welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Socrates was a Christian III
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 194, 195, 196 ... 205, 206, 207  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Casual Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Oneponytoruleall



Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 3114

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Pro-life? You ever notice how some people's concern for life stops at birth? They want those babies to come out. After that, they don't give a damn what happens to them."

~Anita VanBuren (S. Empatha Merkerson) Law & Order’s Progeny episode from 1995.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eiden wrote:
Lasairfiona wrote:
In a conversation about rape wrote:
hey woman should be put in jail if she says she wants to have an abortion, or she should get fixed, or maybe not even ever have sex. abortion is murder, murder is wrong. 1 day when people face god they will know. to me it's obvious right now. no 1 will ever change my mind. people to think that abortion is okay needs to grow up and open their eyes. if you don't want to baby don't have sex, it's very simple

I hate facebook sometimes.

edit oh fuck it got worse

Quote:
2 wrongs don't make a right if they did and a woman abort a kid of mine, I should kill her


Two wrongs don't make a right. Therefore I should respond to someone getting an abortion by slaying them.

It all makes so much sense.


The George Tiller principle.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Kilgore



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2833
Location: Portland, Or

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
I voted for it, but mainly on principle. Because federal law supersedes state law it doesn't really matter whether it passes. I'm not even entirely certain how it would effect the role played by your local PD, since they presumably enforce both local and federal laws. But philosophically I support legalizing marijuana, so that's how I voted.


Not true. Federal law does not supersede state law, it runs parallel to it. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that forcing state employees to spend time enforcing federal law is a violation of the Constitution (this is called the "Anti-commandeering Doctrine"). So getting rid of the State prohibition on weed should make a huge difference in terms of the amount of law enforcement resources directed towards arresting and prosecuting marijuana users. The DEA doesn't have the man-power to arrest small time users.
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10907
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right, but my understanding is that the federal government pays them in federal grants as part of the war on drugs, which incentivizes PDs to continue bringing charges against drug users.

Edit: I guess I should say, "Okay, but..." as opposed to, "Right." I don't know a goddamn thing about the law.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oneponytoruleall



Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 3114

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm pretty sure we lost the war on drugs.

The only thing that has really changed is D.A.R.E. went from a simple red logo on a black chalkboard background to being able to afford a mascot.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trustedfaith



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3366
Location: My own little world...

PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kilgore wrote:
Dogen wrote:
I voted for it, but mainly on principle. Because federal law supersedes state law it doesn't really matter whether it passes. I'm not even entirely certain how it would effect the role played by your local PD, since they presumably enforce both local and federal laws. But philosophically I support legalizing marijuana, so that's how I voted.


Not true. Federal law does not supersede state law, it runs parallel to it. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that forcing state employees to spend time enforcing federal law is a violation of the Constitution (this is called the "Anti-commandeering Doctrine"). So getting rid of the State prohibition on weed should make a huge difference in terms of the amount of law enforcement resources directed towards arresting and prosecuting marijuana users. The DEA doesn't have the man-power to arrest small time users.


I like that we have our own resident law guru now. Awesome. Wink
_________________
I'm doing the twitter thing; you should stalk/follow me: http://twitter.com/sillygurlroo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Feiticeira



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 1774

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IMDB front page:

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

trustedfaith wrote:
Kilgore wrote:
Dogen wrote:
I voted for it, but mainly on principle. Because federal law supersedes state law it doesn't really matter whether it passes. I'm not even entirely certain how it would effect the role played by your local PD, since they presumably enforce both local and federal laws. But philosophically I support legalizing marijuana, so that's how I voted.


Not true. Federal law does not supersede state law, it runs parallel to it. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that forcing state employees to spend time enforcing federal law is a violation of the Constitution (this is called the "Anti-commandeering Doctrine"). So getting rid of the State prohibition on weed should make a huge difference in terms of the amount of law enforcement resources directed towards arresting and prosecuting marijuana users. The DEA doesn't have the man-power to arrest small time users.


I like that we have our own resident law guru now. Awesome. Wink


Well it's also something he could've gotten from watching The Wire.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trustedfaith



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3366
Location: My own little world...

