. I could tie it all into what I was talking about special status and the like but you're boring and dumb. It's a waste of my time.

Now fill a syringe with air and inject it into your carotid artery.

You keep saying you're bored and its a waste of your time yet here you are again to get slapped. You look like a complete fool here, think retard on a treadmill fool.

I always look forward to which clever way you'll tell me to kill myself when you realize you're grasping for straws. Seriously think about the position you are arguing. Stealing iPhone=Stealing Glock

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You keep saying you're bored and its a waste of your time yet here you are again to get slapped. You look like a complete fool here, think retard on a treadmill fool.

I always look forward to which clever way you'll tell me to kill myself when you realize you're grasping for straws. Seriously think about the position you are arguing. Stealing iPhone=Stealing Glock

It's about to be in CA and I note how you don't address the self fulfilling legal premise.

And remember how you were saying I was 'googling' for an hour?

Think about it dumbass.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It's about to be in CA and I note how you don't address the self fulfilling legal premise.

And remember how you were saying I was 'googling' for an hour?

Think about it dumbass.You have already said you'd support the gun theft reduction to misdemeanor regardless of it being tied to any other reduction yet you've yet to defend why stealing iPhone=stealing glock is a good thing.

Defend your position already. I'm curious as to what you think the benefit to the people of CA will be.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You have already said you'd support the gun theft reduction to misdemeanor regardless of it being tied to any other reduction yet you've yet to defend why stealing iPhone=stealing glock is a good thing.

Defend your position already. I'm curious as to what you think the benefit to the people of CA will be.


That is besides the point.

Fact is that some people don't. I know people that have stolen/bought stolen guns to go hunting and for personal protection. If you punish one man for a crime that he was not going to commit then you have done that man an injustice.

Notions of equal protection and fairness seem to elude your understanding. You have still yet to acknowledge the point.

You just abandoned the quantification.

Your limited capacity is boring again.

READing is FUNdamental!

[TheSanityAnnex]

READing is FUNdamental!
You've yet to establish an argument defending the reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor for a stolen gun, try again.

[Wild Cobra]

READing is FUNdamental!

We got you pinned down.

You're no more than 8 years old!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Is_Fundamental

[TheSanityAnnex]

We got you pinned down.

You're no more than 8 years old!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Is_Fundamentalwe? Please leave.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol fighting over who proved me wrong.

Bunch of simpletons.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You've yet to establish an argument defending the reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor for a stolen gun, try again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't have to create said argument because in order to convict someone of a crime the standard is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I already brought this up. It gets tiresome of having to repeat myself as you fixate on one thing because of your limited mind.

You need to prove that someone who has stolen a gun will commit another crime involving said gun every single time. If someone steals a gun and then does nothing with it ie takes it apart and puts it away and nothing more then they have not committed another crime.

You seek to punish someone for a crime that they might do. It's unjust to assume another crime before it happens and to convict them of it.

These are all things that I have said before but as per your usual, you miss the forest for a tree.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If someone steals a gun and then does nothing with it ie takes it apart and puts it away and nothing more then they have not committed another crime.

Thanks for making my argument.

[vy65]

Crofl fuzzy
Crofl elevating severity of a crime doesn't remove presumption of innocence
crofl still have a trial
Crofl thinking outside the box
Crofl hunting with stolen guns

[TheSanityAnnex]

I've never seen an ego dig a hole as deep as Fuzzys.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Crofl fuzzy
Crofl elevating severity of a crime doesn't remove presumption of innocence
crofl still have a trial
Crofl thinking outside the box
Crofl hunting with stolen guns

The only thing to crofl is how many of you lackwits I have desperately trying to prove me wrong. You don't aspire to intelligence, it threatens you. Your desperation over the years at this point is amusing. I am used to it at this point.

You still do a very poor job presenting a coherent argument. Only chance of you making partner is sticking around long enough that they just have seniority sway them. You are just about worthless in presenting a case, counselor crayola.

If the basis for increasing the severity is the possibility of future crime then it is what it is. Stealing a gun by definition does not mean that more harm will come. I can use a stolen TV for the furtherance of crime as well; why not use that as a basis for stealing TVs or anything else that could be used for a crime also being a felony?

I am all for making use of a stolen weapon an aggravated crime but I am not down for punishing someone extra for a theft when it is not guaranteed to be used for a further illegal purpose. Either of you going to address this or you just going to cup his balls some more?

That is my entire point of talking about presumption. You presume that they will be guilty of a future crime. Punish people for what they have done and not what they might do. I never brought up a trial. I am discussing policy. I guess we can laugh at your myopic approach to the basis of policy and your thoughts that such legal principles only have a purpose in a trial.

And as I said, it is self affirming legal argument. Hunting is not in and of itself an illegal act. That a stolen gun makes it illegal is a self affirming legal circle. Neither of you address that. Instead we get the counselor crayola masturbation routine. Anyway that is besides the point. The person in question can do nothing at all meaning not everyone who steals a gun will commit further crime. Your partner in stupidity thinks it furthers his point.

Be nice if you guys would actually argue points. I get tired of repeating the things you guys ignore that are central to my point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thanks for making my argument.

You have completely lost sight of the argument trying to win a single point as you are wont to do. Thus my missing the forest for a tree comment earlier.

Some cases of gun theft will result in no further crime. That is antithetical to your basis of the increased penalty. Handwave at your lackwitted question that misses the point some more.

[vy65]

The only thing to crofl is how many of you lackwits I have desperately trying to prove me wrong. You don't aspire to intelligence, it threatens you. Your desperation over the years at this point is amusing. I am used to it at this point.

You still do a very poor job presenting a coherent argument. Only chance of you making partner is sticking around long enough that they just have seniority sway them. You are just about worthless in presenting a case, counselor crayola.

Thanks for the career advice homie :tu

Also, who the fuck uses "lackwit" as insult. Are you 90?


If the basis for increasing the severity is the possibility of future crime then it is what it is. Stealing a gun by definition does not mean that more harm will come. I can use a stolen TV for the furtherance of crime as well; why not use that as a basis for stealing TVs or anything else that could be used for a crime also being a felony?

How many stolen tv's are used for homicides? How many stolen guns are used for homicides?


I am all for making use of a stolen weapon an aggravated crime but I am not down for punishing someone extra for a theft when it is not guaranteed to be used for a further illegal purpose. Either of you going to address this or you just going to cup his balls some more?

Or maybe it's a good idea to do something, like locking people up who steal guns, before someone dies?


That is my entire point of talking about presumption. You presume that they will be guilty of a future crime. Punish people for what they have done and not what they might do. I never brought up a trial. I am discussing policy. I guess we can laugh at your myopic approach to the basis of policy and your thoughts that such legal principles only have a purpose in a trial.

There's no presumption, it's crime that would trigger all the due process protections associated with a crime. That it's punished as a felony is to deter something bad from happening in the future. It's the same reason why having 10 pounds vs. a gram of coke in your possession is punished more severely. These are pretty obvious policy determinations, which makes your claim of my "myopic approach" pretty laughable.


