Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonEB]

Alot of politicians did sadly. Though its hard to swallow that Dailykos's argument when he suggests Kerry as VP

It wasn't a prediction, just a suggestion. Though he fails to mention that Kerry voted for it as well. :lol

 

[The Librarian]

It's Tuesday Obama. Announce please.

 

[Eric P]

Whaaa? He is VERY liberal and incredibly charismatic. What isn't to like about him?

the rave act

The stated purpose of the Act was: "A bill to prohibit an individual from knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance, and for other purpose."[2]

which in effect makes any building that anyone owns or does business in responsible for the drug use of their patrons

http://www.alternet.org/story/14259/

 

[GhaleonEB]

the rave act

which in effect makes any building that anyone owns or does business in responsible for the drug use of their patrons

http://www.alternet.org/story/14259/

"knowingly" strikes me as a critical phrase there.

 

[Eric P]

"knowingly" strikes me as a critical phrase there.

Not even a month after the RAVE Act had become law, a federal agent in Montana used it to shut down a benefit to raise money for Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The DEA agent told managers of the Eagle Lodge in Billings, Montana that the Lodge could be fined $250,000 if anyone smoked marijuana during a planned benefit to raise money for a campaign to pass a medical marijuana law in Montana. The Eagle Lodge canceled the event.

After negative press and public criticism over the incident (including criticism from some Members of Congress), the DEA issued internal guidelines that the agency argues will protect civil liberties. The guidelines, which have not been made public, do not have the force of law and provide no real legal protection. Opponents of the law are working to repeal the RAVE Act or amend it to better protect free speech, public safety, and innocent property owners.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/legislative/

That's only if it goes to court. Government intimidation before the event is just as effective.

 

[VanMardigan]

I have absolutely no problems with that. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the weed-smokers?

 

[scorcho]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid271557392/bctid1738801280

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/legislative/

That's only if it goes to court. Government intimidation before the event is just as effective.

The DEA agent told managers of the Eagle Lodge in Billings, Montana that the Lodge could be fined $250,000 if anyone smoked marijuana during a planned benefit to raise money for a campaign to pass a medical marijuana law in Montana. The Eagle Lodge canceled the event.

I honestly don't have any problem with that.

 

[TDG]

Of the three on the short list, I'm still preferring Bayh, with Biden also seeming like a good choice. I'm lukewarm on Kaine.

I'm still puzzled by the people who think that it won't be any of them, and by the people who want Sebelius, but what do I know?

It's Tuesday Obama. Announce please.

"As soon as Wednesday."

As in, not before Wednesday.

 

[The Librarian]

"As soon as Wednesday."

As in, not before Wednesday.

Where did ya hear this?

 

[Schattenjäger]

Biden is shady to me because of that whole mortgage controversy

isnt he also old?

 

[polyh3dron]

I have absolutely no problems with that. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the weed-smokers?

It doesn't affect you therefore it's OK. Got it.

 

[EBCubs03]

I have absolutely no problems with that. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the weed-smokers?

Yes, idiot

 

[TDG]

Where did ya hear this?

That's what's been reported pretty much everywhere.

 

[tanod]

That's what's been reported pretty much everywhere.

All parroting a NY Times article from last night.

 

[JayDubya]

I have absolutely no problems with that. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the weed-smokers?

Well, a sensible person would want the DEA destroyed utterly, so yeah.

 

[VanMardigan]

It doesn't affect you therefore it's OK. Got it.

It affects you? Too bad, stop smoking fucking weed.

 

[pxleyes]

Well, a sensible person would want the DEA destroyed utterly, so yeah.

Not totally destroyed, just not pursuing victimless drugs.

 

[Lv99 Slacker]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid271557392/bctid1738801280

Cute.

 

[Kildace]

It affects you? Too bad, stop smoking fucking weed.

The Patriot Act affects you? Too bad, stop being a fucking terrorist.

Edit: Moreover, the problem with this law isn't that it affects weed smokers, it's that it affects anyone that owns a building where people might smoke weed.

 

[JayDubya]

Not totally destroyed, just not pursuing victimless drugs.

What drug isn't victimless, assuming you intended to use it, without anyone else tricking or forcing you?

 

[VanMardigan]

The Patriot Act affects you? Too bad, stop being a fucking terrorist.

How will that law infringe on my law-abiding daily routine the way the patriot act infringes on even law abiding citizens?

it's that it affects anyone that owns a building where people might smoke weed

As has been pointed out, ONLY if you knowingly allow it.

 

[Eric P]

I have absolutely no problems with that. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the weed-smokers?

i think you should take issue with the gov't deciding that an event is a criminal event filled with criminals before the event happens and then intimidating the venue for the event to force it to not happen.

even more so when the event is targeting the specific actions of the agency doing the intimidation presenting a conflict of interest.

"we don't like the way the government does x"

"oh yeah? we're government agency x and if you had your way, we'd lose funding and or the agency itself. so to prevent that, we're going to stop your rally using this shiny new law."

