8 arrested in Phelps-pot ordeal

[CrAz3D]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490612,00.html

Sheriff Leon Lott is the biggest cock sucking faggot alive.

This is too important to post in News or my cop bashing thread.

Send as much hate mail to this God damn homosexual, cock loving, ass raping piece of shit as you can.

sheriff@rcsd.net

[Newby]

One arrest included the suspected owner of the bong — who wasn't even at the party, but was allegedly trying to sell the pipe on eBay for $100,000, WIS reported.

LOL.

[CrAz3D]

One arrest included the suspected owner of the bong — who wasn't even at the party, but was allegedly trying to sell the pipe on eBay for $100,000, WIS reported.

LOL.

Srsly.

I'm sure all the charges will be dropped at some point, but the Sheriff is still an asshole.

[iago]

Send as much hate mail to this God damn homosexual, cock loving, ass raping piece of shit as you can.

And what, exactly, is all this homophobia nonsense supposed to do? Do you think a bunch of random emails is going to make him feel bad and change his mind?

(It's also funny that the only insult you can seem to think of is homophobic )

[CrAz3D]

My actual email to the guy wasn't all obscene (p.s. calling someone a fag doesn't mean I'm homophobic, just means I'm using fag in a derogatory manner).  Anyway, off-topic.

My actual email just called the guy out for being a moron, and I informed him that I hope he loses his next election.

I encourage everyone to write this (hmm...new insult...vagabond! [still not phobic of the homeless/drifters, but still insulting enough]) vagabond, and express your distaste.

[iago]

My actual email to the guy wasn't all obscene (p.s. calling someone a fag doesn't mean I'm homophobic, just means I'm using fag in a derogatory manner).  Anyway, off-topic.

You called him a "homosexual", and "cock loving", and "ass raping" -- all three implying homosexuality. The fact that you used it in a derogatory sense implies that being homosexual is derogatory.

[CrAz3D]

Which A) doesnt necessitate homophobia; and B) doesnt necessitate hate.  It just means that I used the words in a derogatory manner .

Same way saying "nigger" can be derogatory/not be derogatory.

[Hitmen]

god dammit crazed take your stupid nigger shit somewhere else

[Warrior]

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, create jobs.
This is a progressive issue, glad to see Craz3d is aboard with the Dems .

[iago]

Which A) doesnt necessitate homophobia; and B) doesnt necessitate hate.  It just means that I used the words in a derogatory manner .

Same way saying "nigger" can be derogatory/not be derogatory.

Yes, it does. It's basically the same thing.

In any case, attacking the person who enforces the law isn't going to change anything. Instead, you should be trying to get the law repealed.

[iago]

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, create jobs.
This is a progressive issue, glad to see Craz3d is aboard with the Dems .

I can't see it creating jobs. It's more likely that if it was legalized, the work growing it would be farmed out to some easily exploitable third world country, where they can be paid slave wages to grow/harvest it. Kinda like coffee, chocolate, etc.

[Warrior]

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, create jobs.
This is a progressive issue, glad to see Craz3d is aboard with the Dems .

I can't see it creating jobs. It's more likely that if it was legalized, the work growing it would be farmed out to some easily exploitable third world country, where they can be paid slave wages to grow/harvest it. Kinda like coffee, chocolate, etc.

Well I mean, you don't really need the specialized climates of third world countries to grow it on a massive scale, you can easily set up fields of the stuff locally.

However, I don't know, so I'll say that you're right. However, there is more to jobs than just the cultivation of marijuana, there's the packaging, distributing, marketing, etc of the product.

I'm not sure of all of tobacco companies grow locally (meaning in the US) but even if they don't, they still create some jobs on US soil, and it's still a taxable source.

[iago]

However, I don't know, so I'll say that you're right. However, there is more to jobs than just the cultivation of marijuana, there's the packaging, distributing, marketing, etc of the product.

I thought about that after I posted.

You're right, to a point, but I think it'd create a lot more business people type jobs than worker class jobs, though. So I'm not really sure how much it'd help, overall.

[Warrior]

Yeah, I'm not sure, assuming that the growing of it goes overseas, then I don't know if it'd be as glorious a bang for the buck as I initially envisioned.