And as I said, it is self affirming legal argument. Hunting is not in and of itself an illegal act. That a stolen gun makes it illegal is a self affirming legal circle. Neither of you address that. Instead we get the counselor crayola masturbation routine. Anyway that is besides the point. The person in question can do nothing at all meaning not everyone who steals a gun will commit further crime. Your partner in stupidity thinks it furthers his point.

Crofl self-affirming legal argument. What the fuck does that even mean? There's no increase in punishment because you're hunting with a stolen gun. The crime is stealing the fucking gun. That it used to be punished as a felony was because, you know, people aren't hunting with stolen guns. They're killing other people.


Be nice if you guys would actually argue points. I get tired of repeating the things you guys ignore that are central to my point.

Sorry, hard to get to arguing the merits while sifting through the career advice and zinges like "lackwit"

Do me a favor and google the statistics on the number of stolen guns used in violent crimes.

Crofl hunting

[TheSanityAnnex]

You have completely lost sight of the argument trying to win a single point as you are wont to do. Thus my missing the forest for a tree comment earlier.

Some cases of gun theft will result in no further crime. That is antithetical to your basis of the increased penalty. Handwave at your lackwitted question that misses the point some more.

So far the only scenario you have come up with where the theft of a gun results in no further crime is this:


If someone steals a gun and then does nothing with it ie takes it apart and puts it away and nothing more then they have not committed another crime.

Do you really believe the shit you type? Do you believe people that steal guns take them apart and put them away? What would be the point of stealing a gun if you were just going to take it apart and put it away?

Stolen guns are altered (another crime), sold (another crime), or used (another crime). Your ONE example of lawful activity with a stolen gun is the stupidest fucking thing I've read on this board in a while.

[vy65]

Stolen guns are altered (another crime), sold (another crime), or used (another crime). Your ONE example of lawful activity with a stolen gun is the stupidest fucking thing I've read on this board in a while.

TVs don't kill people. People with TVs kill people.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thanks for the career advice homie :tu

Also, who the fuck uses "lackwit" as insult. Are you 90?



How many stolen tv's are used for homicides? How many stolen guns are used for homicides?



Or maybe it's a good idea to do something, like locking people up who steal guns, before someone dies?



There's no presumption, it's crime that would trigger all the due process protections associated with a crime. That it's punished as a felony is to deter something bad from happening in the future. It's the same reason why having 10 pounds vs. a gram of coke in your possession is punished more severely. These are pretty obvious policy determinations, which makes your claim of my "myopic approach" pretty laughable.



Crofl self-affirming legal argument. What the fuck does that even mean? There's no increase in punishment because you're hunting with a stolen gun. The crime is stealing the fucking gun. That it used to be punished as a felony was because, you know, people aren't hunting with stolen guns. They're killing other people.



Sorry, hard to get to arguing the merits while sifting through the career advice and zinges like "lackwit"

Do me a favor and google the statistics on the number of stolen guns used in violent crimes.

Crofl hunting

I said further crime. I did not say homicide but just because you lack imagination in how a TV could be used to facilitate a homicide only speaks to your intelligence. I will help: surveillance. Think about it. If you cannot think on how a TV could be used in another felony at all then that is pretty sad.

I did look it up. How about you present your findings rather than the masturbation routine, counselor crayola. You guys are doing a great job in pointing out the basis for control of the common denominator in all gun crimes though.

If you steal more than $950.01 or more worth of property it is a felony. It already has similar graduations in the statute. You really don't think things through.

:lol at using drug laws as a basis for future laws.

What does it even mean? Again, you not understanding is not surprising. Not all activities with a stolen gun are by definition illegal despite certain ones being legislated as such. Intellectual laziness rears it's ugly head.

It wasn't advice. It was an observation as to your acumen, dimwit. You do a very poor job keeping track of the flow of argument. It's why I ask you if you write your counts in crayola. Then again I doubt they let you have such latitude on any case.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So far the only scenario you have come up with where the theft of a gun results in no further crime is this:



Do you really believe the shit you type? Do you believe people that steal guns take them apart and put them away? What would be the point of stealing a gun if you were just going to take it apart and put it away?

Stolen guns are altered (another crime), sold (another crime), or used (another crime). Your ONE example of lawful activity with a stolen gun is the stupidest fucking thing I've read on this board in a while.

It doesn't matter what I believe. Point is it is possible. Incredulity is not an argument, dimwit.

[vy65]

I said further crime. I did not say homicide but just because you lack imagination in how a TV could be used to facilitate a homicide only speaks to your intelligence. I will help: surveillance. Think about it. If you cannot think on how a TV could be used in another felony at all then that is pretty sad.

Do you think that there might be some sort of connection between stealing guns and future crimes? And that connection might not exist with other objects?

Still waiting on those tv stats.

Crofl imagination.


I did look it up. How about you present your findings rather than the masturbation routine, counselor crayola. You guys are doing a great job in pointing out the basis for control of the common denominator in all gun crimes though.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine.


If you steal more than $950.01 or more worth of property it is a felony. It already has similar graduations in the statute. You really don't think things through.

A gun that could do a pretty good job of killing someone costs less than $950. Who's the one not thinking things through?


:lol at using drug laws as a basis for future laws.

Do you have a substantive point about the policy point being made here? I thought we were actually arguing the points?


What does it even mean? Again, you not understanding is not surprising. Not all activities with a stolen gun are by definition illegal despite certain ones being legislated as such. Intellectual laziness rears it's ugly head.

Well, that's not right. Possession of a stolen gun is, you know, illegal. So ya, all activities with a stolen gun are by definition illegal.

Speaking of laziness, do you think that there's a problem with deterring people from stealing guns? Or do you think we should loosen the penalties for people who do so?

You'd have a point if there was rampant, non-violent crime usage of stolen weapons (crofl taking them apart). So far, you have a couple of ridiculous hypotheticals. The statistics, on the other hand, speak for themselves.

Crofl laziness.


It wasn't advice. It was an observation as to your acumen, dimwit. You do a very poor job keeping track of the flow of argument. It's why I ask you if you write your counts in crayola. Then again I doubt they let you have such latitude on any case.

Awww, you're so sweet.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It doesn't matter what I believe. Point is it is possible. Incredulity is not an argument, dimwit.
What is more likely, a criminal steals a gun and takes it apart and puts it away or a criminal steals a gun and uses it in another crime?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you think that there might be some sort of connection between stealing guns and future crimes? And that connection might not exist with other objects?

Still waiting on those tv stats.

Crofl imagination.



Show me yours and I'll show you mine.



A gun that could do a pretty good job of killing someone costs less than $950. Who's the one not thinking things through?



Do you have a substantive point about the policy point being made here? I thought we were actually arguing the points?



