• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

State Taking Kids Away From Med Pot Users

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
CptDanko said:
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 🙂
Click to expand...

I've been here since The Beginning. Don't be coy, who were you?
 
TerryMathews said:
I've been here since The Beginning. Don't be coy, who were you?
Click to expand...

Look, that's nice that you have been here from the beginning.
But Ill repeat myself, and this I have experience in, show me one recent case of a fed busting someone over possession, 100 years ago with marijuana tax act law does not count.

In the end looks like your not an anti pot zealot like the Texan is. We could probably agree on a lot of things. So lets not let this turn into a flame war.
 
The Texan (Former Virginian) is not anti-pot, just pro-law. When the federal laws concerning marijuana are changed I will still be pro-law.
 
CptDanko said:
Look, that's nice that you have been here from the beginning.
But Ill repeat myself, and this I have experience in, show me one recent case of a fed busting someone over possession, 100 years ago with marijuana tax act law does not count.

In the end looks like your not an anti pot zealot like the Texan is. We could probably agree on a lot of things. So lets not let this turn into a flame war.
Click to expand...

Only in your head was I anti-pot. I have said, in this thread and on numerous other occasions, that unenforced laws that remain on the books are dangerous as they allow for a prosecutor to "throw the book" at someone they don't like. That is not justice.

Londo_Jowo said:
The Texan (Former Virginian) is not anti-pot, just pro-law. When the federal laws concerning marijuana are changed I will still be pro-law.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
The Texan (Former Virginian) is not anti-pot, just pro-law. When the federal laws concerning marijuana are changed I will still be pro-law.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing thinking for yourself isn't your strong suit. Being pro-law isn't a thing, it is just a cop-out. I honestly feel sorry for you 🙁
 
It's also not inconceivable that the feds might decide to "throw the book at people" if the states stop doing it. That tax act and subsequent measures were probably enacted because the states weren't criminalizing its usage, and why would the feds need to step in if the states are "doing their jobs."

So if they start legalizing weed everywhere it's not a stretch to think that some future administration might start prosecuting people again, given that they can.
 
BudAshes said:
I'm guessing thinking for yourself isn't your strong suit. Being pro-law isn't a thing, it is just a cop-out. I honestly feel sorry for you 🙁
Click to expand...

No, I've learned over the years choose my battles wisely. I write my representatives when I feel something needs to be changed and vote against those who do not support the things I considered to be just and worthwhile.

I'm sure you support the laws that benefit you and your family.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
No, I've learned over the years choose my battles wisely. I write my representatives when I feel something needs to be changed and vote against those who do not support the things I considered to be just and worthwhile.

I'm sure you support the laws that benefit you and your family.
Click to expand...

You remind me of a heroin addict trying to benevolently defend their lifestyle. 🙂
 
Londo_Jowo said:
So says the AMD loving troll that can't back up his claims or statements.
Click to expand...

I don't need to back anything up. I already have known what was stated for years.

In any case your good at google, I can tell, you go look up what I said, go look up federal law on plants and tell me if im a troll. It will clearly state over 99 plants is a federal offense.

By the way, uhh what does AMD have to do with anything? lol
 
zinfamous said:
Not what the plant produces--but what it attracts. the hypothetical situation you are responding to here was "some 100 or so MJ plants" in the house.

...Do you not see the danger there?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, quite: criminal elements...

The welfare of children is a state issue so the federal laws against weed are irrelevant. The state can remove children if they think it's in their best interests, even if medicinal or recreational pot use or cultivation is allowed in that same state, using this possible danger (what it might invite) as part of its usual analysis.
 
justoh said:
Well, yes, quite: criminal elements...

The welfare of children is a state issue so the federal laws against weed are irrelevant. The state can remove children if they think it's in their best interests, even if medicinal or recreational pot use or cultivation is allowed in that same state, using this possible danger (what it might invite) as part of its usual analysis.
Click to expand...
How many plants should not be the question.

The question is why do idiots classify pot as a junkie drug and that someone cant take care of their kids cause they smoke.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
No, I've learned over the years choose my battles wisely. I write my representatives when I feel something needs to be changed and vote against those who do not support the things I considered to be just and worthwhile.

I'm sure you support the laws that benefit you and your family.
Click to expand...

This statement has nothing to do with being pro-law. You are now just being obtuse and insulting people to get a rise out of them. You are pro-law when it suits you just like everyone else.
 
BudAshes said:
This statement has nothing to do with being pro-law. You are now just being obtuse and insulting people to get a rise out of them. You are pro-law when it suits you just like everyone else.
Click to expand...


Just take his posts with a grain of salt, he is obviously mad we have a point.
 
justoh said:
It's also not inconceivable that the feds might decide to "throw the book at people" if the states stop doing it. That tax act and subsequent measures were probably enacted because the states weren't criminalizing its usage, and why would the feds need to step in if the states are "doing their jobs."

So if they start legalizing weed everywhere it's not a stretch to think that some future administration might start prosecuting people again, given that they can.
Click to expand...

They can but they don't have the time, nor man power, or the willingness to go after the end user. Nor does the federal judicial system. Its an incredible waste of time, money, and man power for all agencies involved. That is why the feds don't currently go after simple possessors and will turn them over to local agencies if they run across them while looking for other criminal activity.
 
justoh said:
It's also not inconceivable that the feds might decide to "throw the book at people" if the states stop doing it. That tax act and subsequent measures were probably enacted because the states weren't criminalizing its usage, and why would the feds need to step in if the states are "doing their jobs."

So if they start legalizing weed everywhere it's not a stretch to think that some future administration might start prosecuting people again, given that they can.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding, or misstating my point.

I'm not saying "throwing the book" at everyone. I'm saying at political enemies.
You say the feds don't prosecute simple possession in the general case. OK, I would likely go along with that.

You think they wouldn't prosecute Rush Limbaugh with a joint, given the chance?
 
TechBoyJK said:
Being blindingly pro-law without using any kind of applied logic or reason is essentially admitting to being a sheep.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want, the US is a nation of laws and without these laws there would be rampant anarchy. Don't like a law do your part and vote for representatives that support your points of view as well as write them. '

If you choose to violate a law don't be surprised when your held accountable for such but don't look to me for the feel bad for you. I will be nice enough to tell you sympathy can be found between shit and syphilis in the dictionary though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top