'Dude, you're getting a Dell guy' arrested last night on Marijuana charge

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/delldude1.html ^

[rs79bm]

Benjamin Curtis, the 22-year old actor who portrays the Dell Guy in those bothersome computer commercials, was arrested late last night (2/9) on a marijuana possession charge, The Smoking Gun has learned. According to cops, Curtis was holding a "small bag of marijuana" when he was popped on Manhattan's Lower East Side (at Ludlow and Rivington for you Gothamites). Curtis is currently being held in Central Booking and is scheduled to be arraigned later today in Manhattan Criminal Court. Curtis, who lives in lower Manhattan, was charged with criminal possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. Bonnie Shumofsky, the actor's agent, said she was unaware of her client's bust when contacted this morning by TSG. (1 page)

[ApesForEvolution]

His stoner stuff was part of his attraction to his generation buying all those 'puters....he might get a RAISE!!

[unspun]

Tell me how squirming "No." is.

[philman_36]

It's your "qualifiers", in case you haven't figured that out yet. Good night, Irene.

[unspun]

They weren't qualifiers. They were descriptions. Making consequences fit the illegal act is hardly equal to legalization.

[philman_36]

Making consequences fit the illegal act is hardly equal to legalization.
You're making my case for me. Your "newest scenario" indicates no illegal act took place at all as there are no consequences.
A person guilty of a "serious" traffic offense or drunk driving hardly comes away with a "don't get in trouble for a year". There will be monetary fines at minumum.
And you don't call that de facto legalization?
Huuuuuuh...(large intake of breath)...do you think he did it as a "test case"? It seemed to work! He's basically walking away free without even a fine! Is the "cult of personality" at play here?
And what was the crime? "Possession"?
New York
25 g or less (subsequent offense) misdemeanor 15 days $250
25 g to 2 oz* misdemeanor 3 months $500
*Includes any amount in public where marijuana is burning or open to public view.
From your 359 link...Benjamin Curtis, a 22-year-old New York University drama student, was arraigned Monday on a misdemeanor drug possession charge. The charge assumes a suspect is not carrying more than a "use amount" — enough to roll several marijuana cigarettes. (is that the continuance of a lie? seems like it)
Yep! That and having marijuana "open to public view"!
"...the defendants knowingly and unlawfully possessed marijuana in a public place and such was burning or open to public view;..."
"Deponent further states that he observed both of the defendants holding this baggie of marijuana in a public place and open to public view."

Actually it was a misdemeanor, which is fine by me, so long as they don't throw someone in the slammer for having one joint.
It could happen. /Judy Tenuta

[MrLeRoy]

You offered "I have never seen drugs do good for anyone" as a reason to ban them; I pointed out that your 'logic' (to use the term loosely) also supported a Cheetos ban.

Except that has no base in reality.

Your they-do-no-good-for-anyone-so-let's-ban-them argument has no basis in reality; we don't ban things on that basis. Turning to your other argument:

If you could make a case for people becoming addicted to Cheetos, crashing cars under the influence of them, and generally dedicating their lives to maintain a Cheetos supply

All that applies to alcohol; do you support a ban on alcohol?

[1Old Pro]

His stoner stuff was part of his attraction to his generation buying all those 'puters....he might get a RAISE!!

Yep, you're not the first one to admonish me related to this. Perhaps you're right.

[unspun]

Despite your kind instruction and informativeness, my position has stayed the same, that possession of marijuana at small quantities should be treated similarly to drunk driving.

You can imagine me doing gymnastics on the beach, if that's where your mind wants to go, but I'm just standing here.

He got reasonable treatment, which is not to say that the laws aren't overly harsh.

[unspun]

I have been attempting to communicate with you. If you choose not to communicate with me, knowing very well what I am saying (that you do yourself no favor in refusing to consider that things can occur outside of the "natural' man-perceiving world) then I'll just take it that you are not communicating, whatever you write.

You mentioned that you do not believe that the world is the center of the universe. Neither is man.

[robertpaulsen]

"Yes, Roscoe the 'progressive':"

Still calling names?

[MrLeRoy]

"Yes, Roscoe the 'progressive':"

Still calling names?