Well, that's not right. Possession of a stolen gun is, you know, illegal. So ya, all activities with a stolen gun are by definition illegal.

Speaking of laziness, do you think that there's a problem with deterring people from stealing guns? Or do you think we should loosen the penalties for people who do so?

You'd have a point if there was rampant, non-violent crime usage of stolen weapons (crofl taking them apart). So far, you have a couple of ridiculous hypotheticals. The statistics, on the other hand, speak for themselves.

Crofl laziness.



Awww, you're so sweet.

You are the one that presented the number of stolen guns argument. You don't support it with shit and it has as much merit. Yeah laziness.

Ridiculous hypotheticals? Again incredulity is not an argument. Fact is that it is a reasonable possibility. Much more reasonable than every single stolen gun will be used in a homicide or violent crime.

My issue is not with deterrence. My issue is with fairness. I never said stealing guns should be legalized so try again. I just said I was fine with making crimes involving stolen guns becoming aggravated felonies. I am interested in punishing people for what they have done and not what they might have done.

You guys aren't. That is okay. You coming in partway through the argument and fumbling around points is amusing though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What is more likely, a criminal steals a gun and takes it apart and puts it away or a criminal steals a gun and uses it in another crime?

That is besides the point but its cute watching you move your goalposts.

You dumbfucks are boring and I have some shows to watch.

[vy65]

You are the one that presented the number of stolen guns argument. You don't support it with shit and it has as much merit. Yeah laziness.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine


Ridiculous hypotheticals? Again incredulity is not an argument. Fact is that it is a reasonable possibility. Much more reasonable than every single stolen gun will be used in a homicide or violent crime.

Reasonable possibility?

What are the stats on tv-murders? Can you give me one news article of a tv being used as the murder weapon?

This has got to be the dumbest "double-down" I've ever heard of. Are you serious? You think not only a) people use tv's to kill people but also b) that it's a reasonable possibility. Do you know what reasonable means?

No one ever said all stolen guns are used in subsequent crimes.


My issue is not with deterrence. My issue is with fairness. I never said stealing guns should be legalized so try again. I just said I was fine with making crimes involving stolen guns becoming aggravated felonies. I am interested in punishing people for what they have done and not what they might have done.

You guys aren't. That is okay. You coming in partway through the argument and fumbling around points is amusing though.


No, your problem is definitely with deterrence. You're not wanting to admit the obvious: that people often steal guns for use in subsequent crimes. This isn't like stealing a dresser, or a computer. There's a connection there that doesn't exist with other objects. More to the point: since guns are kinda good at killing people, and because death is bad, the law figures it's a good idea to deal with that on the front-end. That's what deterrence is: preventing people from doing something before it happens.

I guess to you, fairness means exposing more people to danger and/or death.

[vy65]

That is besides the point but its cute watching you move your goalposts.

You dumbfucks are boring and I have some shows to watch.

That's exactly the point.

Tell us if anything good happens on the Real Housewives tonight, will ya?

[TheSanityAnnex]

That is besides the point but its cute watching you move your goalposts.

nothing has moved. It's fun watching you try and get out of this. You are almost to the point of arguing against yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Should have known better than to allow Dr. Dumbfuck and Counselor Crayola to define the parameters of the issue. It's my own fault. Between poor reading and critical thinking skills as well as a penchant for dropping arguments and not understanding various forms of proof I should have realized that neither can be trusted.

I was under the impression that the statue raised the limit on gun thefts specifically. The change which passed making this crying over spilled milk simply raises the felony limit for theft, period.

So in other words a limit that has been such for 30 or so years and does not consider inflation should not be changed because some but not all firearm thefts would be affected. IOW, nothing should change because it also effects guns. The TV or any other good that I was just told by the sophist is not going to hurt someone should remain a felony because guns can be stolen too.

From talking to some friends of mine from Modesto, it's an obfuscation campaign led by Dr Dumbfucks favorite special interest: the gun lobby. There are several things to consider.

1) There were already firearms worth less than the previous limit whose THEFT was only a misdemeanor before. This was moreso 40 years ago.
2) There will still be guns worth more than the new limit whose THEFT will be a felony after it goes into effect.
3) The previous $250 limit has been the same since the 1970s and had not adjusted for inflation at all.
4) No gun laws were changed. IOW, possession of a stolen gun in and of itself remains a felony. Trafficking a stolen gun remains a much more egregious penalty. IOW, this notion that there is not a felony deterrence for stealing firearms is horseshit.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You are one stupid fuck.


Should have known better than to allow Dr. Dumbfuck and Counselor Crayola to define the parameters of the issue. It's my own fault. Between poor reading and critical thinking skills as well as a penchant for dropping arguments and not understanding various forms of proof I should have realized that neither can be trusted.

I was under the impression that the statue raised the limit on gun thefts specifically. The change which passed making this crying over spilled milk simply raises the felony limit for theft, period.

It all makes sense now. You were arguing something you'd never read despite the link being posted, of which you even quoted.


So in other words a limit that has been such for 30 or so years and does not consider inflation should not be changed because some but not all firearm thefts would be affected. IOW, nothing should change because it also effects guns. The TV or any other good that I was just told by the sophist is not going to hurt someone should remain a felony because guns can be stolen too.More stupidity. Not a single mention against TV's or any other stolen good being reduced to misdemeanors.


From talking to some friends of mine from Modesto, it's an obfuscation campaign led by Dr Dumbfucks favorite special interest: the gun lobby. There are several things to consider.

1) There were already firearms worth less than the previous limit whose THEFT was only a misdemeanor before. This was moreso 40 years ago.
2) There will still be guns worth more than the new limit whose THEFT will be a felony after it goes into effect.
3) The previous $250 limit has been the same since the 1970s and had not adjusted for inflation at all.
4) No gun laws were changed. IOW, possession of a stolen gun in and of itself remains a felony. Trafficking a stolen gun remains a much more egregious penalty. IOW, this notion that there is not a felony deterrence for stealing firearms is horseshit.

Out of words for your stupidity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are one stupid fuck.

It all makes sense now. You were arguing something you'd never read despite the link being posted, of which you even quoted.

More stupidity. Not a single mention against TV's or any other stolen good being reduced to misdemeanors.



Out of words for your stupidity.

I will admit I was misled by your fixation on the gun angle. The theft statute does not distinguish for guns at all. That is your assertion and I was led astray. Gun price ranges have always straddled the limit and always will. If you want special consideration for guns you already have that through several other felony counts for prosecutors to work with. Your complaint has no merit.

This is a waste of time. The measure passed. You lost.

[vy65]

Crofl, fuzzy. Of course the statute doesn't distinguish gun thefts specifically. That's not how you write laws. You write them broadly enough to give prosecutors advantages, ie, being able to charge possession of stolen goods under 950 as "receiving" stolen goods, a felony.

I dunno who you talked to, but they're about as dumb as you.

