^^ PA also has similar laws but most 1st offenses get off with ARD and drug and alcohol treatment etc. I am truly for tougher penalties but enforcement is key. Courts can order the interlock system to be installed (the breathalyzer you talked about) but nothing stops a person from getting in another car or having somebody else blow into it. They can impound you car and you can say #@$@# it and go buy another.
All i am saying nothing stops a person determined to drink and drive to do so if they wish, fines and impounds only do so much. When you talking about legalizing other drugs and even OTC drugs the same principles apply. Its not as simple as some people think it is.
It's more simple than some people make it. People can choose for themselves. End of story. If they cannot be trusted to do so, then there is something lacking in the gene pool or the education system because you'd think that sitting through 12 years of @!#$ would teach you more than how to write paragraphs and do BEDMAS. Stupid people are going to make stupid decisions irregardless of any law you put in place. Laws only affect law abiding citizens. And they aren't the ones making the problems.
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good. 
LOL
mclonedogmcwad wrote:Maybe and I just tired but let me put a few arguments up on the board.
First off besides the debate of the effect of drugs on each individual person the MAIN reason and Constitutional reason is money (commerce). Specifically the Commerce Clause of the Constitution
Quote:
Article 1 Section 8
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;......
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Now why is that important because that is what the Supreme Court used to allow the 1970 Controlled Substances Act to stand and become law.
Which in short bands such illegal drugs
Summary here http://www.enotes.com/drugs-alcohol-encyclopedia/controlled-substances-act-1970
Second there are a few case when this has been challenged first on a quick search is GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al. 2004
Opinion here http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
Quote:
The District Court denied respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that they had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient’s physician pursuant to valid California state law. The court relied heavily on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, to hold that this separate class of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power. ......
(b) Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154—155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.
Here is another case in 2005 http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=4613 It also provides agreement (rant) against this clause.
So simply put its illegal because it can effect interstate commerce. For the argument of just legalize it and tax the crap out of do any of you remember when they tried to tax pimps and prostitutes for thier income? http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/pimp.tax/
Same principle different item, oh btw how did that work out?
So in reality are you going to pay the government every time you buy something from a dealer? Are the dealers and the massive drug rings just going to stop and suddenly obey the law and pay taxes on what they sell. Instead of the DEA and various other law enforcement agencies arresting and going after the sellers now you would have the IRS? Its laughable.
Oh we can open stores and sell it with the taxes and charge a higher price, but you would still have the dealers on the street selling at a lower price and thus the same problem we have now.
Do I have a solution no but there a few agreements and legal points as to why. I am against legalizing drugs until somebody can prove to me as the other person posted, the individual effects on each person and the danger it can cause.
My biggest problem is that Drinking and Driving is illegal and wrong but yet you can get 100 DUI's and still nothing "stops" you from drinking and driving. You say make it legal but you can't drive stoned or high- what is stopping you just like drinking and driving. If you going to out and have a chance of killing or endangering others then there should be more laws against it.
What about mixing drugs, people who drink and then smoke pot- I have seen it first hand where it can cause dangerous situations.
Legalizing drugs and putting stipulations on where and how you can do them is a moot point. Your asking people to make a rational and logical decision who in all honestly are not in a mind set to do so. Just like somebody who drinks, and I don't care if you one of the few people who are clear and sober high we can't just make a law apply only to you.
Your argument against the trouble with legalizing it, all of these things where essentially true of prohibition era alcohol. I don't see many underground distilleries and/or speak-easies, do you? Nor do I see gangs selling home-made liquor to children(yet this did happen during prohibition).
People could grow and illegally distribute(sans taxes) tobacco for MUCH cheaper than the legal alternatives, and yet this doesn't exactly catch on. Quite frankly, people aren't generally gonna risk prison when its as easy and legal to acquire as to go to the local gas station to buy it. Equally it will be harder (certainly not impossible but still harder) for kids to acquire, just as tobacco and alcohol are now. Cartels and gangs cannot compete with corporations..
As for the pimp tax idea(as stupid as it is comical), its ignorant to attempt to tax something illegal while letting it remain illegal. You're essentially asking people to self-incriminate themselves, and I'm not sure exactly how high that tax is anyways - they could set it so high that no one of earth could pay it... to ensure no one actually does and so they have another law to charge you with breaking. But you're also stupid to expect career criminals to suddenly pay taxes out of their "deep-rooted sense of honesty and integrity." A better model to use is the Nevada model. Prostitution is legal, legitimate, and regulated - its business. I'm not sure off the top of my head it its taxed but likely there is some fee the prostitutes must pay to remain certified. The thing about their model... it works.