However, there's always the money saved from releasing inmates held on possession and trafficking, since that costs a ton from the federal budget a year, not to mention it breeds true criminals.

We send a young boy caught with possession to jail, we turn him into a monster, since the American Jail system very seldom rehabilitates anyone. Quite frankly, I don't think any jail system can.

[BigAznDaddy]

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, create jobs.
This is a progressive issue, glad to see Craz3d is aboard with the Dems .

erything has to be political with you..

I think it is Michaels own fault. I mean come on your at the olympics as a national hero then you celebrate with a bong hit comeon.

[iago]

However, there's always the money saved from releasing inmates held on possession and trafficking, since that costs a ton from the federal budget a year, not to mention it breeds true criminals.

Sure, go raise the unemployment rate!

[Warrior]

Guess I got owned there :/.

[Warrior]

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, create jobs.
This is a progressive issue, glad to see Craz3d is aboard with the Dems .

erything has to be political with you..

I just enjoy pointing out when progressive issues manifest themselves in everyday situations. It's strange to me how conservatives are against Government intervention in this case .

This is fun to me.

[truste1]

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, create jobs.
This is a progressive issue, glad to see Craz3d is aboard with the Dems .

It would decrease jobs, think about how many law enforcement (DEA especially) agents are employed because of the massive-scale war on drugs, marijuana being at the forefront. It's all political.

Legalization would save the government a lot of money though, so perhaps they could still employ these agents and shift the focus to synthetic drugs that are tearing families apart --- or alcohol abuse, which is an even worse and more widespread issue.

[truste1]

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, create jobs.
This is a progressive issue, glad to see Craz3d is aboard with the Dems .

erything has to be political with you..

I just enjoy pointing out when progressive issues manifest themselves in everyday situations. It's strange to me how conservatives are against Government intervention in this case .

This is fun to me.

Conservatives should be against Government intervention. Conservatives are for small government. Drugs are a states issue, although they shouldn't be an issue at all because of the Constitution. But definitely liberals would be more pro-government intervention than conservatives.

Please note that I'm not using "Conservative" and "Liberal" to refer to "Republicans" or "Democrats".

[Warrior]

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, create jobs.
This is a progressive issue, glad to see Craz3d is aboard with the Dems .

It would decrease jobs, think about how many law enforcement (DEA especially) agents are employed because of the massive-scale war on drugs, marijuana being at the forefront. It's all political.

Legalization would save the government a lot of money though, so perhaps they could still employ these agents and shift the focus to synthetic drugs that are tearing families apart --- or alcohol abuse, which is an even worse and more widespread issue.

True, I never thought of it from that point of view. Hmm.

[Warrior]

Conservatives should be against Government intervention. Conservatives are for small government. Drugs are a states issue, although they shouldn't be an issue at all because of the Constitution. But definitely liberals would be more pro-government intervention than conservatives.

Please note that I'm not using "Conservative" and "Liberal" to refer to "Republicans" or "Democrats".

Oops, I meant it's interesting how they're for government intervention (Ban on Marijuana) when they're usually against Government intervention.

One would think they'd be falling over themselves to have less Government telling them what to do with their bodies.

[truste1]

And this Sheriff is doing his job, there's nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately he's doing it in a biased and unfair way. There was no need to charge anybody in this incident aside form self-gain sought by the sheriff. He'll get his 15 minutes in the spotlight while potentially tarnishing the records of otherwise (to our knowledge) good citizens.

In my opinion the worst part about pot is where it comes from and what it funds. If government-regulated marijuana were legal, I'm not even saying all marijuana was legal (i.e. ban privately grown plants), it would cut out funding for criminal organizations. But if we stop funding criminal organizations, then there's no criminal organizations for the government to fight. If the government has nobody to fight...

[truste1]

Conservatives should be against Government intervention. Conservatives are for small government. Drugs are a states issue, although they shouldn't be an issue at all because of the Constitution. But definitely liberals would be more pro-government intervention than conservatives.

Please note that I'm not using "Conservative" and "Liberal" to refer to "Republicans" or "Democrats".

Oops, I meant it's interesting how they're for government intervention (Ban on Marijuana) when they're usually against Government intervention.