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2014/general/pdf/proposition-47-title-summary-analysis.pdf

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So now that the parameters of the proposition are clear Dr' Dumbfuck and Counselor Crayola are now left with ad hominem.

And a double :lol :lol at acting as if there is one 'correct' way to write a law and that the correct way is to make it easier for prosecutors to pin felonies on citizens. What a bunch of naive, minion horseshit.

[vy65]

I take it by your silence on the substantive point, you didn't read that link, did ya?

[TheSanityAnnex]

I will admit I was misled by your fixation on the gun angle.There was no misleading you are just a stupid fuck.


The theft statute does not distinguish for guns at all. That is your assertion and I was led astray.You led yourself astray you stupid fuck. I said from the get go stolen guns were previously an automatic felony, and are now simply seen as another stolen good resulting in a a misdemeanor.


Gun price ranges have always straddled the limit and always will. If you want special consideration for guns you already have that through several other felony counts for prosecutors to work with. Your complaint has no merit.The overwhelming majority of stolen guns do not straddle the new $950 limit, not even close. The overwhelming majority of stolen guns are handguns which average around $500. People aren't running around stealing over/under Benelli's and selling them on the street.


This is a waste of time. The measure passed. You lost.This has been a complete waste of time considering you hadn't even read nor understood the proposition in question. This had everything to do with punishing people who steal guns with a harsher penalty than the guy who stole a TV. It was so simple, yet you failed to grasp it. Now that you've read it you actually agree with me but don't have the balls to admit you were wrong and come clean. Even with the anonymity a message board provides you are still a coward.

[TheSanityAnnex]

An anti-gunner arguing for reduced penalties for gun theft, fucking classic.

[vy65]

Those Benelli's are nice doe

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I take it by your silence on the substantive point, you didn't read that link, did ya?

So I am supposed to read the link and address some argument therein?

This is what I get at about your inability to articulate arguments on your own, counselor crayola. I addressed what you wrote and seeing your recognition as to what it means to drop another's arguments that holds to my rebuttal.

There is no 'correct' way to write a law and if you think the correct way is to make it easier for prosecutors to pin felonies on citizens then we are just going to have to disagree. Personally I find ambiguities that you are deploring the removal of to be abominations.

How about you make your own arguments or at the very least quote someone else's rather than alluding to one because you don't have the ability to articulate. This is why I think you have to be a shitty attorney.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

An anti-gunner arguing for reduced penalties for gun theft, fucking classic.

And there you go again making it all about guns again. I support bringing the theft limit into the new century

You also don't have the foggiest about my position especially seeing how you dumbed it down as you have.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Those Benelli's are nice doe
mmmhmmmm. Too nice to steal though, don't want to get popped for dat felony.

[vy65]

So I am supposed to read the link and address some argument therein?

Um, ya.


This is what I get at about your inability to articulate arguments on your own, counselor crayola. I addressed what you wrote and seeing your recognition as to what it means to drop another's arguments that holds to my rebuttal.

There is no 'correct' way to write a law and if you think the correct way is to make it easier for prosecutors to pin felonies on citizens then we are just going to have to disagree. Personally I find ambiguities that you are deploring the removal of to be abominations.

How about you make your own arguments or at the very least quote someone else's rather than alluding to one because you don't have the ability to articulate. This is why I think you have to be a shitty attorney.

You're deflecting -- stay on topic. When you a) go to law school or b) become a legislative aid, then we'll talk about how laws are written.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You led yourself astray you stupid fuck. I said from the get go stolen guns were previously an automatic felony, and are now simply seen as another stolen good resulting in a a misdemeanor.

Nope guns worth less than $250 were not felony theft for the past 40 years. You suck at reading. Prop 47 changes the limit and there is no special gun provision in the theft statute.

Keep calling me stupid though it's amusing in light of your reading and critical thinking skills here on full display.

[TheSanityAnnex]

And there you go again making it all about guns again.What the fuck have we been discussing you stupid fuck?


I support bringing the theft limit into the new centuryThat's wonderful, I support it as well. Guns should not have been included as they are not stolen by criminals and then taken apart and put away in storage.


You also don't have the foggiest about my position especially seeing how you dumbed it down as you have.You were pretty clear on your position, you want someone who steals a gun to be treated the same as someone who steals a skateboard.


I think such disproportionate punishments are unfair and as such has no place in legal statute. I would support the change even without the marijuana provision.

Stupid fuck.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Um, ya.

You're deflecting -- stay on topic. When you a) go to law school or b) become a legislative aid, then we'll talk about how laws are written.

This is so adorable. You have now resorted to appealing to authority and ad hominem when you cannot even make your own arguments.

What I say is either right or wrong regardless of background. You notion of 'correctness' in regards to lawmaking is still naive.

It's not deflecting. I am responding to the arguments you have actually made. You cannot even respond on merit. :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What the fuck have we been discussing you stupid fuck?

We have been discussing it because you are stupid and not very discerning. You don't even know what the measure entails and it was on the ballot in your own state.

More proof of a lack of reading and critical thinking skills.

[vy65]

Jesus Christ Fuzzy, we're blatantly wrong and you still didn't point it out.

I'll give you a hint: 487(d)(2)

It was the maid, in the study, with a tv

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What the fuck have we been discussing you stupid fuck?

That's wonderful, I support it as well. Guns should not have been included as they are not stolen by criminals and then taken apart and put away in storage.

You were pretty clear on your position, you want someone who steals a gun to be treated the same as someone who steals a skateboard.



Stupid fuck.

and :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao m-m-m-m-m-meltdown

[TheSanityAnnex]

Nope guns worth less than $250 were not felony theft for the past 40 years. You suck at reading. Prop 47 changes the limit and there is no special gun provision in the theft statute.

Keep calling me stupid though it's amusing in light of your reading and critical thinking skills here on full display.

You are stupid and know nothing of what you speak of.

The theft of any firearm is defined as a felony pursuant CA Penal Code 487 (d)(2) and 489.



http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/487.html
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/489.html

You seriously have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[vy65]

Crofl you had the opportunity to make us look like giant idiots and you doubled down on tvs kill people. Crofl

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Jesus Christ Fuzzy, we're blatantly wrong and you still didn't point it out.

I'll give you a hint: 487(d)(2)

It was the maid, in the study, with a tv

What I am coming to realize is that there are a lot of conflicting reports.

[vy65]

Please pass this info along to your buds in Modesto

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are stupid and know nothing of what you speak of.

The theft of any firearm is defined as a felony pursuant CA Penal Code 487 (d)(2) and 489.



http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/487.html
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/489.html

You seriously have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

That doesn't say what you think it does.

[vy65]

Fine show of critical thinking and reading comprehension ole boy

[TheSanityAnnex]

And now under prop 47

490.2 P.C. Grand theft of any kind (ie. purse snatching, GTA, theft of firearm), misdemeanor unless the value (which must be factually established at pleading) exceeds $950.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Crofl you had the opportunity to make us look like giant idiots and you doubled down on tvs kill people. Crofl

I respond to people being insecure about their intelligence because of me as I do but my overall intent is discovering the truth. If I am wrong then so be it as long as the correct answer is arrived at.

