Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/7/11 05:45 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Look, I'm just trying to use American friendly terms. Where i live they have right of entry on "suspicion of drugs". No warrant needed.

Same her in the US. If they have probable cause that a crime is being committed, or that evidence being destroyed (and yes, smoking marijuana is destroying it)

At 4/7/11 09:40 AM, Korriken wrote: interesting. where do you live and how far can this search go? we'd never stand for such a thing over here. I'm no fan of contraband or its users, but I'd have to side with them when it comes to being searched without a warrant. Some would argue "if you got nothing to hide..." and I say "Screw you, I'm not giving up my rights."

Sorry, but the 4th Amendment doesn't give you that much protection here. There are a lot of ways around it, and frankly there should be. The 4th Amendment was put in place to stop harassment, not to allow you to hide criminal activity.

At 4/6/11 10:18 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 4/6/11 05:39 AM, KemCab wrote: And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a full brain that the concept of fairness is a convenient fantasy.

The concept of fairness isn't a fantasy, but the application.

"The concept of fairness" is an ideal. We'd love everyone to be fair to us but that's not going to happen ever. It's a fiction, and so is the "application of fairness."

You'd know that if you had half a brain.

Better being completely brainless, like you, for actually believing that people ought to be fair to each other. (You know what kind of world that'd be: a boring one.)

Korriken, the question is 'are marijuana laws fair', not 'should you get in trouble for breaking the law'. It could be accepted that punishing everyone caught with pot is 'fairer' than having a more scarttershot approach, and you think 'tough shit, you broke the law, don't complain about the punishment', but that completely misses the whole question. Is the punishment fair?

To potentially have your life ruined because you took a drug recreationally, to me, seems like a rather unfair law.

And you can succeed if you smoke pot. I don't even need to provide evidence. The moment you said 'pot smokers can't get their act together enough to change the law' and 'successful people, the type of whom make the laws, don't smoke pot', I immediately started thinking of people like Ted Turner and Richard Branson, companies like NORML, et cetera. It's all bullshit, everything you're saying about pot smokers. They go on pro-cannabis political rallys, they structure propositions, they vote for them, they're normal citizens. If they decided going out like the people of Libya and violently overthrowing the government was an appropriate response, then they'd do that too. Your stereotypes belong in the 40s.

At 4/7/11 11:29 AM, KemCab wrote: Better being completely brainless, like you, for actually believing that people ought to be fair to each other. (You know what kind of world that'd be: a boring one.)

*better than

And lol at you talking about me not having a brain while in the meantime you talk about things like "injustice" and "unfairness."

At 4/7/11 11:29 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 4/6/11 10:18 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 4/6/11 05:39 AM, KemCab wrote: And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a full brain that the concept of fairness is a convenient fantasy.

The concept of fairness isn't a fantasy, but the application.

"The concept of fairness" is an ideal.

Now ideals are fantasies? C'mon.

We'd love everyone to be fair to us but that's not going to happen ever. It's a fiction, and so is the "application of fairness."

Meh, for you to convince me that justice is merely a contrived fiction, you'll need to do better than that.

And I wasn't arguing that everyone being fair to eachother is the reality. I was pointing out your misuse of words and confusion on what a concept is.

You'd know that if you had half a brain.

Better being completely brainless, like you, for actually believing that people ought to be fair to each other. (You know what kind of world that'd be: a boring one.)

Straw man.

At 4/7/11 11:33 AM, KemCab wrote: And lol at you talking about me not having a brain while in the meantime you talk about things like "injustice" and "unfairness."

fair, just, equitable, impartial, unbiased, dispassionate, objective all mean free from favor toward either or any side. fair implies a proper balance of conflicting interests (a fair decision).just implies an exact following of a standard of what is right and proper "a just settlement of territorial claims". equitable implies a less rigorous standard than just and usually suggests equal treatment of all concerned "the equitable distribution of the property". impartial stresses an absence of favor or prejudice "an impartial third party". unbiased implies even more strongly an absence of all prejudice "your unbiased opinion". dispassionate suggests freedom from the influence of strong feeling and often implies cool or even cold judgment "a dispassionate summation of the facts". objective stresses a tendency to view events or persons as apart from oneself and one's own interest or feelings "I can't be objective about my own child".

