|
I assume arcade is in a list of a lot of other places that old people think kids these days hang out in because that's what happens in all the 80's movies? And that that list includes schools and parks?
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
All they check at testing sites is whether its coming out at the right temperature.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
"Plain view." If you don't understand the myriad of ways in which sense of smell and sense of sight are different I'll start with the most basic. Smells can linger on your person for minutes to hours after the source of the smell is encountered. Smell is temporally not the same as sight and does not work in remotely the same way. Edit- I'll give you another because I think it's a funny one. You can't always tell where smells are coming from. A cop won't mistake the gun in my car for the gun in the hands of the homeless person on the other side. If you think you always know where a smell is coming from stand in a crowded elevator and tell me who farted. TenementFunster posted:and finds exactly that (or exactly that and more) in a search is constitutionally sound in my view. Results based constitutionality is wrong legally and also theoretically. If every search that finds something is constitutional and every search that doesn't is not, but you are free to go citizen we found nothing no need to challenge our search in court, then there's Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:okay those are a lot of good opinions I guess but about ninety years of criminal procedure says otherwise. aside from that, great post! I'm not allowed to find the current procedure illogical because of precedent? Sorry I didn't realize you were an expert on jurisprudence and not also just a guy on the internet giving his opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
"I smell pot, can I search you" is intimidation?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Could you clarify how that is even remotely true? You should invest in a shift key. It increases readability.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
The implication of a cop saying "can I search you" and leaving you alone after you say no is he took a halfhearted shot and doesn't care. A cop who wants to actually intimidate someone can do a lot more than ask to search someone. Such as telling them if they refuse they will have to hang out and wait for the dogs.TenementFunster posted:"white knighting" is a funny way of saying "explaining long established law and the reasons behind it." "Explaining" is a funny way of saying you agree with the law then strawmanning with this ACAB poo poo and calling people punks and idiots who disagree with you about anything. No white knighting here no sir. BTW are you in the Yakuza? I totally get if your missing the ends of those fingers how capitalization could be difficult for you. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
DeadmansReach posted:I thought Funster was trying to make the point that, as driving under the influence is still illegal, that a cop smelling marijuana during a traffic stop could still constitute reasonable suspicion. This seems similar to a situation where a cop might smell alcohol on somebody and want to check for open containers? Driving under the influence has not been mentioned once. He thinks that if you want to protect your fourth amendment rights you must hate cops. Because no cop has ever abused the "I smell weed" to conduct an illegal search ever. EVER. The constitution is there to give cops excuses to search you and if the search finds something the search was automatically constitutional. Protect who from the government? What? I can't hear you over my club hitting your skull. He's also as obnoxious as possible about it so probably a troll. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
DeadmansReach posted:I assumed DUI because that's the only circumstance in a legal state where recently smoking would matter... right? As far as your first part goes, theoretically once it's no longer at all illegal when a cop pulls you over and smells weed you can hold up your bag and say "I just bought it I haven't had any yet" or point to your obviously high buddy and say "yeah he's been smoking I'm the DD" just like you currently do with alcohol. Remember this all stemmed from: quote:But Tom Raynes, the executive director of the Colorado District Attorneys Council, said the state's new marijuana laws are likely making it tougher for police to crack down on the remaining marijuana crimes. Because some marijuana possession and use is now legal, Raynes said that means police are no longer allowed to investigate in depth purely because they smell pot. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:a decrease in one's IQ by 8 points. What does this actually mean for anyone. How does it impact their life in any way? EDIT: I choose to hope that we can maintain a higher quality of posting than illiterates. I can do both. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:It has measurable predictive power several life outcomes, like school performance, job performance, income(weaker than the others), likelihood to commit crimes. Obviously it isn't sufficient to predict much on its own and 8 is a pretty small number, but a small change in a very large group of people amounts to a big change. I guess you could dispute that last part but it seems fairly obvious to me... I just think we don't have enough information to even show the group would be big. It specifically says heavy use, and I think it's hard to say just how many high schoolers are going to become heavy users who wouldn't have already. That's not even looking at confounding factors like the fact that any teenager whose allowed to engage in heavy use probably has fairly disinterested parents for one. I do agree that it should have the same marketing restrictions as alcohol and tobacco though, that is a fairly obvious and good way to start solving the problem. TenementFunster posted:plain view would still be part of a mythical just and fair police force Plain view doesn't have to include smells. Smell works differently than sight. You aren't informed, you just assume because we disagree with the status quo we don't understand it. We understand it, it's bullshit. I get that plain view is a thing. It's a fine thing. It should not include smell. Sorry I misunderstood you as being pro cop. Now understand that you aren't any more informed than anyone else, you just don't understand how disagreeing with things works. