State Taking Kids Away From Med Pot Users

[TerryMathews]

Its obvious you are clueless as to how the law works.

You claimed their were people getting arrested federally for possession, I pointed that out as bs. Yet your still trying to debate me on the subject?

I said it was illegal. You're the one drawing the distinction.

 

[CptDanko]

I said it was illegal. You're the one drawing the distinction.

Its like your trying to teach a father to have kids.....
FYI pot wasn't made illegal till Nixon admin, before that they prohibited it through a tax law and simply would not hand out tax stamps for it.

 

[TerryMathews]

Its like your trying to teach a father to have kids.....
FYI pot wasn't made illegal till Nixon admin, before that they prohibited it through a tax law and simply would not hand out tax stamps for it.

Yes, I'm well aware. They use the same system to "ban" automatic firearms.

Glad to see you finally admit that it is illegal.

 

[CptDanko]

Yes, I'm well aware. They use the same system to "ban" automatic firearms.

Glad to see you finally admit that it is illegal.

Don't bring firearms into the discussion, its like comparing watermelons to jellybeans.

I never claimed it wasn't illegal, I corrected your mistaken insipid "Fact" thinking that feds waste their time over a joint.

 

[Smoblikat]

No, but like I said, the power required to grow a significant number of plants could be large. We don't know how many plants she was actually growing. We don't know if she had 480V wiring all over the house for her grow lamps. Fire hazards. Were the plants in places the kid could get to and fall on them?

The article glosses over the fact that the kid wasn't removed from the home because the mother used pot, but rather because she was growing pot. Two very different things, even if they are both legal.

Look, I'm the first person to say that the state should stay the fuck out of parenting except in cases of negligence, and there is the potential for negligence in this case. The problem is that there's far too much potential for spin so we will never, ever get the full story.

All I'm saying is that MMJ use was not the reason the kid was removed from the home, as the OP and the original story try to insinuate.

Cant kids fall into ovens too? Or fireplaces? Or swimming pools/bathtubs? Cant they get run over by cars? Or, if you want to stay on the subject of drugs, how about parents that brew their own beer? Kids can easily fall on a pile of bottles, equipment, or even in beer itself.

Lets nerf the world......FOR THE CHILDREN!!

 

[justoh]

Don't bring firearms into the discussion, its like comparing watermelons to jellybeans.

I never claimed it wasn't illegal, I corrected your mistaken insipid "Fact" thinking that feds waste their time over a joint.

Also, at least one person has been prosecuted and convicted by the feds for marijuana possession. Admittedly not under the current law, and a long time ago, but the fact remains that it has been done and could easily be done again.

Shortly after the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act went into effect on October 1, 1937, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Denver City police arrested Moses Baca for possession and Samuel Caldwell for dealing. Baca and Caldwell's arrest made them the first marijuana convictions under U.S. federal law for not paying the marijuana tax.[19] Judge Foster Symes sentenced Baca to 18 months and Caldwell to four years in Leavenworth Penitentiary for violating the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937

It was a tax they couldn't pay without incrimination.

 

[CptDanko]

Also, at least one person has been prosecuted and convicted by the feds for marijuana possession. Admittedly not under the current law, and a long time ago, but the fact remains that it has been done and could easily be done again.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937

I already know about that, the person they convicted a long time ago was due to massive cultivation, not possession. It was just a farmer

 

[justoh]

I already know about that, the person they convicted a long time ago was due to massive cultivation, not possession. It was just a farmer

no, a customer of his was convicted as well.

 

[CptDanko]

no, a customer of his was convicted as well.

So you are honestly going to sit there and try and defend your stance based on one little scapegoat from almost 100 years ago?
Gimme a break.

I miss the old days of the interweb before it was full of anal retentive n00bs.

 

[justoh]

So you are honestly going to sit there and try and defend your stance based on one little scapegoat from almost 100 years ago?
Gimme a break.

I miss the old days of the interweb before it was full of anal retentive n00bs.

Eh? What stance? lol. You seem like you're on a mission to talk shit today. How many old threads have you resurrected in the last hour?

 

[CptDanko]

Eh? What stance? lol. You seem like you're on a mission to talk shit today. How many old threads have you resurrected in the last hour?

YOur not the first person to mention something about old threads. And Ill give you the same response, talk it up with admins to have old posts deleted if you don't want to see thread revivals.

 

[justoh]

YOur not the first person to mention something about old threads. And Ill give you the same response, talk it up with admins to have old posts deleted if you don't want to see thread revivals.

What about this stance of mine that you claim i'm defending?

You first claim categorically that the feds have never prosecuted anyone for possession, and when presented with evidence to the contrary, you gave up without acknowledging your error.

You then claim that i'm defending some unidentified stance on who knows what, and you ran away from that as well.

This combined with the dead thread revivals makes it look like your recent registration was done to provoke people.

 

[CptDanko]

What about this stance of mine that you claim i'm defending?

You first claim categorically that the feds have never prosecuted anyone for possession, and when presented with evidence to the contrary, you gave up without acknowledging your error.

You then claim that i'm defending some unidentified stance on who knows what, and you ran away from that as well.

This combined with the dead thread revivals makes it look like your recent registration was done to provoke people.

Im not trying to provoke anyone. Im just bored and talking politics that's all.

