Posted on 11/09/2007 8:39:20 AM PST by SubGeniusX
By 57-to-43-percent margin, Denver voters have approved a ballot initiative that instructs police to make possession of marijuana in small quantities (less than an ounce) their lowest law enforcement priority. Denverites already had voted to repeal local penalties for possession of less than an ounce, with no noticeable effect on arrests; police just charged pot smokers under state law instead. Citing this history, the Rocky Mountain News says, "once again, the vote likely means nothing." But Mayor John Hickenlooper has promised to appoint a Marijuana Policy Review Panel to decide how the new ordinance should be implemented. Initiative organizer Mason Tvert says:
Although these officials say adult marijuana possession is already a low priority, it could undoubtedly be lower. For example, the City of Seattle, which adopted a very similar lowest law enforcement priority measure in 2003, handled just 125 cases of adult marijuana possession in 2006, whereas Denver -- a city with fewer residents -- handled nearly 1,400.
Tvert also notes that a similar initivative has had a significant impact in Missoula County, Montana, where the local prosecutor has told police to lay off pot smokers.
“Bend yourself into a pretzel all you want. Drive stoned-go to jail. It is against the law. Drive drunk- go to jail. Drive distracted by a cell phone and change lanes without signaling? Get a ticket.”
No pretzel bending required.
Folks drive drunk and stoned all the time without going to jail. That’s the reality. Folks also change lanes all the time while talking on a cell phone without getting a ticket. The real issue is should they be penalized if no other violation has occurred? I say no, you apparently say yes even though there’s no way to enforce your ideas except through the draconian means discussed earlier. I’m quite surprised you apparently didn’t like the idea of testing driver performance before allowing ignition, I note you really didn’t comment there.
“The state has the right and the duty to police the roads. Game. Set. Match.”
Indeed it does, and I’ve never stated otherwise. I agree that penalties should be commensurate with actual harm done, i.e. if you’re stoned (or talking on a cell phone) and run off the road and kill a police officer then you deserve harsh retribution. However, if someone is pulled over for expired registration and the officer smells pot, that should be a non-issue. Likewise, if the officer looks through a car window and spots red eyes, that should be a non-issue. Base it on performance, not some ivory tower Puritan ideal of behavior.
Hell, if things worked that way traffic officers might have time to enforce tailgating laws. ;-)
Pfft...society doesn’t need more ways for people to ruin their lives.
Maybe we should THINK before adding to the problem.
Drug use is a poor choice.
Thinking you’re able to control it is arrogance with a high price.
You have learned nothing about 911.
Sometimes pictures work, but it's obvious it still doesn't give Paultards a clue. No big surprise there.
"What does that have to do with this dreaded 'sword of Islam' of which you speak?"
I told you, I meant to say "rusty knife of Islam". Sorry for the mistake.
< /heavy sarcasm >
"And why do you need to worry about it? Isn't the reason we're fighting 'them' over 'there' so they won't come over 'here'? By your own logic the 'sword of Islam' you're apparently afraid of shouldn't exist since 'they' are all over 'there'."
Ah, so you actually do get the "over they head of your basic Paulistinian" use of "sword of Islam". You can thank that evil "neocon" Bush for the reason no attacks are occurring here so far. I'm sure you want to dismantle Patriot act, so as to not spy on terrorists ...er...ah, the American people as you probably think. However, if an idiot like Paul or any democRAT were to take office, Islamist would be stronger, and we would weaken, thus making the "rusty knife of Islam" stronger. Oh those darn symbolic words short circuit too many Paulbot brain cell (no plural).
"Tsk, tsk, tsk....name calling again are we? Let's go back to your original post shall we?"
I apologize for not using the words that are more appropriate to describe an Al Qaeda dupe like yourself. Idiot and moron will have to do for now.
"The image of sword at the throat insinuates some threat of finality."
I see some growth in you after all.
"Also your willingness to bypass any curtailment of liberty in this quest of yours is quite telling."
What liberties have you and I lost? Is it just more libertarian bullshit designed to scare people? God forbid some "neocon" trying to get your attention away from your make believe "lost liberties" in order to save your ass.
"I'm still wondering where this 'sword of Islam' is that you're afraid of, not a one-off attack by 19 Saudis."
Again, that is because you are a myopic moron, no colossal fool, who wouldn't get the threat against us no matter pictures or videos from past or current events, or even by postings from the words of the very Islamists who threaten us.
"BTW, don't go shopping, your government told you not to."
Another bold faced lie. Yes, in addition to being a moron, you are a lier too. Would it be a stretch to conclude that your responses at first glance seem to attempt some cleverness, but actually echo enemy propaganda guised as domestic internal bickering? Congrats Mohamed.
