I know, right?Good for nothing stoners!
I know, right?Good for nothing stoners!
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/349169_lying29.htmlOriginally Posted by extarbags
He has since successfully sued for $810,000.Discipline records indicate police departments might use a dishonesty charge to get rid of officers who aren't liked, while ignoring lies by those who are favored.
A Mountlake Terrace police officer, Jonathan Wender, has accused his department and the Snohomish County prosecutor's office in a federal lawsuit of railroading him with a bogus dishonesty charge because he has favored the decriminalization of some drug use. Wender said in his lawsuit that Snohomish County's procedures for handling "Brady" officers lacks due process protections and standards and, as a result of that, "can and has been utilized to sanction officers for unfair and unlawful reasons."
Wender had been with the department for 15 years when he was terminated Oct. 19, 2005. His lawsuit says he had had no significant disciplinary issues.
He was accused of failing to follow up on a citizen's tip about a drug-growing operation.
"In Sgt. Wender's case, a substantial reason this sanction was imposed and resulted in his termination was his advocacy of drug policy reform, speech that was disapproved of by the defendants but protected by the First Amendment," the lawsuit said.
It's not an arrest, but considering a cop could straight up kill a guy and still not get fired, it's a lot.
Not incarcerated, but suspended from school.
This is a funny footnote that probably undermines my point
The Supreme Court decision did not resolve all of the issues in the case. In November 2008, the school district agreed to pay Frederick $45,000 to settle all remaining claims,
Yeah, stoners never turn out to be good at anything!Good for nothing stoners!
Dollar Bill's is the only one who's circumstance is listed. I really really really want to hear the circumstances (outside of Josh Howard, who's I can probably figure out) for the rest of that list.Former Sen. Bill Bradley, who smoked while playing professional basketball
Now I have the mental image of him making a full course press with a joint hanging from his lips.who smoked while playing professional basketball
it was the '70s man, everyone was doing it.
According to TheAgitator.com, the Sheriff that is trying to prosecute Phelps is this one:
In March the sheriff and SWAT team of Richland County, South Carolina, posedfor a photo with an impressive new piece of equipment: an M113A1 armored personnel carrier. The vehicle, which moves on tank-like tracks, features a belt-fed, turreted machine gun that fires .50-caliber rounds.
The sheriff, Leon Lott, obtained the $300,000 vehicle through the 1033 program, named for a 1997 federal law streamlining the Defense Department’s transfer of surplus military equipment to local police departments…
Charles Earl Barnett, a U.S. Marines veteran and retired police major who has served on several United Nations and NATO military and peacekeeping missions, says a .50-caliber machine gun is “completely inappropriate” for domestic police work. It “causes mass death and destruction,” Barnett says. “It’s indiscriminate. I can’t think of a possible scenario where it would be appropriate.”
Sheriff Lott has named his new acquisition The Peacemaker, explaining in a press release that the name is fitting because “the bible refers to law enforcement in Matthew 5:9 ‘Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.’ ”
Hmm.
According to the motherfuckin' definition, breaking laws you disagree with -- even from the relative safety of your basement -- absolutely is civil disobedience.
If one's moral and ethical stand is that marijuana is absolutely a much less harmful drug than alcohol, and that hypocrisy is immoral, and that therefore it's hypocritical for society to criminalize marijuana while promoting alcohol, then respectful -- and active -- disagreement with the hypocritical and socially harmful law is very definitely a moral stand to take.
In other words, you're fucking wrong about this.
Really fucking weird how you seem to think there's some kind of contradiction there. Of course it's recreation. That doesn't mean it's not also a moral stand.
Say, what do you think of Prohibition, 'bags? Should we revive it? I mean, do you want to be consistent here or not? You are struggling as hard as you can to avoid actually saying what you think about substance criminalization laws. Why? Spill it already, monkey boy!
Yes this is the first, and probably last conversation with 'bags'. For the record I already consider him a forum joke, and yes I cede to his boundless stamina for being a troll.
Yeah, I'm struggling extremely hard to avoid that, at any cost.
...except that he brought it up in the "try to get the law changed by resisting it" sense, which is (I would think pretty obviously) a benefit that you don't get when nobody in a position of authority knows you're breaking the law in question.
Apparently I've touched a raw nerve, but honestly, I don't understand the rush to misread and ignore my posts. The three of you are basically pretending that I'm being a huge, judgmental dick and then calling me one. What for? I really don't get it.
Last edited by extarbags; 02-06-2009 at 09:44 PM.
My favorite part is on the second page when the moderator appears to be replying to no one.
Don't you have to like, be in possession of weed to be arrested for it?
This has nothing to do with anything in this thread, but my one huge irritation with being a pot smoker is pot culture. It's bad enough that I have to associate with the occasional hippy, but damn near everything about pot culture is fucking retarded. Take that 420 Magazine (GET IT? 420? HAR, HAR, HAR!) thread: shots of weed framed with the loving care of a soft-core porn shoot, interspersed with words like "kiffy" and "nugs". You know, if pot enthusiasts presented and discussed the substance with same kind of refinement as, say, whiskey or wine snobs did, I bet this shit would have been legalized fucking decades ago. If it comes down to a choice between pretentious and retarded, I'll take pretentious, thanks.