One would think they'd be falling over themselves to have less Government telling them what to do with their bodies.

You're exactly right, that's how conservatives should be. Unfortunately, the Republican party has lost touch with its Conservative roots. I'm definitely watching the slow rise of the third parties (mainly the Constitution Party), something that could be augmented by Obama's election and the collapse/restructuring of the Republican party.

[truste1]

However, there's always the money saved from releasing inmates held on possession and trafficking, since that costs a ton from the federal budget a year, not to mention it breeds true criminals.

Sure, go raise the unemployment rate!

If marijuana's legalized, cultivators, distributors, and traffickers could be employed. People aren't really held for possession that much I don't think, but they're probably already employed since they bought it.

Edit: Sorry for the triple post, I replied as I read them. Feel free to consolidate.

[Blaze]

Triple posting while talking to different posts is perfectly fine!

[Warrior]

Oh, I almost forgot: foxnews

[warz]

Guys, you seen foxnews today? Sean Hannity drank a beer. He's my hero. Maybe I'll convince him that Miller High Life is the best.

[Warrior]

Sean Hannity should be on comedy central

[Towelie]

lol, I thought of every argument in here before I read them. How am I supposed to contribute to this thread if you voice my opinions before I get here?

A note about less DEA-- I don't believe legalizing marijuana will remove jobs from it. I just think that they will be able to spend their resources catching other things... like meth

[Sidoh]

I'm still unsure how I feel about drugs being illegal at all.

I know some of the more progressive countries spend their money on rehabilitation facilities instead of law enforcement, prisons, etc in order to help deal with druggies.  I can't honestly say I know if they're any more "inflicted" by drugs, but it seems like a more sympathetic approach to the matter.

[Rule]

Yes, I'm not sure either.  Ideally, if I trusted people, I would be in favour of minimal government intervention in almost every area.  But I don't.  Generally, people are greedy and stupid, and when they're young, completely naive. 

So I think aggressive prohibitions on drugs have the potential to "protect us from ourselves" -- especially children.  Surely, if certain drugs are made unattainable to children who would otherwise have tried them (either through real law inforcement, or just the stigma of the substance being illegal), then these people will most certainly be thankful later on in their lives.  If the government can act as a parent in some regards, and this has a net benefit, then that is probably good.

The question is whether enforcement is really stopping people from taking drugs.  And also, the bureaucracy associated with legalisation.  Should these drugs be government produced?  Or should they be open to private industry?  If open to private industry, isn't there a huge risk of misrepresentation, and so on.  And if all drugs are legal, why have prescription medications?  The reason prescription drugs aren't accessible "over the counter" is because they will likely be misused by ignorant people.  And public health, as a whole, has certainly benefited from this stance: there are millions of ignorant people hoping to self-medicate with powerful drugs which would not help them.

So, I'm not decided.  It's not a simple question, and it's not just one question either.  Legal for which age groups? Which drugs? Who sells the drugs? etc.

[iago]

Yes, I'm not sure either.  Ideally, if I trusted people, I would be in favour of minimal government intervention in almost every area.  But I don't.  Generally, people are greedy and stupid, and when they're young, completely naive. 

So I think aggressive prohibitions on drugs have the potential to "protect us from ourselves" -- especially children.  Surely, if certain drugs are made unattainable to children who would otherwise have tried them (either through real law inforcement, or just the stigma of the substance being illegal), then these people will most certainly be thankful later on in their lives.  If the government can act as a parent in some regards, and this has a net benefit, then that is probably good.

The question is whether enforcement is really stopping people from taking drugs.  And also, the bureaucracy associated with legalisation.  Should these drugs be government produced?  Or should they be open to private industry?  If open to private industry, isn't there a huge risk of misrepresentation, and so on.  And if all drugs are legal, why have prescription medications?  The reason prescription drugs aren't accessible "over the counter" is because they will likely be misused by ignorant people.  And public health, as a whole, has certainly benefited from this stance: there are millions of ignorant people hoping to self-medicate with powerful drugs which would not help them.

So, I'm not decided.  It's not a simple question, and it's not just one question either.  Legal for which age groups? Which drugs? Who sells the drugs? etc.

Totally agree.