All those are fantastical, eh?

At 4/7/11 11:20 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/7/11 05:45 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Look, I'm just trying to use American friendly terms. Where i live they have right of entry on "suspicion of drugs". No warrant needed.

Same here in the US. If they have probable cause that a crime is being committed, or that evidence being destroyed (and yes, smoking marijuana is destroying it)

Yeah, each country has it's own nuance in the wording for warrantless search.

US is "probable cause".
Aussie is "reasonable suspicion".
NZ is "reasonable grounds".

Quote: "Warrantless powers have developed in a rather haphazard manner, and in some instances it is difficult for the officers exercising those powers to know the basis for them, when they can be exercised and their exact scope."

On the one hand, it might preclude entry when the officer has not personally witnessed an offence. But in recent cases "a smell of cannabis" has been reasonable grounds for entry (as Camarohusky has suggested) believing evidential material is at risk. Problem is, cannabis is VERY smelly, regardless if it's being grown or smoked, and can waft around and linger, such that it's often hard to tell which building it's actually coming from.

Sure, cannabis is very distinctive, but there are also many legal herbal substitutes that try to mimic the smell and appearance such that an untrained officer might not tell the difference.

At 4/7/11 01:27 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/7/11 12:50 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

You got it right. No one cares. Rather, no one who matters cares. They don't care that pot is illegal. People who actually do things with their lives don't use it so they don't feel the need to legalize it.

You could say the same about all the people who couldn't live without alcohol, or the people who currently cant live without Tobacco. look at all the rich and famous people who drink and smoke. And I'm not talking about the wrecks who are hopped up on meth.

People who want it legalized so they can smoke it don't realize how easy it is to get away with it right now.

Perhaps they want it legalized because when you smoke it you become too stupid to hide it well.

Maybe they want it legalized so their money goes towards helping the country instead of god knows who is growing it.

Oh you mean THE MAN? He's really out to get you, huh. His goal is to ruin your mojo and kill your buzz. You sure got that right...

actually, I would much rather fund "THE MAN" then some sadistic Cartel. In fact, it used to be mandatory by law that all farmers grow hemp, not because of the purpose of getting high, but because of its alternate uses like cheap clothing and paper. Right now, the only people who are taking advantage of the fact that it is illegal are the criminals who make a fortune off of it.

At 4/7/11 02:15 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

Right now, the only people who are taking advantage of the fact that it is illegal are the criminals who make a fortune off of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLROsSQnh vw

At 4/7/11 12:35 AM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote:

Korrieken, I really just think your stupid.

likewise.

Who the fuck are you to compare burglary to smoking weed? That's absurd. Sure it has a low rate of being solved but it can't be legal because it violates one's constitutional rights.

well, it was mentioned that it should be legalized because most ppl get away with it, so i mentioned something else people get away with most of the time.

Marijuana is completely different. Doing it is not hurting anyone except arguably themselves.

perhaps.

And I don't even give a fuck if there is a law hanging drug dealers. There is a HUGE difference between smoking weed and selling it. I am talking about being found in minor possession marijuana.

Yeah but if you start offing those who sell the drug, getting it becomes that much harder. Probably wouldn't affect marijuana itself, but some of the more complicated drugs, like crystal meth, would be much harder to obtain. This stems from people saying "the war on drug isn't working, we should legalize drugs" and I say, "kill the root and the plant dies."

I know exactly the type of person you are. For you, if something is illegal, ITS BAD!!!! DON"T DO IT!!! Why don't you go fucking rant about how whenever your driving people around you are going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit and that just FUCKING DRIVES YOU CRAZY.

heh. you have NO IDEA the kind of person I am. To think you do only proves your ignorance and how easy it would be to manipulate you, especially if you think you know how everyone is off of a single impression. You're just pissed that I have no sympathy for you and refuse to side with the liberals in patting you on the back.

Take a deep breathe, realize that there is a difference between smoking weed and robbing someones house, and go on with your life.