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:Do you even realize you're trying to argue that someone who has a JD, lives in Colorado, and had to extensively study both Colorado's marijuana regulations and the US law system in general? He's certainly more informed than you are, as you keep being outraged and amazed by the precedent-based common law system that the US has operated under since before it was a nation. KernelSlanders posted:I think in general we could do a better job of being clear whether we are giving our opinion of how things are or how things should be. This is very true and happens a lot. Thread conversations are complicated and that's expounded by multiple people expressing variations on the same view. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:plain smell is no more or less bullshit than plain view. You are nitpicking over technical terms as an excuse to ignore the real point which is this. I disagree with this. You aren't magically right by repeating yourself a third time. Get the gently caress over yourself. TenementFunster posted:also calling people idiots and punks simply makes it all worthwhile for me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
rscott posted:Blaming it on rap music? God drat did I enter a time warp into 1995? There was that article claiming prison owners paid music execs to promote gangster rap.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:You shouldn't eat apple pie everyday either, nor have sex everyday, nor even workout everyday. Take a break sometimes. I'm sure you intend there to be an implicit exception here but someone else mentioned it already and here we are not talking about it. Some drugs are recommended by doctors for every day use, and you probably shouldn't "take a break" without consulting them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:There was a poll taken back in March, 52–44 in favor of recreational legalization (like 84% in favor on just medical): I know a lot of people who are in favor of weed, from hippies to leftists, and while a few support the current effort solely for healthcare reasons, most are completely opposed. I think the word is really getting around. Noam Chomsky posted:The thing lots of Ohioans don't seem to understand is that there's no guarantee that there will be a legalization initiative on the ballot next year, or really any year after it. I don't think this is true. I think Responsible Ohio got enough attention for being a piece of poo poo that it'll be easy to push for the same law but with more opportunity for home growers and small business farms.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:The hand-wringing over "but muh potential weed business!" is really loving dumb in the face of legalizing recreational use this year. You're basically the same as these Responsible Ohio guys; "hey, this is no good if I can't make some money on it!" Eh. I think it sets a really lovely legal precedent. I thought the casino thing was bullshit the same way. If issue 2 retroactively applied to the casinos I'd be supporting that too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:You don't just get to dismiss the other side here - you certainly haven't convinced me that more good would be done by passing a lovely law than waiting and eventually passing a better one. Do you really think there won't be another ballot for weed ever? Obviously it sucks for anyone who is jailed between when this law would come into effect and when a future law would come into effect, but the good done by a better law passed later may well be worth it. I think it's a pretty tough ethical decision that you don't seem to be weighing your options in. Also medical marijuana. Child seizures, sick elderly, etc.. It is a very tough decision, I think it's a bit unfair to accuse people who disagree with us of not weighing their options. But it's definitely not "my weed business" it's whether we want this economic boost to go right back to the rich or give everyone a shot. I think that this law being lovely has gotten enough press that we can get a good law soon whichever way the wind blows. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:My stance on Ohio: it's like the Dialectic in Marx, it has to inevitably move forward or it calls into question the validity of the whole process. If the Monopoly bill hadn't gotten the signatures, that's be one thing, but to have a state make it into the Novemebr ballot and fail could be a PR setback right when we want to be showing unstoppable momentum to breach the tipping point so that 2016 will be prepped for a surge of 6+ states voting on initiatives and possibly VT and/or RI legalizing legislatively. Having OH fail just gives fencesitting politicians an excuse to say "meh, the climate isn't ready yet". No one actually read the thing who signed it. They went to college campuses and bars and asked people if they wanted to legalize weed. Fortunately the nice thing about ballot initiatives is that fence sitting politicians can get hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
