| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Oneponytoruleall
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 3114
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
"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 |
|
 |
Guest
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2133
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Kilgore
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2811
Location: Portland, Or
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Dogen
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 8540
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Oneponytoruleall
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 3114
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
trustedfaith
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3312
Location: My own little world...
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. 
_________________
My blog is back bitches!! Check it out and comment: http://www.quixoticroads.com
I'm also doing the twitter thing; you should stalk/follow me: http://twitter.com/sillygurlroo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Feiticeira
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 1697
Location: Incinerating things that are untrue
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMDB front page:
_________________
| Quote: | Oh yeah shit you got me there fuck you done me up like a right kipper and all guv'nor.
So tell me about the time you were actually dead. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snorri
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10530
Location: hiding the decline.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
Well it's also something he could've gotten from watching The Wire.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trustedfaith
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3312
Location: My own little world...
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
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.
_________________
My blog is back bitches!! Check it out and comment: http://www.quixoticroads.com
I'm also doing the twitter thing; you should stalk/follow me: http://twitter.com/sillygurlroo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilgore
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2811
Location: Portland, Or
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
mouse
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 14855
Location: under the bed
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilgore
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2811
Location: Portland, Or
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
nathan
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6269
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Kilgore
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2811
Location: Portland, Or
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
CTrees
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3493
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