The shoe fits, according to Roscoe's own source; no namecalling, just accurate identification.

[Hacksaw]

Your they-do-no-good-for-anyone-so-let's-ban-them argument has no basis in reality; we don't ban things on that basis. Turning to your other argument:

Actually we do. They are banned because of the negative societal impact. Drug abusers do not exist in a vacume (sp?) and for better or worse we as Americans have decided that they remain illegal. Abusers have effects on many people besides themselves.

All that applies to alcohol; do you support a ban on alcohol?

If a local community wants to ban it, go ahead. It already was banned nationally once. It failed because there is an ingrained cultural history of alcohol. As I have said before, it is a drink, a foodstuff, a preservative, a disinfectant, and even helps fuel your car. If it is banned, it doesn't affect me one way or the other as I no longer use it, but there is a societal basis for it being legal.

In fact, I would propose that the US convert to total ethanol instead of gasoline. There would not be much to change on car engines, and it would get us off of dependence on the Middle East. We can manufacture it ourselves and quite cheaply (although there might be a lot of people drinking from the pump). But that is for a different thread.

[MrLeRoy]

Your they-do-no-good-for-anyone-so-let's-ban-them argument has no basis in reality; we don't ban things on that basis.

Actually we do. They are banned because of the negative societal impact.

Which is NOT the same as lack of positive impact---so your they-do-no-good-for-anyone-so-let's-ban-them argument remains in ruins.

If a local community wants to ban [alcohol], go ahead.

I'm all for alcohol and drug policies being set on a local level.

It already was banned nationally once. It failed because there is an ingrained cultural history of alcohol.

Interesting theory, but it fails to explain why the War On Some Drugs is failing in all the ways that Prohibition failed: deaths of innocents in turf wars; enrichment of criminals; corruption of the justice system by enriched criminals; and lessened respect for the law in general.

[philman_36]

...my position has stayed the same, that possession of marijuana at small quantities should be treated similarly to drunk driving.
They aren't treated the same and you know that. You're merely stating your desire that the penalties to be the same. Big difference.
You can imagine me doing gymnastics on the beach, if that's where your mind wants to go, but I'm just standing here.
You can imagine you're standing still while you're doing gymnastics, if that's where your mind wants to go, but once you perform a somersault it's kind of evident what you're doing.
He got reasonable treatment, which is not to say that the laws aren't overly harsh.
He got de facto legalization. The next person may not be so fortunate and have the book thrown at them.

I have been attempting to communicate with you.
Have you? Doesn't sound that way to me. I only see you stating how you think things ought to be. (...so abused. and your jpg), which started our "communications, doesn't sound like communicating at all either. I see triteness and smugness, not communication.
If you choose not to communicate with me, knowing very well what I am saying (that you do yourself no favor in refusing to consider that things can occur outside of the "natural' man-perceiving world) then I'll just take it that you are not communicating, whatever you write.
Can you put that in plain English. I have no idea what you are attempting to say at all. Not very effective communication on your part.
You mentioned that you do not believe that the world is the center of the universe. Neither is man.
Give me a link to what I "mentioned", don't paraphrase me. I'll tell you what I meant if it wasn't clear.
You sound very strange in this reply. I'm just guessing, but are you trying to bring this into a religious realm?

[unspun]

Oh my. Sorry, doing too many things at once. I posted that last message to the wrong FReeper.

"Nevermind."

[unspun]

Here, again, I truly apologize. I owe you something for your efforts in trying to figure out what in the blue world I was saying:

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...symbolizes the political status women have always enjoyed in Wyoming.

I had to go to bed. I have to work today.

I guess you are referring to the equal right to go to jail for smoking pot. Yes we have that also.

Women in Wyoming can also vote against legalizing pot.

[pollwatcher]

Half.com just sent me a spam email ad titled "Smokin' Dell Deals..."

A coincidence?...nah!!!!!

[UnBlinkingEye]

I'll bet you are a Libertarian.

I can tell because they just want to sit around and smoke dope.

I'll bet you are a statist dupe.

I can tell because you want your nanny to tell you what you can and cannot do.

[mikeb704]

Dave and Dude: A generation gap in pitchmen