I actually appreciate the input.

[vy65]

Damn shouldn't second guess TSA

SEC. 8. Section 490.2 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
490.2. (a) Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining any property by theft where the value of the money, labor, real or personal property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor

[vy65]

Critical Thinking!
Reading Comprehension!
Lackwit!

Cray:lolla C:lolunsel:lolr

[vy65]

Friends in M:loldest:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Damn shouldn't second guess TSA

SEC. 8. Section 490.2 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
490.2. (a) Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining any property by theft where the value of the money, labor, real or personal property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor

Saw that too. I am reading through the actual text now.

There are still all kinds of felonies regarding illegal firearms for prosecutors to turn to when someone is caught with one. He keeps handwaving at the gun part but there were multiple exceptions. It seems clear to me from reading it that the idea behind the proposition was to simplify the theft statute and eliminate the wobblers.

[vy65]

So you saw the part that says your friends in Modesto are completely wrong? Cool.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Critical Thinking!
Reading Comprehension!
Lackwit!

Cray:lolla C:lolunsel:lolr


Friends in M:loldest:lol

You should act more insecure. It really impacts me like you want when you do this. Really. :rolleyes

[vy65]

Well, it clearly impacted you enough to call your friends in M:loldest:lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

Saw that too. I am reading through the actual text now.

There are still all kinds of felonies regarding illegal firearms for prosecutors to turn to when someone is caught with one. He keeps handwaving at the gun part but there were multiple exceptions. It seems clear to me from reading it that the idea behind the proposition was to simplify the theft statute and eliminate the wobblers.

Oh so now you decide to actually read it, what a superb idea. None of the other exceptions have the potential to cause harm like a stolen handgun does, that is why I have no issue with them.

You've made a fool out of yourself here, you should have known as much when your semen shield was viewing the thread every day and failed to respond in your defense. I saw you Pusher.

I leave you with this, my newly acquired "not a felony if stolen" Sig P238.

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/sigp238_zpsef77b129.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/thefuzzylumpkins/media/sigp238_zpsef77b129.jpg.html)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, it clearly impacted you enough to call your friends in M:loldest:lol

Wrong assumption. Try again.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I hope this doesn't jeopardize my status in the fan club Fuzzy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh so now you decide to actually read it, what a superb idea. None of the other exceptions have the potential to cause harm like a stolen handgun does, that is why I have no issue with them.

You've made a fool out of yourself here, you should have known as much when your semen shield was viewing the thread every day and failed to respond in your defense. I saw you Pusher.

I leave you with this, my newly acquired "not a felony if stolen" Sig P238.

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/sigp238_zpsef77b129.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/thefuzzylumpkins/media/sigp238_zpsef77b129.jpg.html)

It's not a felony for theft but if someone steals it and gets caught, it is still a felony under CA gun laws. It's a nuance that is lost to you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I hope this doesn't jeopardize my status in the fan club Fuzzy.

Nah your meltdown earlier cements your status.

[vy65]

Fuzzy, you do realize that the law eliminates all those other "exceptions" you mention (although you're probably pulling these "exceptions" out of your ass too). That's what the word "notwithstanding" means.

Crofl the murder weapon was a Panasonic flatscreen

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, you do realize that the law eliminates all those other "exceptions" you mention (although you're probably pulling this out of your ass too). That's what the word "notwithstanding" means.

Crofl the murder weapon was a Panasonic flatscreen

It won't be grandtheft notwithstanding. It does not mention CA gun statutes at all and having a stolen gun is still a felony from that even if it not grand theft.

[vy65]

It's not a felony for theft but if someone steals it and gets caught, it is still a felony under CA gun laws. It's a nuance that is lost to you.

Crofl, no it's not a felony. That's the whole point. How are you not getting this?

[vy65]

If the gun is stolen and its under 950 -- like that sig -- it's not a felony now. How are you not getting this?

[vy65]

It won't be grandtheft notwithstanding. It does not mention CA gun statutes at all and having a stolen gun is still a felony from that even if it not grand theft.

Give me the cite to those other gun statutes

[TheSanityAnnex]

It's not a felony for theft but if someone steals it and gets caught, it is still a felony under CA gun laws.Tripling down on stupid :lmao

[vy65]

not·with·stand·ing
ˌnätwiTHˈstandiNG,ˌnätwiT͟HˈstandiNG/
preposition
1.
in spite of.
"notwithstanding the evidence, the consensus is that the jury will not reach a verdict"
synonyms: despite, in spite of, regardless of, for all
"notwithstanding his workload, he is a dedicated father"

Crofl trying to lecture me about statutory interpretation
Crofl other gun laws
Crofl m:loldest:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

not·with·stand·ing
ˌnätwiTHˈstandiNG,ˌnätwiT͟HˈstandiNG/
preposition
1.
in spite of.
"notwithstanding the evidence, the consensus is that the jury will not reach a verdict"
synonyms: despite, in spite of, regardless of, for all
"notwithstanding his workload, he is a dedicated father"

Crofl trying to lecture me about statutory interpretation
Crofl other gun laws
Crofl m:loldest:lol

It was speaking in respects to the grand vs petty theft distinction. So you can wave your hands at the language used for the removal of the wobble all you like. It is amusing that back when were arguing about things one could do with a gun you understood that possessing a stolen gun was in and of itself a crime independent to the type of theft.

[TheSanityAnnex]

One of the best foot in mouth threads I've read in quite some time. Thanks for the laughs Fuzzy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One of the best foot in mouth threads I've read in quite some time. Thanks for the laughs Fuzzy.

I made a mistake regarding a point of law. your compatriot was the one to make the mistake.

I still hold that guns should not hold special status in theft laws and I have yet to see a justification that would not also trap those that do not have the intentions that you decry much less any statistical substantiation for said justification. It still remains that possession of a stolen gun is a different crime independent of theft.

I got bored and went to sleep. You guys were writing frantic emoticon filled responses in your desperation to score points. I don't value things the same. I already know your capacity and it is lacking so I don't need to look desperate trying to score any point I can.

[TheSanityAnnex]

lol still trying to score points
lol critical thinking
lol reading comprehension

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol still trying to score points
lol critical thinking
lol reading comprehension

I just admitted that I made a mistake as to a point of law. You are acting like you won the super bowl with your spam levels.

You still are unable to argue the points. Proposition 47 passed overwhelmingly. Please point me to the specific cases where someone actually stole a gun and under the new law would not be subject to some felony count if not the one you want to keep.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I just admitted that I made a mistake as to a point of law. You are acting like you won the super bowl with your spam levels.

You still are unable to argue the points. Proposition 47 passed overwhelmingly. Please point me to the specific cases where someone actually stole a gun and under the new law would not be subject to some felony count if not the one you want to keep.