Difference isn't really that huge, actually. both are against the law. both can be a thrill if you're really that bored with life, and both can lead to bigger things if the person allows themselves to, though it doesn't necessarily happen.
so take a deep breath, realize you screwed up, learn from your mistake and move on with life.

At 4/7/11 11:32 AM, Earfetish wrote: Korriken, the question is 'are marijuana laws fair'?

In my opinion? yeah.

To potentially have your life ruined because you took a drug recreationally, to me, seems like a rather unfair law.

The moment you said 'pot smokers can't get their act together enough to change the law'

I said most of em don't care enough to do it, they just want to be left alone and not have to fight for what they want.

and 'successful people, the type of whom make the laws, don't smoke pot',

I never said that.

If they decided going out like the people of Libya and violently overthrowing the government was an appropriate response, then they'd do that too. Your stereotypes belong in the 40s.

Difference is, when people hold protests for legalizing marijuana, the military doesn't shoot at them, which is what sparked the current problems in libya.

also, if you just can't get people to see things your way, no matter how hard you try, you should consider going somewhere with people that do.

you're about as likely to legalize gay marriage in a heavily conservative state as you are to legalize Sharia Law in Israel. California's about as liberal as it gets. try there.

At 4/7/11 11:20 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Same her in the US. If they have probable cause that a crime is being committed, or that evidence being destroyed (and yes, smoking marijuana is destroying it)

well, if a cop knocks on your door and there is a strong marijuana smell in your house, or a cop pulls you over and your car smells like the inside of the Mystery Machine, then yeah, you're screwed. cops busting into your house to search it on suspicion of destroying contraband and finding nothing would lead to a line of lawyers at your door begging to take your lawsuit.

I don't want my tax money spent on filling our prisons to the brim. I don't want the police wasting their time busting drug offenders when they should be concerned with our safety. I don't like wasting a valuable natural resource while giving criminal organizations the opportunity to be its supplier. I don't like seeing people with potential having their futures ruined by this outdated approach to justice. There are plenty of reasons for people who don't do drugs to oppose these ridiculous laws.

At 4/7/11 05:28 PM, Korriken wrote: you're about as likely to legalize gay marriage in a heavily conservative state as you are to legalize Sharia Law in Israel. California's about as liberal as it gets. try there.

Federal statute trumps Cali law.

Federal DOMA trumps Romney's state law.

Israel does what it wants, regardless of how much pot you smoke.

At 4/7/11 11:20 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Same her in the US. If they have probable cause that a crime is being committed, or that evidence being destroyed (and yes, smoking marijuana is destroying it)

well, if a cop knocks on your door and there is a strong marijuana smell in your house, or a cop pulls you over and your car smells like the inside of the Mystery Machine, then yeah, you're screwed.

If you don't actually have anything on you but the smell, you aren't screwed. Getting searched then just gives you reason to mock and taunt the cop trying to arrest you for a fucking odor.

cops busting into your house to search it on suspicion of destroying contraband and finding nothing would lead to a line of lawyers at your door begging to take your lawsuit.

Hence the idiocy of marijuana law.

At 4/7/11 12:11 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Now ideals are fantasies? C'mon.

Yes. An ideal is a fiction; it is a picture of the world as you think it ought to be. If it weren't it would be a reality.

Meh, for you to convince me that justice is merely a contrived fiction, you'll need to do better than that.

Are you really this dense? First of all, learn the difference between fairness and justice.

Moreover, justice is subjective; when you say "justice is served" what you really mean is that the outcome of an event is in accordance with your own morality, and therefore it is silly to whine about whether something is just or unjust.

At 4/7/11 12:23 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: All those are fantastical, eh?

They're all fictions, yes. Nobody is REALLY any of those things. They attempt to be.

At 4/8/11 07:52 PM, KemCab wrote:

What I wrote is off Websters you stupid twat.

At 4/8/11 08:16 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: What I wrote is off Websters you stupid twat.

You obviously have no idea what a dictionary is for, either.

A dictionary does not assign meaning to words. It provides definitions. Listing a bunch of definitions down means nothing.

