First Use of the RAVE Act

[Tom]

Abuse of alcohol is illegal most places I know about.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Nitemare

This------thread-------is----------about-----------freedom-----------of-----------speech----------and-----------freedom---------of----------assembly. I--------can-----------speak----------more----------slowly----------if---------will--------help---------you-----------understand.

Woah! Did not know that they could fine you for having drugs when all you are doins is assembling and not doing drugs. Thanks for clearing that up....

Your lack of comprehension is truly incomprehensible. This is not about whether or not you have drugs on your person. It's about the fact that if anyone has drugs on their person at an event you are sponsoring or organizing, you are held responsible.

How can you propose to control the type of people that show up at an open public event? You cannot. The most innocuous of public events may attract persons that do drugs. The government has now been given wide latitude to threaten the exercise of free speech and assembly, and they can do it selectively at their own whim. It doesn't matter if they prosecute or not, the threat is enough to close an event down.

For the last time, this is not about the rights and wrongs of somone getting high. It's about a person, as the organizer of any kind of event being responsible for drug use at the event and subject to this draconian law. It's about the government's new ability to smother any assembly that they see fit to smother.

I would imagine that it would be alot harder to find illegal drugs at a rally to legalize marijuana than it would be to find them in a less conspicuous public event. They are advocating the legalization of an illegal substance. How is this an innocuous rally?

If they were holding a rally for legalizing the the smoking age to 10 and there were 12 y/o at this rally. wouldn't common sense tell you to leave it at home? I see getting busted at a pro-marijuana rally for possession of a controlled substance Murphy's law at it's finest.

YES, BECAUSE ADVOCATING POLITICAL CHANGE AND REFORM THROUGH ASSEMBLY IS WRONG AM I RITE?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Nitemare

This------thread-------is----------about-----------freedom-----------of-----------speech----------and-----------freedom---------of----------assembly. I--------can-----------speak----------more----------slowly----------if---------will--------help---------you-----------understand.

Woah! Did not know that they could fine you for having drugs when all you are doins is assembling and not doing drugs. Thanks for clearing that up....

Your lack of comprehension is truly incomprehensible. This is not about whether or not you have drugs on your person. It's about the fact that if anyone has drugs on their person at an event you are sponsoring or organizing, you are held responsible.

How can you propose to control the type of people that show up at an open public event? You cannot. The most innocuous of public events may attract persons that do drugs. The government has now been given wide latitude to threaten the exercise of free speech and assembly, and they can do it selectively at their own whim. It doesn't matter if they prosecute or not, the threat is enough to close an event down.

For the last time, this is not about the rights and wrongs of somone getting high. It's about a person, as the organizer of any kind of event being responsible for drug use at the event and subject to this draconian law. It's about the government's new ability to smother any assembly that they see fit to smother.

I would imagine that it would be alot harder to find illegal drugs at a rally to legalize marijuana than it would be to find them in a less conspicuous public event. They are advocating the legalization of an illegal substance. How is this an innocuous rally?

If they were holding a rally for legalizing the the smoking age to 10 and there were 12 y/o at this rally. wouldn't common sense tell you to leave it at home? I see getting busted at a pro-marijuana rally for possession of a controlled substance Murphy's law at it's finest.

YES, BECAUSE ADVOCATING POLITICAL CHANGE AND REFORM THROUGH ASSEMBLY IS WRONG AM I RITE?

How about abiding by the current laws while advocating change?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
How about abiding by the current laws while advocating change?

Could you possibly be any more stupid?

:disgust: :|

Let's do a kind of remedial bonehead study for dipsh!ts on this: at any large public gathering, like say the semi-annual Mormon General Conference, it is impossible to control all the actions of tens of thousands of people, regardless of how tight the security is. In the security and venue businesses, it is not considered a probability, but a certainty, that someone will get in with some type of illicit substance (it's not like security can do full-body cavity searches on everyone). This "RAVE" law is being in such as a way that if that "one person" is discovered, the promotors of the event would suffer serious legal and financial repercusions (edit: to be clear - this would be despite the fact that the promotors might even be an anti-drug group like say, the LDS church, which could be plausible due to the language of the law, which basically states that the rogue individual found with the drugs could go free but that the promotors of the event are completely liable, even if they had no knowledge - so yes, someone could completely abide by the current laws and still have a problem). Because it is being used selectively on certain groups, it is being used to kill political free speech and free assembly.
How hard is this to understand? Are you stupid or are you trolling? Do you hate freedom of speech and assembly? Or are you so blind to this "Drug War" that you would destroy all freedoms in America just to "win" it?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nitemare
How about abiding by the current laws while advocating change?

Could you possibly be any more stupid?