What part of this do you not understand?

SEC. 8. Section 490.2 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
490.2. (a) Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining any property by theft where the value of the money, labor, real or personal property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What part of this do you not understand?

SEC. 8. Section 490.2 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
490.2. (a) Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining any property by theft where the value of the money, labor, real or personal property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor


What part of 'there are other felonies than grand theft' is difficult to understand? Parrot vy some more though and demonstrate your inability to think for yourself further.

[TheSanityAnnex]

What part of 'there are other felonies than grand theft' is difficult to understand? Parrot vy some more though and demonstrate your inability to think for yourself further.

Parroting? :lol neither of you knew about that section of the Penal Code until I brought it up. You've been arguing the past few days on a proposition you hadn't even read nor understood in your typical try-hard psuedo intellectual fashion. You've constantly told others they lack critical thinking skills and reading comprehension yet that is all you have exhibited in this thread. Your ego has gotten the best of you and your intelligence is definitely not on par with what you think it projects. You are basically a fool.

You still don't understand it prop 47 even after it has all been laid out for you and explained. You were even provided the section that was added to the Penal Code from prop 47 and you still don't get it that

In what scenario would a person caught stealing a sub $950 firearm receive a felony?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If the gun is stolen and its under 950 -- like that sig -- it's not a felony now. How are you not getting this?


Parroting? :lol neither of you knew about that section of the Penal Code until I brought it up. You've been arguing the past few days on a proposition you hadn't even read nor understood in your typical try-hard psuedo intellectual fashion. You've constantly told others they lack critical thinking skills and reading comprehension yet that is all you have exhibited in this thread. Your ego has gotten the best of you and your intelligence is definitely not on par with what you think it projects. You are basically a fool.

You still don't understand it prop 47 even after it has all been laid out for you and explained. You were even provided the section that was added to the Penal Code from prop 47 and you still don't get it that

In what scenario would a person caught stealing a sub $950 firearm receive a felony?

Yeah parroting. Possession of an illegal gun is a felony in CA as well as other felonies in the anti-gang and concealed carry statute. Read your voters guide.

Measure passed by near 20 points and I don't really give much of a shit. I just find it amusing that your gun blogs can only come up with hypotheticals for gun thieves and their cases who are going to 'abuse' this law. They have been releasing former felons all week.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Yeah parroting. Possession of an illegal gun is a felony in CA as well as other felonies in the anti-gang and concealed carry statute. Read your voters guide.

Measure passed by near 20 points and I don't really give much of a shit. I just find it amusing that your gun blogs can only come up with hypotheticals for gun thieves and their cases who are going to 'abuse' this law. They have been releasing former felons all week.

You still don't get it. My work here is done.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You still don't get it. My work here is done.

If you steal a .45 and get caught with it you can be charged with all of the following crimes:

1) Misdemeanor - petty theft
2) Misdemeanor - receiving stolen property
3) Possession of illegal firearm - felony
4) Carry concealed firearm without a license - felony

Just because you are too stupid to realize that there are more crimes than just theft doesn't speak to anything. Breaking and entering as well as burglary are still felonies too but those don't apply if the victim is an idiot.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If you steal a .45 and get caught with it you can be charged with all of the following crimes:

1) Misdemeanor - petty theft
2) Misdemeanor - receiving stolen property
3) Possession of illegal firearm - felony
4) Carry concealed firearm without a license - felony

Just because you are too stupid to realize that there are more crimes than just theft doesn't speak to anything. Breaking and entering as well as burglary are still felonies too but those don't apply if the victim is an idiot.
Nope, still doesn't get it. Smh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nope, still doesn't get it. Smh.


Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft

sigh I will hand hold you through the critical thinking.

Do gun laws define grand theft?

[vy65]

"Shall be punished as a misdemeanor"

Fuzzy, nullifying the statute with his critical thinking skills per the par

[vy65]

Wtf are "gun laws?"

[TheSanityAnnex]

What part of this do you not understand?

SEC. 8. Section 490.2 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
490.2. (a) Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining any property by theft where the value of the money, labor, real or personal property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wtf are "gun laws?"


Well, that's not right. Possession of a stolen gun is, you know, illegal. So ya, all activities with a stolen gun are by definition illegal.


Which one is it going to be, sophist?

Possession of a stolen gun is not the same as the actual theft. This is the distinction I am trying to point out yet you two dipshits keep on handwaving on the distinction between grandtheft and petty theft. I get that the actual theft will not be a felony. I am talking about the possession of a stolen gun where other felony counts than grandtheft would apply.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And again thousands of prisoners have been released in the past week since it's passed. Where are the examples of undeterred gun thefts? I see a whole lot of hypotheticals and not a single empirical example.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Which one is it going to be, sophist?

Possession of a stolen gun is not the same as the actual theft. This is the distinction I am trying to point out yet you two dipshits keep on handwaving on the distinction between grandtheft and petty theft. I get that the actual theft will not be a felony. I am talking about the possession of a stolen gun where other felony counts than grandtheft would apply.

Have you forgotten we are discussing the implications of prop 47 which deal specifically with the distinction between grand theft and petty theft?

[boutons_deux]

all gun thefts should be felonies, and the victim of gun theft fined $1000 and have his gun license(s) and all his guns confiscated for a year.

If his stolen gun is used to commit murder, then the gun owner gets mandatory 1 year in prison.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Have you forgotten we are discussing the implications of prop 47 which deal specifically with the distinction between grand theft and petty theft?

You were the one arguing the need for deterrence, dipshit. Stealing a gun implies the possession of said stolen weapon. Do we need to look up the meaning of the word implication? This is exactly what I am talking about regarding missing the forest for a tree.

Guess Super Bowl festivities are over.

[TheSanityAnnex]

smh. You still don't get it and are still wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I am wrong then that is okay but you have yet to articulate how I am wrong. I answered the notwithstanding objection and you dimwits don't seem to understand there are other felonies that would apply. It's even in the voters guide that you linked in the very beginning.

You are shortsighted, have tunnel vision, read at a low level and cannot think for yourself. Sorry that you cannot keep up with more than one thing at once nor recall the breadth of the argument we have been having.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Proposition 47 maintains penalties for gun crimes. Under Prop. 47, possessing a stolen concealed gun remains a felony. Additional felony penalties to prevent felons and gang members from obtaining guns also apply.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/47/arguments-rebuttals.htm

[Winehole23]

Congress decriminalizes medical marijuana :


Tucked deep inside the 1,603-page federal spending measure is a provision that effectively ends the federal government's prohibition on medical marijuana and signals a major shift in drug policy.


The bill's passage over the weekend marks the first time Congress has approved nationally significant legislation backed by legalization advocates. It brings almost to a close two decades of tension between the states and Washington over medical use of marijuana.