As far as the evidence to prove me wrong, gimme a break like I said, that was almost 100 years ago, and one person may I add.
Like I said show me something recent of a fed busting someone over 3 joints. That is something you continue to ignore.

 

[TerryMathews]

Im not trying to provoke anyone. Im just bored and talking politics that's all.

As far as the evidence to prove me wrong, gimme a break like I said, that was almost 100 years ago, and one person may I add.
Like I said show me something recent of a fed busting someone over 3 joints. That is something you continue to ignore.

Paging DVC, can we use your PACER login?

 

[CptDanko]

Paging DVC, can we use your PACER login?

Yet again your trying to defend your stance with PACER.
I can tell you from experience no federal agent would waste their time over a joint, the fact that your arguing this shows either 1)Your trolling me and just debating to bust my balls 2) You really are clueless.

 

[justoh]

Im not trying to provoke anyone. Im just bored and talking politics that's all.

As far as the evidence to prove me wrong, gimme a break like I said, that was almost 100 years ago, and one person may I add.
Like I said show me something recent of a fed busting someone over 3 joints. That is something you continue to ignore.

So, about that stance of mine... I'd really like to know what my stance is

 

[CptDanko]

So, about that stance of mine... I'd really like to know what my stance is

Sorry I confused you with Terry.

 

[TerryMathews]

Yet again your trying to defend your stance with PACER.
I can tell you from experience no federal agent would waste their time over a joint, the fact that your arguing this shows either 1)Your trolling me and just debating to bust my balls 2) You really are clueless.

Do you need me to quote all of your posts in this thread?

My original post, and every post I've made since hit on the same point: under Federal law, marijuana possession of any amount is illegal.

You have changed your counter argument several times. Now it seems to be that "it might be illegal but unless you can cite a recent case, I'm going to say it's never enforced."

Who's trolling who? Your argument seems to change with every post.

And marijuana is still illegal.

 

[CptDanko]

Do you need me to quote all of your posts in this thread?

My original post, and every post I've made since hit on the same point: under Federal law, marijuana possession of any amount is illegal.

You have changed your counter argument several times. Now it seems to be that "it might be illegal but unless you can cite a recent case, I'm going to say it's never enforced."

Who's trolling who? Your argument seems to change with every post.

And marijuana is still illegal.

Im not changing any stance. Im telling you from the beginning that in small amounts the state decides what happens. Federal offenses require higher amounts of weed...> This is what I have been saying, Im not changing anything

 

[TerryMathews]

Im not changing any stance. Im telling you from the beginning that in small amounts the state decides what happens. Federal offenses require higher amounts of weed...> This is what I have been saying, Im not changing anything

Yeah, right.

You sir are the reason most other countrys dislike America due to your lack of knowledge.
1)Smoking cannabis is not a federal offense.
2)Even while under the effects of cannabis one can still take care of their child.

You must have sub par Homer Simpson IQ

I know what schedule pot is I don't need to google it. Does not mean its a federal offense.
Its all left to the state for possession charges and only becomes federal with massive amounts or over 99 plants being grown.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Federal law and penalties for possession.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Marijuana-Possession.htm

Marijuana Possession Penalties

For those charged with possession of under 1 kilogram of marijuana, not for resale or distribution, the misdemeanor marijuana possession charges are lowest for first offenders and then increase in their severity. In situations where the charge is based on sales of drug paraphernalia, the penalties can be increased to a felony if the item is sold to a minor child. Depending on the factors listed above, the penalties for possession can include:

• a fine (typically up to $2000)
• jail time (typically less than one year in jail)
• mandatory drug testing
• drug awareness classes
• probation
• electronic monitoring

Marijuana Possession Sentencing

Although possession of marijuana is typically not considered as serious as other types of drug or controlled substance charges, judges have sometimes imposed fairly stiff sentences even on first time offenders. As noted, the individual's age, prior convictions and overall standing in the community are typically taken into consideration as to what type of sentence is the most effective. For those that have a driver's license, suspension of the license can also occur and may be ordered by judges under specific situations. An attorney can assist in minimizing the sentence by working with the prosecuting attorney to plea bargain or agree to a treatment program rather than a conviction.

 

[xj0hnx]

Actually a narcotic would be any CNS depressant drug, for example opiates. Or even alcohol could be considered a narcotic.

Not anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotic#United_States_Code_of_Federal_Regulations

 

[CptDanko]

Yeah, right.

Nothing you quoted of mine is wrong. Everything I stated is correct, your anal retentive approach is also correct, but Im debating you because you are making it look like the feds main priority is to get minor possession crowd, and Im telling you from the beginning its not.

Federal law and penalties for possession.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Marijuana-Possession.htm

I love your google skillz. Your so enlightened!!!!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Nothing you quoted of mine is wrong. Everything I stated is correct, your anal retentive approach is also correct, but Im debating you because you are making it look like the feds main priority is to get minor possession crowd, and Im telling you from the beginning its not.



I love your google skillz. Your so enlightened!!!!

I would be more impressed if you could actually post something that refutes what has been posted in this thread. Otherwise your just another full of shit troll that will be banned yet again.

 

[CptDanko]

I would be more impressed if you could actually post something that refutes what has been posted in this thread. Otherwise your just another full of shit troll that will be banned yet again.

So Im a troll cause I know feds don't bust people for possession?
And you still insist I was here and banned before. Well sorry but your wrong. All I can tell you is that I was here many years ago and left on my own, was never banned