Even the best of ideas are doomed to failure if implemented/executed poorly.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:What It comes down to for me, as well as Dr. Paul, is this, (and it covers everything)
The Constitution dose NOT cover it, There for, its up to the INDIVIDUAL state (10 Amendment and all)
Good parenting, is what it comes down to.
(Yes, I have Never done any of the above )
It is NOT the Federal Governments job\place to regulate its CITIZENS, If we wanted that, we can move to the UK.
Chris
For the most part I agree, save one difference. You Conservatives want the Federal Government off you backs and out of your daily lives. I want the Federal, State, and Local Governments ALL off my back, and out of my daily life. Unnecessary government intrusion is unnecessary government intrusion... no matter the scale. I can certainly see where the Government would have a role in protecting me from other people, but NOT where they have a role protecting me from myself. I'm not so fond of the "big brother knows best" mentality. You might agree on a Federal level, but how is it different when a state does it?
Consider California - I couldn't even drive any of my vehicles there if I wanted too - just for example. If I lived there, I wouldn't exactly care that it was my state oppressing me with stupid laws and needless regulations, I'd just care that some politician and/or bureaucrat "knows what good for me" and they're shoving it down my throat. Of course I live in Illinois, that might not be much better. We have our stupid seat belt laws and now they are "tough on seat belts... 'zero tolerance.'" You'd think that people without seat belts where worse than drunk drivers. I CHOOSE to wear my belt because its the intelligent thing to do, but I DO NOT want and do not need big brother telling me to do so. We have these wonderful(unconstitutional if you ask me) "safety checkpoints" that state police randomly set up to pull stop EVERYONE(therefore with no assumption of criminal activity and so "reasonable suspicion" is N/A) to check if we are wearing our seat belts, no lights are out, etc etc and really so they can check anyone's car they deem suspicious. We can get pulled over and harassed while the notion of "reasonable search" is essentially thrown out the window. Do you have your walking papers comrade? This is no Federal initiative, but it is BS.
So in short, I don't understand you Conservatives and your notion that only the Federal Government needs to back down. It might be more Constitutionally correct(which really just means more legal) when Government meddling happens at the state level, but as has been pointed our many times in this forum... legality doesn't automatically mean something is right. Whether the Federal, State, or Local Governments are doing something, it really comes down to matters of scale, where as right and wrong are not determined on scale.
More on topic, drugs. Yes its a parenting issue and an educational one. Its also a cultural issue too. Drugs are glorified. Parents and teachers need be straight and completely informative with kids about drugs. It all comes down to the individual's choice if they use drugs. You can't legislate intelligent decision making - although I'm sure there are those who would try to do that too. LOL. Politicians... they all think the answer too all life's problems is another law.
So today I finished up my community service for the time I was caught with posession of marijuana. I had to walk a few stretches of road and pick up litter. I picked up more beer bottles/cans than anything else.
Then I thought about the irony... I mean when you find an empty beer bottle in the side ditch, it's no question how the bottle ended up there. Most likely it was tossed by someone drinking and driving. Any one of those bottles or cans I picked up could have been tossed by the same person who later would be the cause of a serious accident. Undoubtedly, they are the ones who law enforcement need to be pursuing and arresting, but instead who is the person who gets to walk up and down the side of the road and pick up these drunk drivers' trash for them? The guy who wears his seat belt, has never planned on leaving anywhere drunk without a sober driver, and likes to toke up a little bit at the end of the day instead of drinking. And that choice never puts anyones' lives in direct danger, either.
Maybe it's not that ironic or that good of a point, but when you're feet are soar as @!#$ from walking for 8 hours two days straight, and every alcohol bottle you pick up reminds you of a friend from high school killed by a drunken driver, then it's different. I never questioned the police officers, judge, community corrections officer (etc...), because I knew that what I did had broken the law and it didn't matter what I thought was right or wrong. But now the whole situation is starting to relly piss me off.
Deuce, while you were picking up beer can's, did you happen to find my "Cry Me a River" cd single? I lost it somewhere.