 

[Eric P]

I honestly don't have any problem with that.

i'm really left and i have an issue with it

and i don't do drugs so it's not self serving for me to identify with that group.

 

[JayDubya]

i'm really left and i have an issue with it

Not a left / right thing.

 

[Eric P]

Not a left / right thing.

i was framing it in "freedom from gov't intervention" as typically a right-wing associated philosophy

 

[VanMardigan]

i think you should take issue with the gov't deciding that an event is a criminal event filled with criminals before the event happens and then intimidating the venue for the event to force it to not happen.

even more so when the event is targeting the specific actions of the agency doing the intimidation presenting a conflict of interest.

"we don't like the way the government does x"

"oh yeah? we're government agency x and if you had your way, we'd lose funding and or the agency itself. so to prevent that, we're going to stop your rally using this shiny new law."

Look, they're trying to "protest" andi-weed smoking laws by going in a building and smoking weed. The government is saying that they won't allow them to smoke weed, and that is understandable. I'm not sure what the problem is. Can the event be done without actually smoking weed? Sure, but they don't want to, so I don't see why they should be allowed.

I realize that it's not the same as the patriot act, but it's still invasive, intrusive an judging people as guilty before anything has happened.

No, that's not judging, that's giving a warning. If the fundraiser takes place without weed-smoking, nothing happens. The fact that you think it was an inevitability that someone was going to smoke weed is pretty much the same stance the government had, except that the government is trying to enforce a law.

It was a fundraiser, not a smoke-a-thon. People might have smoked weed there, but it wasn't the point of the event.

And the government was trying to PREVENT people from smoking there, which is why they gave the building administrators a WARNING.

 

[Kildace]

As has been pointed out, ONLY if you knowingly allow it.

Not even a month after the RAVE Act had become law, a federal agent in Montana used it to shut down a benefit to raise money for Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The DEA agent told managers of the Eagle Lodge in Billings, Montana that the Lodge could be fined $250,000 if anyone smoked marijuana during a planned benefit to raise money for a campaign to pass a medical marijuana law in Montana.

The owner of the building allowed a fundraiser to allow medicinal Marijuana, they did not grant a bunch of people a license to smoke weed in their building. The fundraiser was then cancelled because a bunch of people who might some weed would have been invited. How is this not infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens like say people with a painfull illness who want medicinal marijuana to be allowed but do not smoke weed illegally?

I realize that it's not the same as the patriot act, but it's still invasive, intrusive an judging people as guilty before anything has happened.

Edit:

Look, they're trying to "protest" andi-weed smoking laws by going in a building and smoking weed. The government is saying that they won't allow them to smoke weed, and that is understandable. I'm not sure what the problem is. Can the event be done without actually smoking weed? Sure, but they don't want to, so I don't see why they should be allowed.

It was a fundraiser, not a smoke-a-thon. People might have smoked weed there, but it wasn't the point of the event.

 

[pxleyes]

What drug isn't victimless, assuming you intended to use it, without anyone else tricking or forcing you?

Weed.

 

[Lemonz]

CNN: Al Gore to speak at the convention.

 

[Eric P]

Look, they're trying to "protest" andi-weed smoking laws by going in a building and smoking weed. The government is saying that they won't allow them to smoke weed, and that is understandable. I'm not sure what the problem is. Can the event be done without actually smoking weed? Sure, but they don't want to, so I don't see why they should be allowed.

that's not what the article says. you're assuming they're going to have some kind of "sock it to the man smoke-in" when it was a fund raiser to attempt to implement a medical marijuana campaign which may have taken any number of forms.

 

[GhaleonEB]

CNN: Al Gore to speak at the convention.

That's good.

Also, Obama responds to McCain's comments about losing the war out of ambition:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/speaking_to_veterans_obama_dir.php

But one of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can't disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism. I have never suggested that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America's national interest. Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.

Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain. When I look out at this audience, I see people of different political views. You are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. But you all served together, and fought together, and bled together under the same proud flag. You did not serve a Red America or a Blue America -- you served the United States of America.

So let's have a serious debate, and let's debate our disagreements on the merits of policy -- not personal attacks. And no matter how heated it gets or what kind of campaign he chooses to run, I will honor Senator McCain's service, just like I honor the service of every veteran in this room, and every American who has worn the uniform of the United States.

that's not what the article says. you're assuming they're going to have some kind of "sock it to the man smoke-in" when it was a fund raiser to attempt to implement a medical marijuana campaign which may have taken any number of forms.

They can do that without breaking existing drug laws.

 

[JayDubya]

Weed.

I asked what drug use isn't victimless. You just said the above, which implies that weed use is not a victimless crime and deserves prosecution.

You probably meant to say that weed use was in the category where it would be okay, but harder drugs weren't.

Of course, that's still bullshit - all voluntary drug use is victimless.

 

[Eric P]

Weed.

god yes

because then we get movies like half-baked

 

[VanMardigan]

that's not what the article says. you're assuming they're going to have some kind of "sock it to the man smoke-in" when it was a fund raiser to attempt to implement a medical marijuana campaign which may have taken any number of forms.