[MyndFyre]

Surely, if certain drugs are made unattainable to children who would otherwise have tried them (either through real law inforcement, or just the stigma of the substance being illegal), then these people will most certainly be thankful later on in their lives. 

The toughest part with this (and btw, I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, except maybe that it's good for the government to act as a parent), is the reliance on "the stigma of the substance being illegal."  A lot of kids are too stupid to go for this - and they'll try to actually use it BECAUSE of the stigma of it being illegal.  (There are some examples on this forum even).  They want to be rebels for the sake of being rebels, because apparently James Dean was that cool for them.

I don't know what the answer is.  I just know that relying on that stigma to make a positive change in someone's behavior is a disappointing investment.

[BigAznDaddy]

The reason I don't marijuana should be legalized is because it is a gateway drug onto more sever drugs such as cocaine, X, etc. and legalizing it would, I think, be more harmful than helpful.
yeah no one has ever OD'd on marijuana and I think that the sheriff in this case is acting on his own accord to set an example but he is stupid for making this such a big deal. And the officers at SC have bigger fish to fry  cause that state is the largest drug trafficking state so Pot is their least concern. and it all leads to a phrase ''don't hate the player hate the game".

[iago]

He's probably making a big deal because people like CrAz3d pissed him off.

[truste1]

The reason I don't marijuana should be legalized is because it is a gateway drug onto more sever drugs such as cocaine, X, etc. and legalizing it would, I think, be more harmful than helpful.
yeah no one has ever OD'd on marijuana and I think that the sheriff in this case is acting on his own accord to set an example but he is stupid for making this such a big deal. And the officers at SC have bigger fish to fry  cause that state is the largest drug trafficking state so Pot is their least concern. and it all leads to a phrase ''don't hate the player hate the game".

The accepted reason on why marijuana is considered a "gateway" drug is because it's usually the most accessible to children. I remember reading somewhere (sorry I can't reproduce the source) that a child initially exposed to hard drugs before marijuana would follow the same path. With that said, once you're comfortable with one drug it's easy to want to experiment with other drugs. But I think a lot of people limit themselves to just that: experimenting. The number of drug users, or people that have done drugs, and the amount of drug addicts are not the same.

The biggest danger lies in the continued progresses in science in medicine - new chemicals that alter our brain in new ways. People are curious to see what their brain can do. I'm curious. But it's uncharted grounds, and synthetic drugs are the most dangerous ones. Look at the physiological damages from naturally occuring drugs (i.e. marijuana, mushrooms) -- virtually none. Heroin, cocaine (compare powder to chewing the leaf), meth -- these are the dangerous drugs.

I feel like any prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional, but at the same time the fact that we have synthetic drugs that can cause such harm almost require a limitation. Maybe if marijuana were legalized, less people would move on to other drugs (The mindset that they're already doing something illegal could play a role.) Still, I think the people that move on to heroin or meth would do it rather it were legal or illegal, and a much smaller number would start doing it because it was legal. Cocaine, while a hard drug, is in a different league. The problem with cocaine is that you never know what you're getting. It would be a pretty safe drug for moderate users if there were regulations on purity, additives, etc.

[iago]

The accepted reason on why marijuana is considered a "gateway" drug is because it's usually the most accessible to children. I remember reading somewhere (sorry I can't reproduce the source) that a child initially exposed to hard drugs before marijuana would follow the same path. With that said, once you're comfortable with one drug it's easy to want to experiment with other drugs. But I think a lot of people limit themselves to just that: experimenting. The number of drug users, or people that have done drugs, and the amount of drug addicts are not the same.

I think it's partly that they're comfortable with trying other drugs, but more that they become more comfortable with ignoring the law.

[Sidoh]

Yes, I'm not sure either.  Ideally, if I trusted people, I would be in favour of minimal government intervention in almost every area.  But I don't.  Generally, people are greedy and stupid, and when they're young, completely naive. 

So I think aggressive prohibitions on drugs have the potential to "protect us from ourselves" -- especially children.  Surely, if certain drugs are made unattainable to children who would otherwise have tried them (either through real law inforcement, or just the stigma of the substance being illegal), then these people will most certainly be thankful later on in their lives.  If the government can act as a parent in some regards, and this has a net benefit, then that is probably good.