At 4/8/11 08:37 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 4/8/11 08:16 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: What I wrote is off Websters you stupid twat.

You obviously have no idea what a dictionary is for, either.

A dictionary does not assign meaning to words. It provides definitions. Listing a bunch of definitions down means nothing.

Synonyms and context is what is provides. For you to even be arguing it says tons about your mindset.

You fucked up and used the wrong words. Get over it. The concept of fairness is indeed real. The application of fairness is not.

Do you see what that is, now that I've slowed it down for you? Here's the original is case you're still confused. Don't worry about the dictionary part yet, we'll get to that later when you're caught up.

"And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a full brain that the concept of fairness is a convenient fantasy."

"The concept of fairness isn't a fantasy, but the application."

Y/N?

At 4/8/11 08:51 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Synonyms and context is what is provides.

Which is what I just explained... to you. These ideas are fantasies. God is a fantasy yet he still has an entry in the dictionary.

The concept of fairness is indeed real.

You are arguing a frivolous point with vague words. Ideas and concepts are indeed real insofar as they exist in your brain -- they are fictional in the sense that they do not reflect actuality. There is no such thing as fairness; the state of affairs is such that it would be in your best interest to act equitably.

Legalize it. And then smoke it. And then look stupid and love it.

At 4/8/11 11:00 PM, KemCab wrote: Which is what I just explained... to you. These ideas are fantasies. God is a fantasy yet he still has an entry in the dictionary.

Sounds like somebody is breaking these law right now...

One issue with the US is that laws and enforcement can vary tremendously from state to state.

In my area of Canada, if you get caught with less than an ounce in a residence room (and you aren't selling it) then you'd basically get a slap on the wrist unless it was a consistent problem.

Right. And the difference between an ounce and a gram is almost 30 times as much.

X-Terrorist's quantity was "under a gram". First and foremost, cops and courts don't give a shit about the quality (or lack thereof) of weed. You could have the weakest shit on earth (male leaf for example) and get same punishment for the most potent shit on earth (and believe me, there's some REAL potent shit out there).

Does it matter if you drink 5 light-beers and drive, versus drinking the same quantity (liquid volume) of high-end spirits? FUCK YEAH! Then why is weed treated so differently?

For example "under a gram" of male leaf will hardly get a person stoned. You'd get a worse physical reaction being a non-smoker and having a whole single cigarette.

At 4/9/11 12:57 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: X-Terrorist's quantity was "under a gram". First and foremost, cops and courts don't give a shit about the quality (or lack thereof) of weed. You could have the weakest shit on earth (male leaf for example) and get same punishment for the most potent shit on earth (and believe me, there's some REAL potent shit out there).

Not sure about with marijuana, but with many otehr drugs potency is a sign of being a dealer...

Does it matter if you drink 5 light-beers and drive, versus drinking the same quantity (liquid volume) of high-end spirits? FUCK YEAH! Then why is weed treated so differently?

That's because drinking is legal, and driving tipsy is legal, but driving drunk is not. When ti comes to weed any of it is illegal. Just like for drinky drink and the kiddos. The legal limit for underage drunk driving is.000. Tht means drinking 1 beer versus a bath tub full of ethyl alcohol wouldn't make a wee bit of difference.

For example "under a gram" of male leaf will hardly get a person stoned. You'd get a worse physical reaction being a non-smoker and having a whole single cigarette.

Possession is possession.

At 4/9/11 02:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Possession is possession.

Exactly,

Even if it's only useless stalk that couldn't even get a fly high.

Even if it's a strain that doesn't contain any THC.

Even if it's actually hemp, cos hemp looks like potent marijuana.

Under the alcohol prohibition days, did the cops didn't run around arresting everyone who made ginger beer?

At 4/9/11 02:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/9/11 12:57 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: X-Terrorist's quantity was "under a gram"[. . .]there's some REAL potent shit out there).

Not sure about with marijuana, but with many otehr drugs potency is a sign of being a dealer...

Quantity* is a sign of being a dealer. And pimp rolls of bills rubber-banded up next to a bunch of ziplocs and a digital scale.

Potency is a sign of good taste.