:disgust: :|

Let's do a kind of remedial bonehead study for dipsh!ts on this: at any large public gathering, like say the semi-annual Mormon General Conference, it is impossible to control all the actions of tens of thousands of people, regardless of how tight the security is. In the security and venue businesses, it is not considered a probability, but a certainty, that someone will get in with some type of illicit substance (it's not like security can do full-body cavity searches on everyone). This "RAVE" law is being in such as a way that if that "one person" is discovered, the promotors of the event would suffer serious legal and financial repercusions (edit: to be clear - this would be despite the fact that the promotors might even be an anti-drug group like say, the LDS church, which could be plausible due to the language of the law). Because it is being used selectively on certain groups, it is being used to kill political free speech and free assembly.
How hard is this to understand? Are you stupid or are you trolling? Do you hate freedom of speech and assembly? Or are you so blind to this "Drug War" that you would destroy all freedoms in America just to "win" it?

This is what the apellate court is for and if need be the Supreme Court. No one with any sanity(9th Court of Appeals excluded) would rule that the organizer of a function should be liable if one person gets caught with a joint. The DEA agent was a moron for saying it and Kelly (last name withheld because she's a pothead) is a bigger moron for believing it. The RAVE Act is mean't to crack down on widespread use not the occasional firing up a joint. Personally, I am opposed to the illegality of marijuana, I have tried it in the past(over-rated) and will likely never try it again. I believe it should be regulated and taxed to generate revenue. Modern science has not shown that it is more harmful than cigarettes(better in most cases) Being under the influence and driving should be treated like a DUI and having roaches in your car ashtray should be construed as having an open container.

Yet, I find it perfectly acceptable to arrest anyone who violates the current laws regarding mary jane. These are the laws and it was not written in pencil or with asterisks that do not apply to pro-legalization rallies.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
This is what the apellate court is for and if need be the Supreme Court. No one with any sanity(9th Court of Appeals excluded) would rule that the organizer of a function should be liable if one person gets caught with a joint. The DEA agent was a moron for saying it and Kelly (last name withheld because she's a pothead) is a bigger moron for believing it. The RAVE Act is mean't to crack down on widespread use not the occasional firing up a joint. Personally, I am opposed to the illegality of marijuana, I have tried it in the past(over-rated) and will likely never try it again. I believe it should be regulated and taxed to generate revenue. Modern science has not shown that it is more harmful than cigarettes(better in most cases) Being under the influence and driving should be treated like a DUI and having roaches in your car ashtray should be construed as having an open container.

Yet, I find it perfectly acceptable to arrest anyone who violates the current laws regarding mary jane. These are the laws and it was not written in pencil or with asterisks that do not apply to pro-legalization rallies.

Well, I agree completely (and yes, it is extremely over-rated). However, in this case, not everyone can afford a stint in the courts all the way to the Supremes. Justice delayed is justice denied. Perhaps we should do something about the Congressman and Senators who write these unconstitutional laws in the first place? Or maybe just the rogue DEA agent for overzealously misapplying the law?
Saying "the law is the law" is all well and good, and I believe that people should obey the law. However, the law is frequently abused, particularly by the people we pay to enforce it.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nitemare
This is what the apellate court is for and if need be the Supreme Court. No one with any sanity(9th Court of Appeals excluded) would rule that the organizer of a function should be liable if one person gets caught with a joint. The DEA agent was a moron for saying it and Kelly (last name withheld because she's a pothead) is a bigger moron for believing it. The RAVE Act is mean't to crack down on widespread use not the occasional firing up a joint. Personally, I am opposed to the illegality of marijuana, I have tried it in the past(over-rated) and will likely never try it again. I believe it should be regulated and taxed to generate revenue. Modern science has not shown that it is more harmful than cigarettes(better in most cases) Being under the influence and driving should be treated like a DUI and having roaches in your car ashtray should be construed as having an open container.

Yet, I find it perfectly acceptable to arrest anyone who violates the current laws regarding mary jane. These are the laws and it was not written in pencil or with asterisks that do not apply to pro-legalization rallies.

Well, I agree completely (and yes, it is extremely over-rated). However, in this case, not everyone can afford a stint in the courts all the way to the Supremes. Justice delayed is justice denied. Perhaps we should do something about the Congressman and Senators who write these unconstitutional laws in the first place? Or maybe just the rogue DEA agent for overzealously misapplying the law?
Saying "the law is the law" is all well and good, and I believe that people should obey the law. However, the law is frequently abused, particularly by the people we pay to enforce it.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Abraham Lincoln

How about not voting for them or voting them out? They are after all no more than public servants.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nitemare
This is what the apellate court is for and if need be the Supreme Court. No one with any sanity(9th Court of Appeals excluded) would rule that the organizer of a function should be liable if one person gets caught with a joint. The DEA agent was a moron for saying it and Kelly (last name withheld because she's a pothead) is a bigger moron for believing it. The RAVE Act is mean't to crack down on widespread use not the occasional firing up a joint. Personally, I am opposed to the illegality of marijuana, I have tried it in the past(over-rated) and will likely never try it again. I believe it should be regulated and taxed to generate revenue. Modern science has not shown that it is more harmful than cigarettes(better in most cases) Being under the influence and driving should be treated like a DUI and having roaches in your car ashtray should be construed as having an open container.