Under the provision, states where medical pot is legal would no longer need to worry about federal drug agents raiding retail operations. Agents would be prohibited from doing so.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medical-pot-20141216-story.html

[boutons_deux]

Congress decriminalizes medical marijuana :

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medical-pot-20141216-story.html

I was amazed to read this a couple days ago.

maybe DEA/DrugWarriors will quit LYING that mj has no medical benefit (there are have been about 20K research projects on mj world-wide, more research than almost ANY FDA-approved drug)

but probably not.

(govt) researchers "should" be able do mj research now which has been mostly restricted to near-prohibition, and IIRC, only mj from a single govt plot of mj in the South.

[boutons_deux]

Kafkaesque:

Feds stick to court argument that marijuana is dangerous

Two weeks after President Obama signed legislation prohibiting federal interference with state medical marijuana laws, his administration has told a federal judge in Sacramento that pot is still a dangerous drug with no medical value.

The U.S. attorney’s office, representing Obama’s Justice Department (http://m.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=nation&inlineLink=1&searchindex=property&query=%22Justice+Department%22), made the argument in a court filing Wednesday opposing a challenge to the long-standing federal law that classifies marijuana as a Schedule One drug along with heroin, LSD and ecstasy — substances that have a high potential for abuse and no safe medical use.


While there may be “some dispute among doctors as to whether marijuana is medicine,” there is ample evidence to support the government’s conclusion that “this psychoactive, addictive drug is not accepted as safe for medical use at this time, even with medical supervision,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Broderick (http://m.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=nation&inlineLink=1&searchindex=property&query=%22Gregory+Broderick%22) wrote.

Lawyers for alleged marijuana growers countered that the government presented no credible evidence that marijuana carries the potential hazards of legal substances, like tobacco and alcohol, and that the administration’s position makes even less sense in light of the law Obama signed Dec. 16.

That law, part of an overall government financing bill for the year, bars the federal government from spending money to prevent California and 21 other states from “implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.”

Congress can’t rationally “justify a finding that marijuana has no medical benefits while demanding that the distribution of medical marijuana be protected from federal government interference,” said Zenia Gilg (http://m.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=nation&inlineLink=1&searchindex=property&query=%22Zenia+Gilg%22), lawyer for one of seven defendants charged with growing marijuana on national forest land in Trinity and Tehama counties.

?http://m.sfgate.com/nation/article/Feds-stick-to-court-argument-that-marijuana-is-5990798.php

What does Obama have to lose to move mj from its insane Schedule I position to Schedule IV, or even off Schedule completely?

Rescheduling substances is 100% within the Exec's power.

It would certainly satisfy Repug/Fox whining about over-regulating, over-reaching Big Govt (not that being 100% hypocritical ever bothers the Repugs, depending whether its a Repug or Dem doing something).

[boutons_deux]

Americans Favor Legalizing Pot and Criminalizing Congress

WASHINGTON — By a huge majority, Americans support laws legalizing marijuana and criminalizing Congress, according to a poll released on Thursday.

While the poll reflects a relaxation of attitudes about recreational pot use, it also suggests that many Americans now view membership in Congress as a problem ravaging the nation.

Harland Dorrinson, an activist who has spent years mobilizing support for the criminalization of Congress, said that “this poll reinforces what many of us have been saying for a long time: Congress destroys lives.”

“I’ve seen productive members of society get involved with Congress and completely lose the will to work,” he said. “They just sit there, totally numb and out of touch with reality.”

He noted that the once prevalent view that membership in Congress was “harmless” is now being discredited.

“If you look at what happens to someone’s brain after ten, twenty, or even thirty years in Congress, it’s devastating,” he said. “There is severe impairment.”

Additionally, he warned that Congress is a “gateway elective office” that leads many to try running for President.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/americans-favor-legalizing-pot-and-criminalizing-congress?mbid=nl_022615_borowitz&CNDID=&spMailingID=7538743&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=622498586&spReportId=NjIyNDk4NTg2S0


come on, people, ya gotta admit, this is a pretty good one. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Additionally, he warned that Congress is a “gateway elective office” that leads many to try running for President.
That's one reason why we shold only for for those with experience as Governor, or some other executive office.

[boutons_deux]

That's one reason why we shold only for for those with experience as Governor, or some other executive office.

agreed, Repug members of Congress are appointed.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Warn Washington to Think Twice About Legalizing Marijuana

Some Congressional Republicans said Thursday that they would increase their efforts to prevent residents here from possessing small amounts of marijuana, which became legal in Washington at midnight, and warned that the city would face numerous investigations and hearings should the mayor continue her practice of telling them to please find something else to worry about.

“We say move forward at your own peril,” said Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, echoing a letter he and Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina, sent to city officials this week, warning of legal action and ordering the district to turn over documentation on any employees involved with putting the law into effect.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/us/as-marijuana-becomes-legal-in-washington-congressional-republicans-warn-city-to-think-twice.html?_r=0

[Winehole23]

all bark, no bite:


House Republicans said Wednesday that they are not preparing to take legal action against the city should it proceed in defiance of a congressional funding rider. Instead, one congressman said, it would fall to the Justice Department to intervene — a much less likely scenario under the Obama administration.

“I think the attorney general should prosecute people in the District who participate in this under the Anti-Deficiency Act,” said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), who introduced the appropriations amendment intended to block the city from moving forward with the marijuana legalization measure passed by voters in November.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/house-republicans-warn-dc-mayor-not-to-legalize-pot/2015/02/25/2f784a10-bcb0-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html

[Wild Cobra]

Besides, they aren't interested in spending limited funds there.

[boutons_deux]

Besides, they aren't interested in spending limited funds there.

Repugs have spent $Ms suing Obama! :lol They wasted $10Ms of House time repealing Obamacare 50+ times! :lol You People and your Congress people are fucking insane.

[Wild Cobra]

Repugs have spent $Ms suing Obama! :lol They wasted $10Ms of House time repealing Obamacare 50+ times! :lol You People and your Congress people are fucking insane.

Do you consider them at the same level?

Obamacare is going to harm America more than Mary Jane ever can.

[boutons_deux]

Obamacare is going to harm America more than Mary Jane ever can.

evidence? or just your bogus "faith"

[Wild Cobra]

evidence? or just your bogus "faith"

Well, my bogus faith is far better than your actual faith.

[boutons_deux]

Well, my bogus faith is far better than your actual faith.

so you don't have evidence

[Wild Cobra]

so you don't have evidence

Wooosh....

Over your head, huh...

[CosmicCowboy]

It's stupid to legalize pot and not legalize and tax the whole process from production to distribution to retail. I like what they are doing with the Colorado model. They have had some bumps but for the most part it seems to be working.

[baseline bum]

Fuck the decriminalization, shit needs to be fully legal and able to be transported across state lines so we can get good access to that Humboldt County smoke tbh.

[Infinite_limit]

Homosexuality, interracial marriage, feminism and legalizing Pot


Whoa have we ever witnessed such a cultural decline in the span of 50 years?

[Winehole23]

we already knew you were a paternalistic bigot, but what's your deal with legal pot?