.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
ScottaWhite wrote:Deuce, while you were picking up beer can's, did you happen to find my "Cry Me a River" cd single? I lost it somewhere.
.
.
Once again, the point made has been completely missed in its entirety. I'm so shocked...
That was very obviously NOT a
poor is me post. The point being that police efforts/resources(and YOUR tax dollars) are being used to stop people who constitute no danger to anyone else - at the same time when there are so many people who ARE recklessly endangering other people with the mis-use of perfectly legal substances. Its like using a fire extinguisher to put out a cigarette safely sitting in an ash tray... while your ENTIRE KITCHEN IS ON FIRE. Its... retarded.
Oh, I got what he was saying. Not buying into the "I aint hurtin noone bit". The world isn't one big pineapple express, so do what you want and live with the established consequences. If tomorrow, activity "X" is outlawed and you don't like it, you have a few options. You can submit to the law, or submit to the consequences of breaking the law. You are also left with option 3, being a fugitive of the law.
I have never gotten into arguments about whether pot was a gateway drug etc. I think that it is very unhealthy, increases the likelihood that you will be stocking shelves for a living (qeue the exceptions...) and finally, it is currently illegal. Want to fix the last part? Write your congressman, or better yet, run for office and propose the legislation yourself.
It amuses me that as adults we still do the following: "oh yeah, well at least I don't......" "yeah I did it, but what about that guy....why isn't he in trouble...what he did was as bad or worse!"
Pounding shots will make you more likely to kill someone while driving, that smoking a joint. But this subculture's fascination with weed is pathetic. Go ahead and smoke it. I don't give a rip one way or the other. Get caught with it, then enjoy the problems that follow.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
I will actually I agree with ScottaWhite on this.
I dont see how someone under the influence of drugs is not dangerous. Ive had friends riding with me in my car while they were high. He kept telling me all this stuff about pyramids and space shuttles in corn fields. I dont think this person would be in the mental state to operate a motor vehicle much less a lawn mower.
Yeah well your views on not giving a @!#$ because you don't do it obviously mean nothing to those of us that do who enjoy it, just like our complaints about why it's not only an invasion of our basic right as human beings, but also a complete and udder waste of resources enforcing the law, imprisoning offenders of the law, who's only crime was smoking a plant, which you agreed was not as harmful as alcohol. (Quote: Pounding shots will make you more likely to kill someone while driving, that smoking a joint.) All this money that could be being spent on much more useful things. All these people could be making legitimate money, instead of the proceeds going to gangs... I don't understand why you'd even attempt to defend this nonsense. I'm pretty sure all the gangs in my town thrive off of dope sales and coke. You're trying to stop the flow of a very profitable product. Someone's going to cash in. So you could talk about you're views on the morality and how you think it's childish, but you can't argue against some of the facts. Or maybe you can?
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good.
LOL
^^^^^^^ OK just because you brought back a dead thread and are not good at making a point...
I'm going to attack you now
First off... I agree with you that cops should have better things to do than screw with some people sitting on there front porch smoking a joint... just enjoying the afternoon.... I dont see a problem with that either...
But.....
I used to smoke more weed than I can remember and enjoyed the hell out of it.... and I miss it...... but I dont do it anymore because It would be irresponsible for me to. So you can't pull that "you dont do it so your opinion is one sided and really doesnt count" crap with me.
You people dont realize what the real problem here is..
Other than the facts I mentioned before about the under the influence testing problems....
When you say the cops could be spending money on better things than busting pot heads.... do you really think they dont net a profit from doing that? Your kidding yourself if you think doing this costs them money LOL
With all the fines they impose... they make way more money that it costs to catch you..
Pot is illegal because it's profitable for it to be... and it works the same for EVERY mister meaner I can think of and also for most other laws..
They arnt busting you because your doing something wrong.... there busting you so you will have to pay the city (or county) money.... thats the cops job... to make his employer money.... its the same as any company..
Now if you choose to do it anyway.... and get cought... you have 3 choices...
1. escape the police without them learning your identity.
2. pay a fine
3. not pay the fine and go to jail.
Not to mention failing any drug tests your employer imposes.... and if you fail those... its your own fault...
I understand the appeal of pot... I like it too... but you know it's illegal... and if you choose to do it... you know the chances you are taking... If something like a petty drug is so damned important to you (it shouldn't be... I mean WTF... is your life that @!#$ty that its that important to you?)..... fine.... then just do it.... and quit bitching..