Yet, I find it perfectly acceptable to arrest anyone who violates the current laws regarding mary jane. These are the laws and it was not written in pencil or with asterisks that do not apply to pro-legalization rallies.

Well, I agree completely (and yes, it is extremely over-rated). However, in this case, not everyone can afford a stint in the courts all the way to the Supremes. Justice delayed is justice denied. Perhaps we should do something about the Congressman and Senators who write these unconstitutional laws in the first place? Or maybe just the rogue DEA agent for overzealously misapplying the law?
Saying "the law is the law" is all well and good, and I believe that people should obey the law. However, the law is frequently abused, particularly by the people we pay to enforce it.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Abraham Lincoln

It is our civic duty to obey the law until such time as the courts rule that a law may be unconstitutional. If you choose to disobey the law you must be prepared for the court fight of challenging the constitutionality or you will be punished in the manner specified by the law. It's pretty simple. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time or pay to fight it in court. If you don't believe a law is constitutional contribute money to a legal defense fund or campaign against the incumbent politicians.

All the whining people are doing in this thread won't do a damn bit of good.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: rahvin
If you don't believe a law is constitutional contribute money to a legal defense fund or campaign against the incumbent politicians...

Organizing any event to promote alternate choices in the political world could be dangerous if those in power decide they don't like your opinion and choose to selectively enforce the Rave act against you. You can be certain that they will find a way to find (or make it appear that they've found) a bit of some illegal substance on somebody.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nitemare
This is what the apellate court is for and if need be the Supreme Court. No one with any sanity(9th Court of Appeals excluded) would rule that the organizer of a function should be liable if one person gets caught with a joint. The DEA agent was a moron for saying it and Kelly (last name withheld because she's a pothead) is a bigger moron for believing it. The RAVE Act is mean't to crack down on widespread use not the occasional firing up a joint. Personally, I am opposed to the illegality of marijuana, I have tried it in the past(over-rated) and will likely never try it again. I believe it should be regulated and taxed to generate revenue. Modern science has not shown that it is more harmful than cigarettes(better in most cases) Being under the influence and driving should be treated like a DUI and having roaches in your car ashtray should be construed as having an open container.

Yet, I find it perfectly acceptable to arrest anyone who violates the current laws regarding mary jane. These are the laws and it was not written in pencil or with asterisks that do not apply to pro-legalization rallies.

Well, I agree completely (and yes, it is extremely over-rated). However, in this case, not everyone can afford a stint in the courts all the way to the Supremes. Justice delayed is justice denied. Perhaps we should do something about the Congressman and Senators who write these unconstitutional laws in the first place? Or maybe just the rogue DEA agent for overzealously misapplying the law?
Saying "the law is the law" is all well and good, and I believe that people should obey the law. However, the law is frequently abused, particularly by the people we pay to enforce it.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Abraham Lincoln

It is our civic duty to obey the law until such time as the courts rule that a law may be unconstitutional. If you choose to disobey the law you must be prepared for the court fight of challenging the constitutionality or you will be punished in the manner specified by the law. It's pretty simple. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time or pay to fight it in court. If you don't believe a law is constitutional contribute money to a legal defense fund or campaign against the incumbent politicians.

All the whining people are doing in this thread won't do a damn bit of good.

I'll agree that whining in this thread won't do a damn bit of good other than to inform other people about what's happening, but you're wrong about choosing to disobey a law in this case. You are already disobeying the law without having done anything more than to organize a group of people at a venue. You are disobeying the law by default and it's just up to the government if they want to pursue prosecution. Again, this is regardless of the cause and you will be threatened by the goverment with prosecution at their whim.

In most such cases, the government would not prosecute because they would know they could not win. But they do have all of the advantage of weighing in with a heavy-handed threat to stifle free speech and assembly upon anyone of their choosing. So, unless you are a millionaire prepared to fund a fight against the government, you have no chance of fighting and seeing your day in court, you have no chance to organize people at a rally or benefit to your cause free of this threat.

One funny example of this ridiculous law is, they could threaten every concert and concert promoter across the country if they wanted to. And given the latitude this law provides for abuse, I don't find it implausible to see something like this happen in the not too distant future.

 

[jackschmittusa]

It seems pretty stupid to hold A accountable for the actions of B if A did not encourage or demand the actions. It has also been a tactic of big business for some time to initiate legal proceedings with no merit against small companies who they know cannot afford to defend themselves in order to bend them to their will. It seems that some would advocate allowing the government to use the same tactic. It seems unbelievable that anyone would want their government to have such powers.