[Wild Cobra]

Homosexuality, interracial marriage, feminism and legalizing Pot


Whoa have we ever witnessed such a cultural decline in the span of 50 years?

What do you mean?

Pot was legal much of the last century.

[boutons_deux]

What do you mean?

Pot was legal much of the last century

not in the 20th, after 1937 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

[CosmicCowboy]

I think 37 years meets the basic qualification of "much". He clearly didn't say "most".

You will argue about anything, won't you boo?

[boutons_deux]

Utah medical marijuana law would mean rabbits will be stoned all of the time, says DEA (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/02/1368037/-Rabbits-will-be-stoned-all-of-the-time-says-DEA)

http://images.dailykos.com/images/132065/large/Rabbit_Looks_Surprised_by_Monique_Haen.jpg?1425329 026

Fairbanks said that at some illegal marijuana grow sites he saw "rabbits that had cultivated a taste for the marijuana. ..." He continued: "One of them refused to leave us, and we took all the marijuana around him, but his natural instincts to run were somehow gone."

Fairbanks is a part of the marijuana eradication team in Utah.

Eradication (http://www.dea.gov/ops/cannabis.shtml) teams can be found all over our great nation, doing God's work: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/06/heavily-armed-drug-cops-raid-retirees-garden-seize-okra-plants/)


Georgia police raided a retired Atlanta man's garden last Wednesday after a helicopter crew with the Governor's Task Force for Drug Suppression spotted suspicious-looking plants on the man's property. A heavily-armed K9 unit arrived and discovered that the plants were, in fact, okra bushes.

PROS AND CONS:

Pro: Heavily armed DEA agents will raid farmers to stop the evils of cannabis (or suspicious okra).

Cons: Rabbits who don't want you to harsh their mellow may roam the countryside and even let you pet them.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/02/1368037/-Rabbits-will-be-stoned-all-of-the-time-says-DEA?detail=email

[boutons_deux]

I think 37 years meets the basic qualification of "much". He clearly didn't say "most".

You will argue about anything, won't you boo?

37% is a little more than 1/3, which ain't MUCH, and about what the Repug pres candidate will get in 2016.

[CosmicCowboy]

37% is a little more than 1/3, which ain't MUCH, and about what the Repug pres candidate will get in 2016.

If your dick was 37% longer or you were 37% smarter you might even be able to get laid.

[Wild Cobra]

If your dick was 37% longer or you were 37% smarter you might even be able to get laid.

Well....

A 37% increase of 0 is still 0....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What do you mean?

Pot was legal much of the last century.


not in the 20th, after 1937 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger


I think 37 years meets the basic qualification of "much". He clearly didn't say "most".

You will argue about anything, won't you boo?


37% is a little more than 1/3, which ain't MUCH, and about what the Repug pres candidate will get in 2016.


If your dick was 37% longer or you were 37% smarter you might even be able to get laid.


Well....

A 37% increase of 0 is still 0....

http://troll.me/images/retard-superman/keep-it-up-fight-the-good-fight.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

pot meet kettle. You are just Boutons Lite.

[diego]

It's stupid to legalize pot and not legalize and tax the whole process from production to distribution to retail. I like what they are doing with the Colorado model. They have had some bumps but for the most part it seems to be working.

i came back from uruguay recently and they went even further, the government controls production and distribution... and it doesnt produce or distribute anything over a year later :lol
(actually the issue is a little more nuanced than plain old incompetent socialist govt, as there are still resistant parts of society and they are sabotaging the distribution quite well)

Im pretty sure ive read posts from you before complaining about economic liberty and the value of work, homegrowing should be legal, at the minimum for personal use, just like you would grow your own vegetables or livestock. i can live with a tax in theory, but you know that money isnt going where it should be anyways...

[baseline bum]

i came back from uruguay recently and they went even further, the government controls production and distribution... and it doesnt produce or distribute anything over a year later :lol
(actually the issue is a little more nuanced than plain old incompetent socialist govt, as there are still resistant parts of society and they are sabotaging the distribution quite well)

Im pretty sure ive read posts from you before complaining about economic liberty and the value of work, homegrowing should be legal, at the minimum for personal use, just like you would grow your own vegetables or livestock. i can live with a tax in theory, but you know that money isnt going where it should be anyways...

I wouldn't want a sin tax. Just the standard sales tax though would be great to bring a lot of money in. I could only go for government controlling production and distribution for the hard shit like coke, meth, heroin, etc though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

pot meet kettle. You are just Boutons Lite.

You keep saying this without any basis. Beyond a contempt for you there is not much of anything similar. He is your generation, white, and going by him saying "pussy eater" as an insult, likely gay. Sorry but taht does not match. Politically he supports the democrats while I do not. He goes to ultra liberal and communist sources while I go to CSM, Economist AJ, Foreign Policy etc.

He spams the board and uses as his personal database. He necros threads. The list goes on of behaviors that he is noted most for that are not in any way things that I do.

If you want to go round and round with him and make a fool of yourself then have at it but that has nothing to do with me beyond I find it funny.

[Winehole23]

Congress reins in Federal enforcement respecting medical marijuana:


Tucked deep inside the 1,603-page federal spending measure is a provision that effectively ends the federal government's prohibition on medical marijuana and signals a major shift in drug policy.

The bill's passage over the weekend marks the first time Congress has approved nationally significant legislation backed by legalization advocates. It brings almost to a close two decades of tension between the states and Washington over medical use of marijuana.


Under the provision, states where medical pot is legal would no longer need to worry about federal drug agents raiding retail operations. Agents would be prohibited from doing so.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medical-pot-20141216-story.html

[boutons_deux]

Congress reins in Federal enforcement respecting medical marijuana:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medical-pot-20141216-story.html

A first step, but Schedule II MUST be changed sooner rather than later to OFF SCHEDULE, just like health-terrorist Al Cohol, killer-of-Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States#Man datory_sentencing_.281952.2C_1956.29

Based on recent history, a prediction: House Repugs will attach anti-abortion, and/or anti-LGBT shit to the marijuana bill.

[Winehole23]

a prediction: House Repugs will attach anti-abortion, and/or anti-LGBT shit to the marijuana bill.wrong again. the bill has already passed.

[boutons_deux]

wrong again. the bill has already passed.

I was looking at this more aggressive proposal: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/opinion/a-sensible-bill-on-medical-marijuana.html

[Winehole23]

for the time being, your losing streak remains intact.

[boutons_deux]

for the time being, your losing streak remains intact.

You Wish

[Winehole23]

it's a description, not a wish. your bravado is frankly pitiful.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I was looking at this more aggressive proposal: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/opinion/a-sensible-bill-on-medical-marijuana.html

that means you were wrong, boutox.

[TeyshaBlue]

that means you were wrong, boutox.

Unpossible! :lmao

[boutons_deux]

you fuckers gloat over any chance to catch out the Great Bitch Slapping Boutons