You are RIGHT... the police are WRONG... but things are the way they are...... and you know it.... POT ISNT IMPORTANT and you own responsibility should take presidence.... I'm sick of whiney bitches crying about this.... if you want to do it... just freaking do it and shut the hell up.
Weebel wrote:When you say the cops could be spending money on better things than busting pot heads.... do you really think they dont net a profit from doing that? Your kidding yourself if you think doing this costs them money LOL
With all the fines they impose... they make way more money that it costs to catch you..
Nope - its a huge cash loss(not including the huge amount of lost potential tax revenue). Yearly direct enforcement cost(in excess of fine income etc) is roughly $10.7 Billion (which some say is a conservative estimate). Do you really think they're coming ahead after requiring additional police hours, building additional jails/prisons, staffing those additional jails/prisons with guards/support staff, heating/cooling the facilities, and feeding the inmates? That does NOT come cheap. Its a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars.
And lets not forget that we loose out on a very economically viable crop as well - hemp. Its good for clothing, ropes, etc. It is far superior to corn for potential in ethanol production(and without depleting the soil or driving up food prices). It has a ridiculous amount of practical uses but it too is illegal. Imagine if we outlawed plastic?
I'm still waiting for ANYONE to give sufficient reasons to justify the cost of marijuana prohibition - or any really good reasons at all to continue this. Just what HAVE we gained from all this?!
The this year's cost to date for the war on drugs(all drugs) is nearly 23 Billion dollars(a combination of Federal, State, and local spending). This of course does not count the staggering amount of lost potential tax revenue let alone the much larger slice our economy would get - and the year isn't nearly over yet...
^^^^ Where are you getting this information from?
IF they have to build more prisons and spend a crap load of money on them... why are they arresting people for petty crap (that they dont just happen to come accross)
I still say they have another incentive for doing this other than to "keep the streets clean"
they have 2..... I just cant believe anything otherwise.... it's like this seatbelt ticket thing that just started here..... they dont give a damn if you go flying through your windshield or not..... they just want a reason to fine you...... there has to more to this than we think...
Weebel are you trying to convince me that the laws being discussed in this thread are just, while agreeing that they are unjust? Or are you saying I should just give up because I'm not going to change anything? FINE ADVICE!! I hope you give it to your kid one day!!
Just because something is one way, doesn't mean it has to be. There is no @!#$ way that there is any sense behind the law. The laws are not in place to make the government money. Well, maybe some are, but they sure are @!#$ shouldn't be. And if you're going to sit there and tell me that spending billions and billions of dollars to try and win a war that you're just not going to win is a good idea, you're an idiot. If you're going to tell me that it SHOULDN'T be my choice, you can @!#$ yourself. I know the law is there, and I don't agree with it. It's a waste of @!#$ time and money, and is an invasion of what I believe to be my RIGHTS. Why are there laws against products that are in high demand, and people will pay a good price for? ... It's illegal and people are making BILLIONS off it. Why couldn't it be a legitimate business making the money instead of gangs? I think that the taxes brought in by a multi-billion-dollar-per-year industry, coupled with the reduced number of criminals being put behind bars for breaking the law would more than offset the petty fines they get from charging offenders. The people HAVE spoken. Not through voting, but through BUYING. They WANT IT. You're not going to stop them from getting it!!! Especially when there are numerous states which have already decriminalized the product and many people are now growing it legally with great success... You can talk about the law, but the law is wrong. Just like it was wrong when they prohibited alcohol. Did it work, NO. Were most of the problems associated with alcohol solved when the prohibition was ended? Uhm... YEP!!! Now were talking about a substance that is less dangerous, not to mention it's natural, good luck telling mother nature it's illegal to grow dope, and somehow it's worse? Legalizing it is going to lead to problems or something? Please explain. I have never heard anyone come up with an argument that even remotely convinces me that there are positive effects of this prohibition, not to mention try OUTWEIGHING the negative effects the prohibition has.
And yeah, that's probably 3-4 paragraphs in 1... But at least it's got punctuation I guess...
You said I can't make a point, but you're the one who agrees with me on my basic principles, but then turn around and say there's nothing we can do about it, and that my points are now wrong? Please. And it's not "so damned important" but I'd rather be one of the people who openly expresses his opinion about how crooked and wrong and wasteful something is than just accept it.
