Posted on 09/21/2002 5:49:50 PM PDT by Libloather
Liberteens come, and Liberteens go. But they seem to have an awful time with their own (and biggest - maybe only) issue - pot.
As far as anyone can tell, not ONE person has been placed behind bars for smoking pot. But the Liberteens paint an entirely different picture. They claim that HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS are behind bars for smoking.
Can anyone provide any proof either way?
No parsing on my part. You linked to a page that didn't support your claim.
BTW, I request that we refrain from personal attacks.
You've lost it kid . . .
Let's hope you never have to go driving around on a public street in your own home while smoking a joint. (Whatever it takes to become a professional victim nowadays! Bwahahaha!)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Clarifying the extent of police power in roadside stops, the Supreme Court held that officers can arrest and handcuff people even for minor offenses punishable by a fine. The justices ruled against a driver who was arrested and handcuffed for failing to wear a seat belt.
Moving up in the world from profanity to libel, eh?
Not really. The case took place before the net was really public so I'm sure its not out there to find. I was in Texas at the time and it was a big story there. The confiscation laws at that time made no exceptions, drugs were sold, everything was confiscated and they didn't care about the how or why of it. The word 'ever' in the thread means one can go back to the original 1933 passage of the law. Wide open field there.
If I cared more about the subject I might be more inclined to work at it, but I don't and as I said, it is a trick question. This is a kinda silly threat. I'm outa here.
Just because you don't have an answer, doesn't make it a trick question. As a matter of fact, there's an entire so-called political party out there RELYING on some sort of information that hundreds of thousands are behind bars for smoking pot. Yet no one can provide that information.
That's something you can call silly...
How about - "As far as I know, ironically, there is no law that prohibits smoking marijuana."
Say, aren't those YOUR words?
I don't dispute you on this. As I said, I am not a Libertarian and think they are stupid for making this the centerpiece of their political efforts.
The reason I said it is a trick question is that the law centers around possession, not the act of smoking. From what I've seen of the discussion it is a bunch of tit for tat nonsense.
If the point of this thread is to discuss the idiocy of contemporary Libertarianism even that is next to useless. The party has no political clout and, at this rate, never will. I can't see spending time arguing about useless stuff.
Every time I think I might be interested in Libertarianism based upon their 'anti-statist' plank, as soon as I investigate I find 'pro-life' Libertarians or other such foolishness and realize that these people can't even see the contradictions in their own ranks. They are useless.
My only point is that the draconian nature of our current drug laws does huge amounts of damage to innocent people. Of this I can have no doubt, even if you do. The current wave of people being released on DNA evidence that proves they did not commit the rape or murder they were convicted of years ago gives me pause. The justice system as it is today is no longer objective. Drugs laws are just the worst example.
Say, aren't those YOUR words?
Since you're too lazy or incompetent to remember or too lazy to reread the thread I'll post several pertinent posts. BTW, Still waiting for you to post your profound insight.. or whatever it is you were (are?) reveling in. LOL!!
You sure poked a touchy libertarian nerve.
The Liberteens have no idea what's comin'.
Please leave me in my revelry...
166 posted on 9/21/02 11:36 PM Eastern by Libloather
To: Libloather
As I said, "I won't post the information I have until you post your profound wisdom you are reveling in." Go ahead and post away. Don't forget to flag everybody that was waiting on you to post but got bored and left.
288 posted on 9/22/02 2:35 AM Eastern by Zon
To: Dakmar
Dakmar to Libloather: The only thing I would even attempt to explain to Zon and Stew is why I even bother responding to your nonsense. 253
Not to worry. I told LL over on the thread he migrated from to start this thread, that as far as I know there are no laws against the smoking marijuana. Of course, in my original post on this thread (19) I said the same thing.
270 posted on 9/22/02 1:35 AM Eastern by Zon
To: Libloather
"As far as I know, ironically, there is no law that prohibits smoking marijuana."
That quote was from me to you over on this thread: Drug Czar on Anti-Marijuana Crusade. (An interesting juxtaposition between myself and liblother.)
IMO, it is a misnomer that smoking marijuana is prohibited by law. As far as I know there is no law that prohibits smoking marijuana. There are laws prohibiting possession of marijuana.
In a court of law the distinction is critical. One act can result in a court trial, the other doesn't. One act can result in being sent to prison, the other can't.
This forum is not a court of law and it is logically assumed by the vast majority of people that in order to smoke marijuana a person must have marijuana in their possession.
You appear to be making a very petty argument.
19 posted on 9/21/02 9:19 PM Eastern by Zon
To: Libloather; KDD
You two goobers have an open forum and fail to show up? Kinda lame - no?
Earth to Libloather...
Apparently you have the memory span of a gnat. I showed up long ago and made several posts. Two of those posts were to you. Once again you have digressed to calling people names.
134 posted on 9/21/02 11:17 PM Eastern by Zon
To: Ken H
hb-- LL's question is a riddling game rather than a serious topic of debate.
As far as I know, there is no law against smoking MJ and therefore no one has been charged with or jailed for such an offense.
People do use the terms smoking and possession interchangeably. LL thinks he has stumbled onto something profound by pointing out the inaccurate mixing of the terms.
Several people have said basically the same thing. Doing that even prior to Libloather's #166 post. IMO, he has a Grand-Canyon sized blind spot or he's "shnockerd" (drunk) out of his mind. On the other hand, perhaps he's stalling in hopes of coming up with some revelation that will extricate himself from the hole he dug.
You sure poked a touchy libertarian nerve. 140
Libloather: The Liberteens have no idea what's comin'.
Please leave me in my revelry...166
229 posted on 9/22/02 12:33 AM Eastern by Zon
To: Libloather
As I said, "I won't post the information I have until you post your profound wisdom you are reveling in." Go ahead and post away. Don't forget to flag everybody that was waiting on you to post but got bored and left.
The short answer: YES.
Finally - someone who sees the fork in the road and has the stones to make a decision! (Although, you do realize it was a 50-50 shot - no?)
Let's get down to the particulars. It's vitally important because the existence of the entire Liberteen agenda hinges on it.
You say that people HAVE BEEN IMPRISONED for smoking pot. That brings up some very obvious questions. 1) What were they charged with? 2) How many people are there behind bars for the very same thing? 3) Can you name one?
Short answers will do...
It still doesn't answer the question. Sorry.
Says volumes - no?
You sure poked a touchy libertarian nerve.
The Liberteens have no idea what's comin'.
Please leave me in my revelry...
166 posted on 9/21/02 11:36 PM Eastern by Libloather
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.