There is a big difference between 51%, which is a majority, deciding who is president and a few thousand, or hundred thousand or even a couple of million people deciding that marijuana should be legalized over the 200+ million against it.
Oh, wait, you forgot that the people are against legalization of marijuana didn't you. They are NOT the majority.
Unlike with drugs, the harm to others is not purely a side effect of such actions being declared illegal and people doing them illegally instead of following the law.
are you intentionally making an incredibly stupid analogy
I am just taking the argument made by the GPP and applying it to things other people like to do that are against the law.
Pedophiles like have sex with children. I am sure they don't like having laws against it. So, lets make it legal. Then there will be fewer kidnappings, child rapes, and child murders.
Thieves like to steal. If we make it legal for people to just take things, there will be fewer people hurt and killed during robberies. The "victim" wouldn't be able to fight back because the thief would be well within his rights.
You just want to see less people hurt? Well, I just want to see people follow the law. Those poor potheads you are so concerned about would not be "hurt" if they didn't break the law. Simple solution: those potheads need to stop smoking pot so they won't be "hurt". No one is hurt by obeying the law, so why aren't you telling your pot-smoking friends to stop smoking pot instead of telling everyone else they have to change their minds about smoking pot?
Your argument is the same as the GPP: If it wasn't against the law, there would be no need to enforce the law, so get rid of the law. Yet, the majority of people are for the law and it hurts no one to obey the law. Is it your argument that your will and the will of a minority should take precedence over the majority?
No, I am not grasping. His solution to people breaking the law is to get rid of the law. My solution to rape, murder, etc is to the exact same as his, get rid of the law.
I will ignore the rest of your comment as it is a red herring.
there is no victim when someone possesses and uses a small amount of marijuana in their own home
Prove it.
As far as discrimination goes, the victim is insulted not injured. Often statutory rape is a victimless crime because the "victim" is a willing participant.
So, 1000 people wanting something makes that something "common law" and that should be more important that legislated statute law? Are you sure you want to go with that?
Common law is trumped by statute law and always has been. Common law is the lowest law of the land. I can't believe you are arguing that common law somehow should be held higher than laws created by legislation. You are a dumb ass.
I seem to remember a good portion of the nation was against civil rights legislation and affirmative action. Does common law trump those laws?
I seem to recall that more than half the nation is againstagainst gay marriage. Does that mean that common law dictates there should be no gay marriage?
And, as I said, a bunch of stoners sitting in their mother's basement, repeatedly voting for "Make marijuana legal" on a website does not reflect the opinion of the majority of Americans.
And, I just want people to obey the law and, if they don't agree with the law, work to change the law.
While you say don't see any reason to try to engineer society by making second order laws that try to outlaw behaviors, are you also against the ADA and other civil rights legislation which are also social engineering laws? Are you against statutory rape and minimum age laws? Or, are you just against this particular law because you or someone you know likes to smoke pot?
You say the current situation is more damaging, but can you prove that?
(1) Schedule I. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or
other substance under medical supervision.
(3) Schedule III. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less
than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate
or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
Now, according to the schedule, there is no medical use for marijuana, but there is for an ingredient in marijuana (THC). That is why marijuana is schedule 1 and marinol, which is synthetic THC, is schedule 3. Both are illegal without a prescription. Would you be happy if marijuana were reclassified as schedule 3 and it was still illegal without a prescription which would require having a qualifying disease? What's next? Are you going to argue that because poppy seeds are legal, that opium should be legal?
When someone gets drunk, orders a pizza and masturbates in the privacy of their home, you don't automatically respond with a SWAT team.
Let us compare that to the information in the linked story:
The raid last week was led by the Prince George's County Police Department, with the sheriff's special operations team assisting, after a package of marijuana was sent to Calvo's home.
Authorities say the package was part of a scheme in which drugs are mailed to unknowing recipients and then intercepted.