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good.
LOL
^^^^ LOL sorry about the way I came off there.... That really wasnt supposed to me an "attack" as much.... I was mainly saying it without much seriousness...
I was basically saying I agree with you. but at the same time.... what are we going to do? Just be smarter about where and when you smoke the stuff... I mean you know the stuff is illegal so dont smoke the stuff in public or when driving your car.... its common sense.
The somewhat of a rant about how its not that important and people should get there priorities straight stems from all the pot heads I used to date and know.... all they did was waste away there life sitting around and smoking pot.... and I would here them bitching about how a cop stopped them for smoking it or how they got fired form a job after a drug test.... It pissed me off to no end.... they knew damn well it was illiegal regardless if there was anything wrong with it.... and they knew there employer drug tested..... but they smoked the stuff on the way home from work everyday anyway..... it's there own damn fault it happened and I just couldnt listen to there bitching anymore when it was there own stupidity that was a t fault.
BTW if you read the whole thread you will find where I was talking about the problems if it was legalized....
People talk about how alcohol kills more people than pot does.... but thats just because its more widely used.... although pot isnt any worse than booze.... its not better either.... it can still impair your judgment enough for you to kill someone behind the wheel.
I dont have a problem with recreational use of it at all.... I used to do it also.... but so many people use it irresponsibly and stupidly and they are usually the ones complaining... and it irritates me...
A lot like most of us drink occasionally and dont have a problem with booze..... but if someone gets behind the wheel of a car or shows up to work drunk..... they deserve what they get..... my standing is the same for both..
Yes the way our government handles all this is stupid as hell and doesn't make sense... but since you cant do anything about that.... just work your way around it.
I'm basically saying... I hear where your coming from... but I'm an adult now with way more important things in my life than pot.... if it was legal I would still smoke it.... but since it isnt.... my job is more important to me.... so I choose not to do it anymore.
I agree with the government stupidity thing.... but I also dont have any tolerance for these people that "need" to smoke weed and prioritize it over things they shouldnt....
Does that make sense?
Quote:
The people HAVE spoken. Not through voting, but through BUYING.
You have this backwards. The only why to change the system is to VOTE in this county. Contact your local fed/state/local rep and tell them how you feel. Get the law changed through voting. Posting on an internet board will never ever change anything.
And just because Obama may have done drugs in his past doesn't mean he will change the substance act, he probably sides more with Weebel then most arguments. - that's my guess.
Another problem is that even if we knew there was a good chance that the people of this country would vote to legalize it (although I doubt that would really happen)....
You would have to get the bill pushed through in congress and the house first.... and voting for that would be career suicide... so it wont happen...
Sadly... its our government that votes on most things that matter..... not us.
well we vote our goverment into office so vot in pro weed politicians, there are some out there. problem is people would just stay at home and get high rather then go out and vote lol
(if you find that offensive go smoke a bowl and relax)
im on the fence on this one. i dont see it as being as bad as alcohol and alcohol is illeagal. and it seems quite dumb to arrest someone who just wants to sit at home to get high as well. my dad has smoked pot all his life. still does it to this day. and ive seen how it changes him and what its done to him over the years and its enough that it has kept me clean my entire life
to deuce coupe cavy, would it have made you feel better if instead of beer bottles there would have been little roaches all over the road? you got caught you did your time just as there are just as many drunks out there who got caught and have done their time. the question is what do you do. people say that being high wont effect you. but if its legal and you have the ability and the money to stay high 24/7 im betting you will have incidents of accidents from high as kite people rise dramatically. is it right to ban it. who knows, people will do it wether its legal or not. there are always two sides to a story.
to the person who said that police dont give a damn wether you went thru a car window or not i'd tell that person to go ask a cop how he is feeling right after he goes to a persons house and tells them that their loved one just died in a car accident. not to mention since the law was inacted death rates have dropped in accidents.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Yeah, seatbelt laws are in effect to save lives, and insurance companies money. It's win win. I can see the reason behind it.