"Leaves more stuff for those of us that aren't looking for a 'sword of Islam'. The imaginary you lot come up with...."
Yes, to graphic for a moron to grasp, and it just doesn't fit your simpleton and utopia world view.
Libertarianism is a disease that attacks logic and common sense as so gloriously exposed in your hysterical post.
I'm sure that the reason you think "neocons" are a greater threat to you than Islamists is because people like you are functionally illiterate in more than one meaning of the word. You can take my words, attempt to twist it into what it isn't, convince yourself that it is so, and all the while, either ignore what our REAL enemies are saying and doing.
Maybe a big nasty "Letter of Marque" will tame them? Please, take your Al Qaeda proxy views to some other forum.
“You have learned nothing about 911.”
Quite the contrary - I’ve learned that my countrymen are more than willing to subvert their principles out of fear and ignorance.
If your idea of "principles" is to submit to defeat against a commited aggressor, than I guess it is another bastardization of english words, like "gay", or "progressive".
No sane person should accept your premise of what "fear and ignorance" is considering the madness of a campaign you support.
‘If your idea of “principles” is to submit to defeat against a commited aggressor, than I guess it is another bastardization of english words, like “gay”, or “progressive”.’
Absolutely not. However, to claim that American civil liberties needed to be abrogated to counter the terrorist threat revealed by 9/11 is absurd. A good example of a completely misguided and ineffective approach is airport security post 9/11. Billions and billions have been spent, Americans have given up even more privacy, yet in recent tests 75% of simulated bombs made it through. Most studies have shown it to be less effective than pre-9/11. Even today not all checked bags are screened for explosives. And of course, the laws that “would only be used to fight terrorism” are being used widely for other purposes.
There have been good, common sense efforts like reinforced cockpit doors and increased Marshal presence on airliners. Many of the other measures taken have essentially been naked power grabs in the name of “Homeland Security”. All this while border security has remained a low priority.
If you really want deterrence for terrorists on US soil, push for more CCW permits. The more armed Americans on the scene, the less likely the terrorists will get far. While you’re at it, push for heightened surveillance of Muslim foreign nationals on US soil, and more emphasis on foreign intelligence gathering (though it’s hard to say what’s actually going on there for obvious reasons). Not one of those measures would infringe the rights of a single American, while effectively countering the threat of Muslim extremism.
Who made such a claim? Has the koolaid taken an irreversible turn?
Please, don't confuse rejection of Ron Paul with acceptance of big goverment, loss liberties, etc, etc.
Ron Paul jumped the conservative shark, thus all the scorn of him on this forum.
He echoes Al Qaeda talking points.
“Please, don’t confuse rejection of Ron Paul with acceptance of big goverment, loss liberties, etc, etc.”
Haha - I’m a Fred Thompson supporter actually. I’m all for fighting Al Qaeda, just doing it intelligently and without screwing this country up more than it already is. I also support our military efforts, and hope we strike Iran rather than leaving it to try and dominate the area.
All that said, I’m not at all sure Islamic extremism is the #1 ‘clear and present danger’ facing the US. Hillary Clinton is probably worse...not least because under her leadership we’ll undoubtedly be more at risk.
Whew . . . don’t quit your day job.
Yes, let’s not forget to guard against internal enemies when eyeing external enemies.
thanks
No sweat. I mean, that really sucked. Perhaps you should spark up---it might make you a bit more creative.
And I mean THANKS.
Can't a person feel good about their work being rejected by someone who is being satirizing?
Wow. Writing just isn't your friend, is it?
Oh my, your account name is the sanctimonious shield you attempt to use against violators of the proper use of language.
I have been trying to counter the Ron Paul spam on this forum, but only until your hurtful comments about my writing have I now come to an epiphany regarding my activities. Just writing these words are intimdating for me since I am in the presence of a perfect literary being.
Nah!
You belong to this forum because you love English?
Will this epiphany result in another witless song parody? I mean, I imagine the best defense against Ron Paul spam is a heady barrage of song parodies. Then again, why not go nuclear, and whip up a knock-knock joke?
Ouch, another daggger, "witless".
Thanks again, I'm flatter by your scorn, and I mean that most sincerely.
Priceless.
Absolutely!
A guy with an account name "Hemingway's Ghost" on a Conservative Forum, judging political satire not favorable to him, yet he chooses the 'literary' route to critisize?
I'm sure the most common perception to your response is a pompous and sanctimonious windbag who takes himself unjustifiable too seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.