The question is whether enforcement is really stopping people from taking drugs.  And also, the bureaucracy associated with legalisation.  Should these drugs be government produced?  Or should they be open to private industry?  If open to private industry, isn't there a huge risk of misrepresentation, and so on.  And if all drugs are legal, why have prescription medications?  The reason prescription drugs aren't accessible "over the counter" is because they will likely be misused by ignorant people.  And public health, as a whole, has certainly benefited from this stance: there are millions of ignorant people hoping to self-medicate with powerful drugs which would not help them.

So, I'm not decided.  It's not a simple question, and it's not just one question either.  Legal for which age groups? Which drugs? Who sells the drugs? etc.

Well said.  I agree -- it's a very complicated issue.  I think you did a great job of listing several reasons why.

The reason I don't marijuana should be legalized is because it is a gateway drug onto more sever drugs such as cocaine, X, etc. and legalizing it would, I think, be more harmful than helpful.
yeah no one has ever OD'd on marijuana and I think that the sheriff in this case is acting on his own accord to set an example but he is stupid for making this such a big deal. And the officers at SC have bigger fish to fry  cause that state is the largest drug trafficking state so Pot is their least concern. and it all leads to a phrase ''don't hate the player hate the game".

Show me an unbiased study that supports this with substantial evidence.  The only reasons I've been given to believe this are anecdotes and other weak arguments.

[CrAz3D]

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, create jobs.
This is a progressive issue, glad to see Craz3d is aboard with the Dems .

erything has to be political with you..

I just enjoy pointing out when progressive issues manifest themselves in everyday situations. It's strange to me how conservatives are against Government intervention in this case .

Problem is that govt IS involved.  Less intervention in the world of Mary Jane is what we need. .

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, create jobs.
This is a progressive issue, glad to see Craz3d is aboard with the Dems .

It would decrease jobs, think about how many law enforcement (DEA especially) agents are employed because of the massive-scale war on drugs, marijuana being at the forefront. It's all political.

Legalization would save the government a lot of money though, so perhaps they could still employ these agents and shift the focus to synthetic drugs that are tearing families apart --- or alcohol abuse, which is an even worse and more widespread issue.

WhoTF cares if DEA agents that kill old ladies lose their job?

Sean Hannity should be on comedy central

Better than that Lewis Black douche*

*OMG!  I keep using terms that mean something else to insult people!  AH!!!

He's probably making a big deal because people like CrAz3d pissed him off.

Cuz I'm too kool for skool.

(Actually, I graduated so I just work 'til August when I start law school)

The reason I don't marijuana should be legalized is because it is a gateway drug onto more sever drugs such as cocaine, X, etc. and legalizing it would, I think, be more harmful than helpful.
yeah no one has ever OD'd on marijuana and I think that the sheriff in this case is acting on his own accord to set an example but he is stupid for making this such a big deal. And the officers at SC have bigger fish to fry  cause that state is the largest drug trafficking state so Pot is their least concern. and it all leads to a phrase ''don't hate the player hate the game".

Show me an unbiased study that supports this with substantial evidence.  The only reasons I've been given to believe this are anecdotes and other weak arguments.

re: Gateway drugs?

I dont have any evidence (too lazy to look anything up with 20 minutes of work left), so I provide this;
There is no gateway drug, only "gateway personalities."  People that are more likely to take part in one risky behavior seem to be more likely (my experiences) to take on other, and more risky, behavior.
This article (apparently, I didnt read more than the abstract) suggests

These studies appear to suggest that risk taking can lead to more risk taking.  However, social values/norms also play a part.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v365672620nr2044/
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/2/5/6/5/p125655_index.html

From that, I believe it's safe to argue the hypothesis of "gateway personalities" exist and "gateway drugs" do not.

[truste1]

WhoTF cares if DEA agents that kill old ladies lose their job?

Their children.