This has been a message from the Non-Hippy Pot Smoker's Alliance Of Canada.
I don't get it. What's 420?
This. I don't know if the wikipedia story about the California high school starting the tradition of smoking weed at 4:20 is true or not, but the 420 thing has propagated throughout the weed-smoking community. Did you know that all the clocks in Pulp Fiction are set to 4:20? Dude.
Oh. Yeah. That's pretentious. I can see your point now.
Is he saying it was pretentious? I thought he was saying it was retarded.
'bags, no time to write lengthy now, but: it's interesting that on the one hand you seem to be saying that pot smokers should be lighting up on the statehouse steps, since otherwise what good is their disobedience; but on the other hand you're saying that pot smokers who are parents should just quit now, since how can they justify the risk to their kids. Kind of a catch-22.
Also, even smoking at home has some risk of discovery. I guess if someone sniffs it and busts the bathroom home-smoker, then they were being civilly disobedient after all? It's Only Disobedience If You Get Busted?
Finally, I put anti-pot and Prohibition laws in the same category with anti-sodomy and anti-sex toy laws. They're all criminalizing behaviors that would be victimless, if the behaviors hadn't been criminalized. They're all unjustifiable. And they're all hard to discuss with people like you, who belittle anyone who wants to change such laws -- and who wants to disobey them privately -- with delightful putdowns like "it's just recreation, don't you get it, it's illegal, parents gotta quit doing that shit".
Whatever, I'm done repeating myself. If you want to keep attacking me in this thread, just read one of my existing posts, ignore the content of it, and write another post about how I want all weed users to be locked up and alcohol to be illegalized and whatever other made-up nonsense you feel like assigning to me. You can do it as many times as you want, and the result will be about the same.
Happy birthday, you stoner fuck.
I don't know why you are trying to play the victim here, extarbags. You've been rude to people throughout this thread, and I'm surprised it's taken people so long to pile on.
I don't think this is true. I've talked to coworkers about it. Of course, I'm in academics, so maybe that is different? I'm sure in some workplaces, it would be hard to do. And I don't think people assume that those who favor legalization actually smoke pot. In fact, my grandmother just told me today that she's not sure it should be illegal, and she's a conservative Christian from the South. I don't smoke pot either, and I think it should be legalized (and then regulated and taxed like alcohol). I don't think the subject is nearly as taboo as you believe.
I was initially headed on that course, but she seemed pretty loyal to her boyfriend, who flew in at some point to see her. I met him, and he was the most pretentious, jealous jackass I've ever met. He gave me a dirty look after I shook his hand, and again after I gave his girlfriend a hug. Her roommate told me they had an argument about that in their dorm room later that day, with him accusing her of cheating on him. I think in Pakistan that gives him the right to beat the shit out of her or something like that.
Not really. Even a single parent could still engage in forms of protest that go beyond secretly smoking a bowl in their garage and saying, "I'm totally doing this in protest, and it will help lead to pot being made legal!" They could arrange letter-writing campaigns, organize gatherings, and do all of that "free speech" stuff that (typically) won't get them busted and doesn't involve lighting up on the steps of city hall. I'm not sure posting anonymously on message boards counts.
Whether they're radical environmentalists who burn Hummers or potheads who want to see drugs legalized, once a person has a kid they might consider cutting back on the type of activism or acts that could lead to them being thrown in jail and them losing their kid. And yeah, it could even include cutting back on thrill-seeking activities like mountain climbing and parachuting.
It's simply a matter of responsibility to your child, and part of that whole "having a kid changes your life" thing the pro-child lobby keeps yammering on about. Is this really a weird concept?
You are obviously right that it is responsible for any parent to cut back on risky activities. I think the issue is here whether it is reasonable for someone, like extarbags, to judge another "irresponsible" for engaging in a low risk activity.
Thoreau also went to jail for refusing to pay taxes for a war he considered unjust, so it wasn't like the dude was, oh, smokin' a j in his basement or some such. That girly man Emerson, on the other hand...
Thoreau isn't half the writer Emerson is.
Guess it's a good thing he didn't see her blow smoke in your face.
Yes, that's all true, and I agree. Certainly such a parent would be well advised to act on their beliefs on all fronts.
Of course not. But you're commingling risks. For example, mountain climbing has objective hazards -- no matter how well prepared and trained you are, an avalanche on the wrong day will kill you. Pot smoking has no such objective hazards. The only unusual hazard with pot smoking is the legal risk (well, aside from addiction / child neglect / all the other issues that apply to alcohol, gambling, computer games, etc.), and that risk can be hugely reduced by living in a pot-tolerant community. (As opposed to, say, Arizona.)Whether they're radical environmentalists who burn Hummers or potheads who want to see drugs legalized, once a person has a kid they might consider cutting back on the type of activism or acts that could lead to them being thrown in jail and them losing their kid. And yeah, it could even include cutting back on thrill-seeking activities like mountain climbing and parachuting.
It's simply a matter of responsibility to your child, and part of that whole "having a kid changes your life" thing the pro-child lobby keeps yammering on about. Is this really a weird concept?
But I am sure you will still feel it's inexcusable. Pleasure is always hard to defend.
Exactly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