I just effort posted this to various pro weed, anti Responsible Ohio people I know. Thoughts?quote:Effort post incoming. The short verison is if you are pro legalization you should Vote yes and fix it next year. If you are against legalization and just using the monopoly as an excuse then obviously you are voting no on everything anyway so this isn't directed at you. I am strongly for full legalization, but I think it's important that we pass 3 now. I'll explain my reasoning:
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:The Liberal Party just secured a Parliamentary majority in Canada, so stand by for a march, fast or slow, to legalized weed in Canada. Maybe they can knock out just a basic nationwide decrim first and then move gradually to developing commercial regulation? Does that mean Harper's out? I know nothing except that John Oliver was talking about him. The yes/no decision on Ohio 3 is really tough. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Dehry posted:The Ohio issue 3 commercials are interesting. I'm pretty sure the monopoly thing was latched onto by all people against legalization as a way to pry on the fence voters. Issue 3 is pretty lovely, so it was working for a while. See more people swaying back towards a yes as the day approaches, and have personally been trying to discourage yes's on Issue 2 to spite issue 3. You only need to vote against 3 once.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:Then again, literally every drug dealer I've seen in drugs inc claims to be pulling down more money monthly than the average person pulls down in a decade. I'd guess that since they don't keep strict books they probably count all their income and not their profits. So they when they sell that ten pound bag and talk about how much they made from it they aren't thinking about that they need to reup.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Xandu posted:It's also overwhelmingly failing in every county. I find that to be pretty dubious too because that process hasn't been setup to call issue 3 a cartel yet. Not that it matters because issue three got sunk. It's pretty lovely to me that newspapers were telling people to vote yes on 2 if they oppose 3.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:Guys, there is another group trying to get on next years ballot! *ignores the same group falling very short to the required signatures this year* I've never wanted to move more than now. Not because of the pot, I can keep smoking that just fine, but because I can't believe Ohio voters are so dumb they bought into voting 'against pot' twice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:So what is it, should people drive while stoned or not? I have driven while stoned and I will no longer do it. It is not safe. They shouldn't but it's not nearly as dangerous as driving while drunk. Obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:That's not the point he was making. He was implying that people who are stoned are okay to drive. And then some point about letting cops use their judgement to decide if someone is under the influence. Both of which are silly points. I don't really think it's for any of us to say what point he was making, but those studies above support exactly what I said.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And that has what relation to a specially formulated nasal spray as in your link? They have the essentially same contents/medicinal value? This is pedantic even for you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They do not. Then address that instead of pretending you don't know why someone who used to work in a medically supervised diamorphine injection site would have an opinion on a diamorphine nasal spray. Every now and then I clear my ignore list and you are almost always the first back on it because of dumb poo poo like this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think asking someone why they think something is relevant is always better than assuming that they think it is relevant for a wrong reason. If you think someone is wrong, being prepared to be wrong yourself seems like a good strategy. Yeah but fishmech cannot be wrong, which is why I asked that he get to the point... fishmech posted:Why should they think they have an informed opinion on things being used in an entirely different manner for entirely different purpose? The study he links is about nasally admitted drugs being used to treat something entirely different than injections used to alleviate risks from addicts getting impure stuff. which he clearly had no problem doing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Thank you for bringing up the rampant issue of homelessness among LGBTQ individuals. I'm kicking myself for not mentioning it previously. I completely agree but I'm still pretty sure that's not what the drug legalization thread is here for. And talking about basic constituational freedoms is gonna involve some comparisons you might just have to get the gently caress over. Killhour you have the right to ingest literally anything you want in the privacy of your own closet but that doesn't give you the right to a market to buy it in. You just have to make it yourself. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:This would be a good or at least better point, if we were not at the moment discussing marijuana specifically. No you are egging on the insane people and their stupid lovely oppression olympic slapfight. Jesus christ. Badger of Basra posted:And you thought today was a good day to do that why? Because you are just some psycho on the internet who is making up insane poo poo about people because of your own issues. Well, that's why I'd be trolling you about pedantic facts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 03:50
|
|