The article you linked says nothing about someone being high, ordering pizza and masturbating and having the SWAT team arrive. It says that packages of marijuana were mailed and delivered to his address. Traffickers are often armed and dangerous criminals. Your reference does not support your argument. You should try a little harder if you are going to continue this.
It is a matter of proportionate response, and right now, we are seeing cancer patients getting tossed in jail,
Should those cancer patients be using marinol, the legal prescription drug you referenced above, instead of marijuana, which is illegal? a mayor's dogs getting shot in a botched SWAT raid,
The raid was not botched. It is standard practice to shoot any dogs that attempt to attack the police when they make a raid.
the symptoms of a war on drugs that are doing more harm than the drugs, per your last sentence.
Or, you and your ilk could stop doing illegal drugs. Or, is that too much to ask?
I wish I could. There was a story in the local semi-alternative press about the marijuana issue and they had mentioned some of the studies. (I know it was not all of them because I have seen others.) You can check their archive, it was on the 27th. The article is pretty balanced, even if it is missing some information.
Oh, I forgot we are in dictatorship where the people have no say in who is their leaders, who makes the laws, or anything like that.
Get off you stupid ass and work to change the law.
You say the law was bought and paid for, find the proof. Start grass roots organizations. Lobby the congresscritters, damn it. Use you fucking rights and do something constructive instead of being a whining puissant.
Here is a unique idea: Don't base your decisions on information from propaganda sites. Go to an unbiased source, maybe you will learn something.
You might even learn how marijuana use causes memory loss and cognitive problems. In other words, stoners forget things and can't think straight. I am sure the propaganda sites you were on didn't mention those.
Oh, and marijuana does kill people, just like alcohol kills many people by impairing the users who then drive or do something else stupid. It also kills and injures people out hiking when they step on booby traps set up by growers, when mules and dealers decide to run from the cops, and when users decide to rob people to get some cash for more pot.
In other words, the companies legally worked to legally change the law. And, rather than doing what I said:
If you don't agree with the law, work on changing it.
you would rather whine and be an immoral asshole. Rather than actually working to change things, you act immorally while saying "they are being immoral too!!!" when they are following the law and you are not.
If and when you get caught making illegal copies, do not fucking whine about it. And, when you end up in court, remember to use the defense you have so succinctly expressed here: "I think they are being immoral, even if they are legally correct, so I figured the law didn't apply to them or me!"
You are a pathetic excuse for a human being. You are a waste of flesh. Fuck you very much, shithead.
There is nothing morally wrong with making copies of a copy.
You mean besides violating someone's rights? That is right, someone has the legally-granted, exclusive rights to make copies of a work, including copies of copies, and when one does either of those, one is being both legally and morally wrong.
copyright infringement law was designed to prevent large organizations from taking a individuals work and a profiting from it.
Prove that statement or admit you are a liar.
If you think this same logic applies to big business you dont understand the dynamics, its that simple.... Large entities don't need the same rights as individuals. Copyright should not extend to them at all. It should only extend to the individual as how it was intended.
Legally, corporation are separate, legal entities from their owners and the people that constitute them. That is why they are corporations, i.e. separate legal entities. And, they have rights just like every other legal entity. And, regardless of your asinine opinion, copyright does extend to them as well.
Note please that making 10,000 copies of a tape and handing them out on the street-corner is a far cry from copying a couple of songs off a tape so your friend can listen to them. To my mind there's three categories: copying that's not infringing period (eg. the copies needed to listen to anything on a computer), copying that's clearly infringing (the aforementioned making copies in bulk for anybody who comes along), and an intermediate range where the copying's technically infringing but so inoffensive that we view it as unreasonable for the owner to complain about it absent some additional problems.
And what of sharing files via p2p software and torrents, which is the equivalent of making 10,000 copies of a tape and handing them out on the street-corner? What do you consider that to be?
Copyright infringement eats billions of dollars in would-be profits from the makers of music, movies, games and software, according to those industries.
Here is a simple solution: Get some morals and ethics and stop infringing on their copyrights. I know, I know, you don't want to have to pay for what you want, but tough shit. Do the right thing.