But more back to the point, I think that what you're saying is wrong as far as my morality on the subject is concerned... I think that the government needs a push to back off on our daily lives. The pot argument is just the topic of the thread but can't you agree that they need to seriously back off on all the laws, all the regulations, and just let the free market flourish? A regular Joe like me and you couldn't possibly understand all the laws. Why is it so damn complicated? Why is there loop holes in the system that only lawyers and politicians know? Do any of you seriously think that there is a point to all this that is beneficial to the growth of our species as a whole?? It's holding us back if anything.
It would be like if you made smoking tobacco illegal because it's bad for your health, it changes people, and it's highly addictive. People would still be selling smokes. They're everywhere around the world. But because people don't generally call it a 'drug' they don't care. People like to smoke dope, people like to smoke tobacco, people like to drink alcohol, and many other things as well. Why would you even attempt to outlaw a product? It's still going to sell, and the wrong people are going to benefit. People in general don't really care if someone is smoking some dope, or whatever else, on their own time, doing their own thing. I know almost all of my friends smoke dope every once in a while, some all the time, and they range from tradesmen to bankers to burn outs and A+ university students. And I can tell you there is no correlation between how much dope they smoke and how far they are in their lives... I agree that there are side effects to smoking it, but there are side effects to every choice you make.
And please, stop going straight to "smoking dope and driving" every time you try to make a point against legalizing it. You shouldn't drive after taking certain cough medicine for @!#$ sakes. You shouldn't drive after you drink alcohol. They're all drugs!! The illegality of it has nothing to do with the fact that it impairs you!! So don't use the excuse!!
I can't accept the flaws of the world so easily, knowing that all it would take is for some of the best and brightest to sit down and discuss what is ACTUALLY good for this world, instead of what interests their interests... I'm still young, the world has time to change...
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good.
LOL
laws and rules started out easy to understand, and then some quick witted layer found a loophole. so laws were reworded, and then along comes another smart layer who finds a loophole. so now you have to have 1000 pages written to just say don't do that because layers found away around the wording. look back to when clinton was on trial for lying under oath. he was on the stand asking wht the defintion of words were as they were used to question him so he could find away around what was being asked of him. thats just what good layers do. they find loopholes in the system to get what they want.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
sndsgood wrote:laws and rules started out easy to understand, and then some quick witted layer found a loophole. so laws were reworded, and then along comes another smart layer who finds a loophole. so now you have to have 1000 pages written to just say don't do that because layers found away around the wording. look back to when clinton was on trial for lying under oath. he was on the stand asking wht the defintion of words were as they were used to question him so he could find away around what was being asked of him. thats just what good layers do. they find loopholes in the system to get what they want.
Yeah, so now it's over-complicated and nothing is solved, and the loopholes are still plentiful. Sound to me like someone wasted a lot of time and money accomplishing nothing, other than confusing the common man. What exactly is the point of keeping the current system? Bad people who are actually breaking laws and doing harm are finding loop holes and getting off free, while people who have been broken into are being held accountable for the damage done to the intruder. Who's the judge of these things? Does anyone think the current system can even be named "The JUSTICE system"? As far as I can tell, it's a failure and needs to be re-worked right from the very foundation. Adding another level of @!#$ to a @!#$ pile only makes the pile bigger... And it feels like all the crap is piled up on the little guy for the benefit of the rich and powerful...
I think it's sad that the world is such a beautiful place full of so much to discover, yet all some people are about is money and power...
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good.
LOL
I agree with the fact the government needs to leave us the hell alone and just let us live our lives..... but this while pot thing is just a little to controversial to be the first thing you try to change...
I would absolutely love it if we started getting some of our basic freedoms back.... but I've kinda given up and fighting and just started to find ways to do things without getting cought instead...
People always talk about how you should vote or use democracy at your disposal to change things but they dont live in the real world..... sadly... democracy doesn't work when 90% of the population is to stupid to know whats best for them..
At this point in our society to be honest.... things will only get worse.... and more freedoms will be taken away... to be honest... the only thing we can really do is find ways to still do the things they say we cant without them knowing...
About the flying through the windshield thing (you knew it was me LOL) I should have rephrased that.... what I really meant was the people actually making the laws didnt care.... they where thinking more about revenue... and the law just passed last week here so I doubt the numbers are in yet.
Not to quote Stalin (or at least paraphrase him).... but
"Some day in the future... the masses will accept total loss of all there basic freedoms with open arms for the illusion of comfort and security"
Now really take a look at what you've been seeing happen in our country the last 8 years...