[Towelie]

Comment to gateway drug: I believe part of the reason could be that you have to go through a dealer to get weed. If you remove the dealer, you remove the influence to do harder drugs. Therefore legalizing = removing gateway drug effect, actually making it a safer drug (if you look at it like that)

[truste1]

Comment to gateway drug: I believe part of the reason could be that you have to go through a dealer to get weed. If you remove the dealer, you remove the influence to do harder drugs. Therefore legalizing = removing gateway drug effect, actually making it a safer drug (if you look at it like that)

This is a good point. Most dealers are sketchy people, especially the ones that deal things other than marijuana. (Though I think a lot of weed dealers just deal weed.) In any case, drug deals are sketchy (and dangerous) where just going up to the corner store isn't.

[Sidoh]

Comment to gateway drug: I believe part of the reason could be that you have to go through a dealer to get weed. If you remove the dealer, you remove the influence to do harder drugs. Therefore legalizing = removing gateway drug effect, actually making it a safer drug (if you look at it like that)

I think that's a great point as well.

[Sidoh]

Code: [Select]

#!/usr/bin/perl
#trollin is srsbsns.
use strict;
my @responses = ( "lol im a troll", "crymoar plz", "u tool", "try harder", "lol repost" );
print @responses[int(rand(scalar(@responses)))]."\n";


as you can see, this script is a much better troll than you.  it has the potential to learn new material.

this is embarrassing

don't worry, warrior.pl is GPL licensed.  you can use it too.

[Sidoh]

I didn't delete your post, failtroll.

Code: [Select]

#!/usr/bin/perl
#trollin is srsbsns.
use strict;
my @responses = ( "lol im a troll", "crymoar plz", "u tool", "try harder", "lol repost" , "im a big mean troll feer me");
print @responses[int(rand(scalar(@responses)))]."\n";


as you can see, this script is a much better troll than you.  it has the potential to learn new material.

this is embarrassing

don't worry, warrior.pl is GPL licensed.  you can use it too.

[truste1]

[Sidoh]

lol

[Sidoh]

i wish you were more creative, warrior.  sometimes you disappoint me.

[Sidoh]

I was being serious, man.  I was really looking forward to a few laughs.  Instead you disappointed me with the same, tired drivel.

[warz]

WARRIOR QUIT DOUBLE POSTING. WTF. USE EDIT. DO YOU NOT KNOW HOW TO EDIT? I THOUGHT THAT WAS FORUM NOOB LESSON #1... #2 is USE SEARCH and #3 is dont revive OLD THREADS. GOD.

[Sidoh]

Code: [Select]

#!/usr/bin/perl
#trollin is srsbsns.
use strict;
my @responses = ( "lol im a troll", "crymoar plz", "u tool", "try harder", "lol repost" , "im a big mean troll feer me", "i am the best troll evr, even tho paint drying is demonstrably moar entertaining than my petty bantering");
print @responses[int(rand(scalar(@responses)))]."\n";


as you can see, this script is a much better troll than you.  it has the potential to learn new material.

this is embarrassing

don't worry, warrior.pl is GPL licensed.  you can use it too.

[CrAz3D]

So you're not going to act surprised when we turn this forum into a ghost town again? I think you're severely overestimating my civility.

I would just like to note, that once you make me go through the trouble of organizing the ranks of Trolls & Co. again, then you will be hard pressed to give me a good reason to stop.

By all means though, I've been looking to have some fun.

And I would like to note that trust and I are the ones that bring the rockin'-ness to the boards.

[truste1]

So you're not going to act surprised when we turn this forum into a ghost town again? I think you're severely overestimating my civility.

I would just like to note, that once you make me go through the trouble of organizing the ranks of Trolls & Co. again, then you will be hard pressed to give me a good reason to stop.

By all means though, I've been looking to have some fun.

And I would like to note that trust and I are the ones that bring the rockin'-ness to the boards.

I'm a well behaved individual.

[Warrior]

Better than that Lewis Black douche*

You know you're off your rocker when you say Sean Hannity is better than anyone at all.

[Warrior]

You'd think moderators would learn that trashing my posts is not really productive.

[iago]

I haven't been around since early yesterday, and I come back to a huge mess in the trashcan.

All I can really say is -- Warrior, get over yourself. Your post isn't that good, and it isn't worth getting into an argument over, nor is it worth ruining a thread for.

It's kinda sad, too, there were actually a lot of good posts in this thread. Probably the best discussion of drug laws I've seen, in fact.