If you don't agree with the law, work on changing it. And, if you choose to break the law, don't whine about it when you get your ass smacked. You made your choice, live with the consequences.
From the time I was in grade school until I started driving, I and all my bus-riding classmates had to remember our bus number. No "bus passes", no boarding stations, etc. We would get out of class, go out to where the buses were, find the bus, and get on it.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a big difference between 51%, which is a majority, deciding who is president and a few thousand, or hundred thousand or even a couple of million people deciding that marijuana should be legalized over the 200+ million against it.
Oh, wait, you forgot that the people are against legalization of marijuana didn't you. They are NOT the majority.
There, fixed that for you.
I am just taking the argument made by the GPP and applying it to things other people like to do that are against the law.
Pedophiles like have sex with children. I am sure they don't like having laws against it. So, lets make it legal. Then there will be fewer kidnappings, child rapes, and child murders.
Thieves like to steal. If we make it legal for people to just take things, there will be fewer people hurt and killed during robberies. The "victim" wouldn't be able to fight back because the thief would be well within his rights.
You just want to see less people hurt? Well, I just want to see people follow the law. Those poor potheads you are so concerned about would not be "hurt" if they didn't break the law. Simple solution: those potheads need to stop smoking pot so they won't be "hurt". No one is hurt by obeying the law, so why aren't you telling your pot-smoking friends to stop smoking pot instead of telling everyone else they have to change their minds about smoking pot?
Your argument is the same as the GPP: If it wasn't against the law, there would be no need to enforce the law, so get rid of the law. Yet, the majority of people are for the law and it hurts no one to obey the law. Is it your argument that your will and the will of a minority should take precedence over the majority?
No, I am not grasping. His solution to people breaking the law is to get rid of the law. My solution to rape, murder, etc is to the exact same as his, get rid of the law.
I will ignore the rest of your comment as it is a red herring.
Prove it.
As far as discrimination goes, the victim is insulted not injured.
Often statutory rape is a victimless crime because the "victim" is a willing participant.
So, 1000 people wanting something makes that something "common law" and that should be more important that legislated statute law? Are you sure you want to go with that?
Common law is trumped by statute law and always has been. Common law is the lowest law of the land. I can't believe you are arguing that common law somehow should be held higher than laws created by legislation. You are a dumb ass.
I seem to remember a good portion of the nation was against civil rights legislation and affirmative action. Does common law trump those laws?
I seem to recall that more than half the nation is againstagainst gay marriage. Does that mean that common law dictates there should be no gay marriage?
And, as I said, a bunch of stoners sitting in their mother's basement, repeatedly voting for "Make marijuana legal" on a website does not reflect the opinion of the majority of Americans.
And, I just want people to obey the law and, if they don't agree with the law, work to change the law.
While you say don't see any reason to try to engineer society by making second order laws that try to outlaw behaviors, are you also against the ADA and other civil rights legislation which are also social engineering laws? Are you against statutory rape and minimum age laws? Or, are you just against this particular law because you or someone you know likes to smoke pot?
You say the current situation is more damaging, but can you prove that?
Ok, first, let's look at the defined schedules:
(1) Schedule I. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or
other substance under medical supervision.
(3) Schedule III. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less
than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate
or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
Now, according to the schedule, there is no medical use for marijuana, but there is for an ingredient in marijuana (THC). That is why marijuana is schedule 1 and marinol, which is synthetic THC, is schedule 3. Both are illegal without a prescription. Would you be happy if marijuana were reclassified as schedule 3 and it was still illegal without a prescription which would require having a qualifying disease? What's next? Are you going to argue that because poppy seeds are legal, that opium should be legal?
Let us compare that to the information in the linked story:
The article you linked says nothing about someone being high, ordering pizza and masturbating and having the SWAT team arrive. It says that packages of marijuana were mailed and delivered to his address. Traffickers are often armed and dangerous criminals. Your reference does not support your argument. You should try a little harder if you are going to continue this.