And you, the government, and the building administrator ALL believed that there was going to be weed smoked there, which is why the government gave a warning, and everyone else buckled. The event could've taken place, which is what you fail to realize.

 

[pxleyes]

I asked what drug use isn't victimless. You just said the above, which implies that weed use is not a victimless crime and deserves prosecution.

You probably meant to say that weed use was in the category where it would be okay, but harder drugs weren't.

Of course, that's still bullshit - all voluntary drug use is victimless.

All voluntary drug use is not victimless. I read your previous comment wrong. You seem to think that drugs that can kill you directly are not victimless, tell me, is the person using it who dies directly from the use of an addictive drug not a victim?

 

[Kildace]

And you, the government, and the building administrator ALL believed that there was going to be weed smoked there, which is why the government gave a warning, and everyone else buckled. The event could've taken place, which is what you fail to realize.

But weed was smoked in every concert I've ever been to and in every school I was in among other things. Every concert organizer know that people will smoke weed there, every school headmaster knows that no matter what they do, kids will smoke weed on the premices. Should they therefore be held responsible for the drug use of a third party who just happened to do it somewhere they own / lease?

 

[JayDubya]

All voluntary drug use is not victimless. I read your previous comment wrong. You seem to think that drugs that can kill you directly are not victimless, tell me, is the person using it who dies directly from the use of an addictive drug not a victim?

No.

If so, I guess you think tobacco should be outlawed.

 

[kaching]

Also, Obama responds to McCain's comments about losing the war out of ambition:

Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.

Oh, I'm sure he will, in the most backhanded way possible.

 

[pxleyes]

No.

If so, I guess you think tobacco should be outlawed.

No, aged tobacco has a very low nicotine content (see aged cigars). The problem is the additives in cigarettes. That's what you are referring to.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

even more so when the event is targeting the specific actions of the agency doing the intimidation presenting a conflict of interest.

"we don't like the way the government does x"

"oh yeah? we're government agency x and if you had your way, we'd lose funding and or the agency itself. so to prevent that, we're going to stop your rally using this shiny new law."

This is absolutely the worst part about it. Shameless and disgusting, and I'm completely with JayDub on shutting down the DEA. God, even Iraq is pocket change compared to the megabucks and lives we've wasted on the "War on Drugs".

 

[siamesedreamer]

LINK



Also, there's speculation that McCain may have floated the generic pro-choice balloon to test the waters not for Ridge or Leibs, but Giuliani.

 

[lopaz]

No.

If so, I guess you think tobacco should be outlawed.

I do actually, it's just hard to do it cause of the amount of tax money dependent on it.

Anyway, you're a free market guy right? Well doesn't a free market mean that it's easy to leave/enter the market as you please, and doesn't that also apply to consumers? It's not easy to leave if you're addicted. And many people become addicted as children, I assume you acknowledge that children are not capable of making a 100% informed and rational decision about using drugs?

 

[PotatoeMasher]

I've stayed out of political discussions this season, as I really don't much of a horse in this race--but I can't imagine a worse pick than Biden. That guy can't open his mouth without saying something that any decent opposing campaign could capitalize on.

Just my opinion on the matter.

 

[scorcho]

This is absolutely the worst part about it. Shameless and disgusting, and I'm completely with JayDub on shutting down the DEA. God, even Iraq is pocket change compared to the megabucks and lives we've wasted on the "War on Drugs".

no it isn't.

 

[datruth29]

No, aged tobacco has a very low nicotine content (see aged cigars). The problem is the additives in cigarettes. That's what you are referring to.

What about Alcohol??

 

[pxleyes]

What about Alcohol??

What about it?

 

[JayDubya]

I do actually, it's just hard to do it cause of the amount of tax money dependent on it.

Ugghhhhhhh.

Anyway, you're a free market guy right?

Sho' nuff.

Well doesn't a free market mean that it's easy to leave/enter the market as you please, and doesn't that also apply to consumers?

A true free market is laissez faire, with no controls or regulation, and no coercion or fraud. It's not like people don't know that smoking is a risky proposition. If they choose to do it anyway, we can only assume that they understand and assume the risk because they enjoy the product and continue to buy it. There's also a very wide variety of products and services aimed specifically at helping people quit if they so choose to.

And many people become addicted as children, I assume you acknowledge that children are not capable of making a 100% informed and rational decision about using drugs?

First things first, though.

a) I never said I don't support the idea of an age of majority.
b) It's very much so a parental responsibility to safeguard against that behavior.

 

[scorcho]

Also, there's speculation that McCain may have floated the generic pro-choice balloon to test the waters not for Ridge or Leibs, but Giuliani.

oh pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease let this happen.

we could just call the election over and gift Obama the next 8 years!

 

[polyh3dron]

Also, there's speculation that McCain may have floated the generic pro-choice balloon to test the waters not for Ridge or Leibs, but Giuliani.

Oh PLEASE be true..

One candidate will answer every question with something pertaining to his POW days, the other will always answer with something pertaining to 9/11. They're a perfect match for each other. :lol