Does it matter if you drink 5 light-beers and drive, versus drinking the same quantity (liquid volume) of high-end spirits? FUCK YEAH! Then why is weed treated so differently?

That's because drinking is legal, and driving tipsy is legal, but driving drunk is not.

Technically, driving tipsy (or buzzed/impaired) but still under the threshold for DWI, is still DUI. Commerial licenses require complete sobriety, even when operating your own personal vehicle.

en ti comes to weed any of it is illegal. Just like for drinky drink and the kiddos. The legal limit for underage drunk driving is.000. Tht means drinking 1 beer versus a bath tub full of ethyl alcohol wouldn't make a wee bit of difference.

That much would, under unauthorized distillery :)

All anal-retentiveness aside, the cause-effect and cost-benefit analysis of fighting a war on cannibis sativa is unfair to everyone. Law enforcement first and foremost because it puts them in a position to lose a battle they have no choice but to fight. The taxpaying population is next for the wanton waste of hard-earned, productive money fighting an unwinnable war. The user is fairly low, yet recreational, responsible use is also forfeit due to an OBVIOUSLY flawed system of punishment.

At 4/9/11 02:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Just like for drinky drink and the kiddos. The legal limit for underage drunk driving is.000. Tht means drinking 1 beer versus a bath tub full of ethyl alcohol wouldn't make a wee bit of difference.

For me ^this^ comment says it all.

You are talking about teenagers. Kids old enough to drive. Kids not old enough to drink. You joke that drinking a "bathtub full of pure alcohol.. wouldn't make a difference". Saying that is so stupid it's not even funny. It makes me angry!

Clearly teenagers think they can drink like adults, because they're effectively saying "we're not kids!". Drinking heaps shows how tough and adult they are. Moreover, after a few mouthfuls, the alcohol takes over, and they keep on drinking until they run out or pass out. Basically teenagers don't realize that 1 single bottle of regular alcohol like vodka or rum or whiskey.. CAN KILL THEM DEAD!!! You know, bottles with beautiful happy people on the labels having the time of their lives at a wonderful party.

If one kid dies from drinking some cleaning liquid, it might even make the national news, then they respond by putting "POISON" and SKULLS on the label, and regulating that all cleaners have child proof lids.

However, nearly every week some kid dies drinking mom or dads bottle of cool looking alcohol, and it destroys whole families. Do they put so much as a warning on the label? Something telling kids "drink less than half a bottle and you're probably DEAD!". Do they?? NO, course they don't. Alcohol is immune from common sense on ALL levels, even labeling that it can KILL, which even tobacco is forced to do, with pictures of gross surgical procedures, and rotting flesh on the packets, even though smoking a WHOLE packet of tobacco WILL NOT KILL EVEN 1 CHILD, because they will most likely just vomit after 2 cigarettes.

THAT IS AN ABSOLUTELY CRIMINAL DOUBLE STANDARD!

KIDS ARE DYING FROM ALCOHOL AND WE'RE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT.

At 4/9/11 09:31 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: THAT IS AN ABSOLUTELY CRIMINAL DOUBLE STANDARD!

KIDS ARE DYING FROM ALCOHOL AND WE'RE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT.

You speak the truth.

The double standard pisses me off. I see people's lives being ruined by alcohol all around, and then I turn on the television and don't see shit about it. Yet some feel the effort, time, and money is needed to run the "above the influence" commercials demonizing marijuana.

At 4/9/11 11:03 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote: You speak the truth.

Meh, i don't feel like defendinbg the couble standard. That would involve a massive examination into the cultural values of either drug, as well as other points I am just too tired to argue.

The double standard pisses me off. I see people's lives being ruined by alcohol all around, and then I turn on the television and don't see shit about it. Yet some feel the effort, time, and money is needed to run the "above the influence" commercials demonizing marijuana.

And you haven't seen lives ruined by marijuana? They may not be as easy to see, but, trust me, they're there. College students like yourself who will vastly underachieve and waste a chunk of their potentional of the weed are all around. Not to mention the vast amount of pot smokers who toked away their chance at college and the only way to economic prosperity nowadays.