Should those cancer patients be using marinol, the legal prescription drug you referenced above, instead of marijuana, which is illegal?
a mayor's dogs getting shot in a botched SWAT raid,
The raid was not botched. It is standard practice to shoot any dogs that attempt to attack the police when they make a raid.
Or, you and your ilk could stop doing illegal drugs. Or, is that too much to ask?
I wish I could. There was a story in the local semi-alternative press about the marijuana issue and they had mentioned some of the studies. (I know it was not all of them because I have seen others.) You can check their archive, it was on the 27th. The article is pretty balanced, even if it is missing some information.
Oh, I forgot we are in dictatorship where the people have no say in who is their leaders, who makes the laws, or anything like that.
Get off you stupid ass and work to change the law.
You say the law was bought and paid for, find the proof. Start grass roots organizations. Lobby the congresscritters, damn it. Use you fucking rights and do something constructive instead of being a whining puissant.
So, something hurts people because said something is illegal, so we should make said something legal.
Shall we do that with robbery, burglary, murder, rape, child molestation, or just crimes you like commit?
What is it about breaking the law and doing drugs and baking your life away that you love so much?
Here is a unique idea:
Don't base your decisions on information from propaganda sites. Go to an unbiased source, maybe you will learn something.
You might even learn how marijuana use causes memory loss and cognitive problems. In other words, stoners forget things and can't think straight. I am sure the propaganda sites you were on didn't mention those.
Oh, and marijuana does kill people, just like alcohol kills many people by impairing the users who then drive or do something else stupid. It also kills and injures people out hiking when they step on booby traps set up by growers, when mules and dealers decide to run from the cops, and when users decide to rob people to get some cash for more pot.
Prove that "so many" people voted for it. Prove that it is not an insignificant portion of the population voting numerous times.
Yes, because a bunch of loser stoners sitting in their mother's basement spamming the open government website shows the true face of America.
In other words, the companies legally worked to legally change the law. And, rather than doing what I said:
you would rather whine and be an immoral asshole. Rather than actually working to change things, you act immorally while saying "they are being immoral too!!!" when they are following the law and you are not.
If and when you get caught making illegal copies, do not fucking whine about it. And, when you end up in court, remember to use the defense you have so succinctly expressed here: "I think they are being immoral, even if they are legally correct, so I figured the law didn't apply to them or me!"
You are a pathetic excuse for a human being. You are a waste of flesh. Fuck you very much, shithead.
You mean besides violating someone's rights? That is right, someone has the legally-granted, exclusive rights to make copies of a work, including copies of copies, and when one does either of those, one is being both legally and morally wrong.
Prove that statement or admit you are a liar.
Legally, corporation are separate, legal entities from their owners and the people that constitute them. That is why they are corporations, i.e. separate legal entities. And, they have rights just like every other legal entity. And, regardless of your asinine opinion, copyright does extend to them as well.
Now, go dig your head out of your ass.
Ok, dumbass, maybe you should learn to keep your stupidity to yourself.
Now, please, shut the fuck up.
actually, no, I have no problem with that position. I whole-heartily agree.
Or they had more than one heart.
Or a heart with more chambers in series
And what of sharing files via p2p software and torrents, which is the equivalent of making 10,000 copies of a tape and handing them out on the street-corner?
What do you consider that to be?
Here is a simple solution: Get some morals and ethics and stop infringing on their copyrights. I know, I know, you don't want to have to pay for what you want, but tough shit. Do the right thing.
If you don't agree with the law, work on changing it. And, if you choose to break the law, don't whine about it when you get your ass smacked. You made your choice, live with the consequences.
Well, if it works....
From the time I was in grade school until I started driving, I and all my bus-riding classmates had to remember our bus number. No "bus passes", no boarding stations, etc. We would get out of class, go out to where the buses were, find the bus, and get on it.
But, but, that might actually solve the problem for everyone! We can't have that. Besides, he wouldn't get to play with his computers.