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snorri wrote:
trustedfaith wrote:
Kilgore wrote:
Dogen wrote:
I voted for it, but mainly on principle. Because federal law supersedes state law it doesn't really matter whether it passes. I'm not even entirely certain how it would effect the role played by your local PD, since they presumably enforce both local and federal laws. But philosophically I support legalizing marijuana, so that's how I voted.


Not true. Federal law does not supersede state law, it runs parallel to it. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that forcing state employees to spend time enforcing federal law is a violation of the Constitution (this is called the "Anti-commandeering Doctrine"). So getting rid of the State prohibition on weed should make a huge difference in terms of the amount of law enforcement resources directed towards arresting and prosecuting marijuana users. The DEA doesn't have the man-power to arrest small time users.


I like that we have our own resident law guru now. Awesome. Wink


Well it's also something he could've gotten from watching The Wire.


Well it's not like the information is locked up somewhere for the public to not see. But I am pretty sure Joe is doing the whole law thing. I could be wrong though. Wink
_________________
I'm doing the twitter thing; you should stalk/follow me: http://twitter.com/sillygurlroo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Kilgore



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2833
Location: Portland, Or

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Right, but my understanding is that the federal government pays them in federal grants as part of the war on drugs, which incentivizes PDs to continue bringing charges against drug users.

Edit: I guess I should say, "Okay, but..." as opposed to, "Right." I don't know a goddamn thing about the law.


A good point. I'm not sure exactly how those grants work (and they probably work in a number of different ways), but I'd be surprised if a significant portion of them weren't given to help state and local PD's with their own drug enforcement efforts, rather than so that they can serve as additional muscle to supplement federal investigations. The former type of grant will go away in a jurisdiction where weed is fully legal (the marijuana enforcement efforts that continue in places where medical weed has been legalized are focused on either users without a prescription or growers and distributors who are accused of funneling product to recreational users). State PD participation in marijuana enforcement could persist under the latter type of grant, but I think its effectiveness would be reduced by two factors. First, the federal courts can barely cope with their current case-load, so trying to switch any significant number of formerly state prosecutions into the federal courts will cause logistical problems, and second, local PD's might put themselves in a politically delicate situation if they participate in the prosecution of legitimate businesses that are also a potent component of the local tax base.

trustedfaith wrote:
I like that we have our own resident law guru now. Awesome. Wink


Aww, guru is giving me a little too much credit.


Okay, I'll stop derailing this thread now.
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17432
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i wish you would tell all that to san diego county.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kilgore



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2833
Location: Portland, Or

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I should have phrased that part of my reply more carefully. State law enforcement efforts in states with legal marijuana are ostensibly focused on growers and dealers who are funneling product to the recreational market. With the feds, all bets are off.
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, from your position, what is the deal with the feds?

Are there THAT many votes in prohibition? Are confiscations an incentive? Are the Feds merely comprised of old people who haven't gained a knack for going after 4chan?
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kilgore



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2833
Location: Portland, Or

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just wrote a long reply that got eaten, and I lack the energy to retype it. The gist of it was that at the enforcement level there is a lot of institutional momentum (the DEA is going to treat pot the way the DEA has treated pot the entire time there has been a DEA) and some genuine ideological commitment to the notion that pot is a dangerous drug (owing in part to the fact that agents spend much of their careers dealing exclusively with the very dangerous people who traffic it). At the policy level you've got a combination of political calculations (it's probably pretty reasonable for national pols to believe coming out in support of legalization would be a vote loser, given the fact that it has thus far never succeeded as a ballot measure even in states like California and Oregon where you'd think it would be a shoo-in) and rank hypocrisy (politicians and their rich friends who use drugs are shielded by their money and privilege from the injustices of the drug war, and so have no personal stake in doing the right thing).
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Today is Thursday. I have a vendor who has split a purchase order into two shipments. One is delivering today, the other is delievering tomorrow. I need to know what material is on which shipment (I already have tracking information for both). Easy enough, right?

I'm five emails into trying to explain that tomorrow IS Friday, so telling me that line five is delivering tomorrow and the rest is delivering Friday is neither true nor helpful. Five emails! Our rep is in Atlanta-it's not like I'm dealing with a foreign country with potential time zone confusion. Fucking calendars, how do they work?
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Casual Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 194, 195, 196 ... 205, 206, 207  Next
Page 195 of 207

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group