Fire's Coming This Way

bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaKnight http:///forum/thread/386238/fire-s-coming-this-way/100#post_3393092
Something about 2 wrongs not equaling a right... The "me too" excuse not working as a kid and still not working.... And so on... It's funny how any conversation about legalization, almost instantly starts to sound like a case for prohibition..... Whatever negative attributes are associated with alcohol have absolutely zero bearing on legalization of MJ. It doesn't matter if alcohol killed 2 million people a day in the US, that doesn't help weed become legal.
Generally there has to be some discernible overall positive aspect for legalization. From what I gather, there isn't (other then a minor bit of medicinal use, which I do support), and only negatives attached with use. "Cuz we want it" doesn't equate to much. I want to drive 150mph legally. What's the difference?
You don't have a huge contingency pushing the legalization of MJ, because it's not readily available for people to try to see what it's affects are to their systems. When you come of age to legally drink, you can walk into any store that sells liquor, a bar, or your favorite restaurant and try any type of alcohol beverage at your disposal. There is no place you can go to 'try' MJ, because it's an illegal substance. People tend to criminalize something they know nothing about. Legal authorities and drug enforcement agencies tell you MJ is bad for you, but 90% of them probably never tried or touched the stuff. You can't compare scientific studies of the effects of alcohol vs. the effect of MJ because the huge difference in the numbers of users of each of those mediums.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/386238/fire-s-coming-this-way/100#post_3393086
What;s the population of Texas compared to AZ? You get a small town of 10 or 15K and have several hundred illegals move in it's a lot more impact.
Not really sure why you keep making the irrational statement about checking ID's. Arizona's 1070 specifically prohibits that unless a person has been stopped for another offense.
There are hundreds of laws that state they "specifically prohibit" officials from doing this, or doing that. Doesn't mean they don't get broken. You hear about police corruption all the time, especially in these small towns where everybody knows everybody, and they tend to "look the other way" when Officer Super Cop is taking care of ridding the neighborhood of "unwanted's".
Cop sees a truck load of Mexicans driving down the road. He pulls them over claiming they have a broken tail light. Of course there's nothing wrong with the taillight, but he's stopping them for a 'probable' offense. Under HB1070, does he have the right to check the ID's of all the individual's in the car, or just the driver?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/386238/fire-s-coming-this-way/120#post_3393101
There are hundreds of laws that state they "specifically prohibit" officials from doing this, or doing that. Doesn't mean they don't get broken. You hear about police corruption all the time, especially in these small towns where everybody knows everybody, and they tend to "look the other way" when Officer Super Cop is taking care of ridding the neighborhood of "unwanted's".
Cop sees a truck load of Mexicans driving down the road. He pulls them over claiming they have a broken tail light. Of course there's nothing wrong with the taillight, but he's stopping them for a 'probable' offense. Under HB1070, does he have the right to check the ID's of all the individual's in the car, or just the driver?
Oh gimmi a break. The cops could do that crap with or without 1070. In fact with 1070 they have to justify it which in your scenario of pulling over a truck load of Mexicans is pretty easy. It's illegal to ride in the back of a truck.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/386238/fire-s-coming-this-way/120#post_3393100
You don't have a huge contingency pushing the legalization of MJ, because it's not readily available for people to try to see what it's affects are to their systems. When you come of age to legally drink, you can walk into any store that sells liquor, a bar, or your favorite restaurant and try any type of alcohol beverage at your disposal. There is no place you can go to 'try' MJ, because it's an illegal substance. People tend to criminalize something they know nothing about. Legal authorities and drug enforcement agencies tell you MJ is bad for you, but 90% of them probably never tried or touched the stuff. You can't compare scientific studies of the effects of alcohol vs. the effect of MJ because the huge difference in the numbers of users of each of those mediums.
You do know better than 40% of adults admit to having at least tried weed?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/386238/fire-s-coming-this-way/120#post_3393109
Oh gimmi a break. The cops could do that crap with or without 1070. In fact with 1070 they have to justify it which in your scenario of pulling over a truck load of Mexicans is pretty easy. It's illegal to ride in the back of a truck.
Illegal to ride in the back of a truck? What are yu talking about? Here in Texas, the only law that states a person can't ride in the back of a truck is if they are under the age of 18. I see day workers riding in the backs of trucks around here all the time.
You didn't answer the question. If a car, truck, whatever is full of Mexicans, and a cop pulls the vehicle over for some made-up BS reason, does the cop have the right to check the ID's of all passengers, and not just the driver?
I've been pulled over speeding before with three of four people in the car. NOT ONCE has a cop ever asked for my passengers to show any kind of ID. Why? Becuase they are just passengers, and he has no right to ask for a simple misdomeanor driving offense, unless he 'suspects' illegal activity. Just because someone looks and speaks Hispanic shouldn't be considerable cause for 'suspected illegal activity'.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/386238/fire-s-coming-this-way/120#post_3393113
Illegal to ride in the back of a truck? What are yu talking about? Here in Texas, the only law that states a person can't ride in the back of a truck is if they are under the age of 18. I see day workers riding in the backs of trucks around here all the time.
You didn't answer the question. If a car, truck, whatever is full of Mexicans, and a cop pulls the vehicle over for some made-up BS reason, does the cop have the right to check the ID's of all passengers, and not just the driver?
I've been pulled over speeding before with three of four people in the car. NOT ONCE has a cop ever asked for my passengers to show any kind of ID. Why? Becuase they are just passengers, and he has no right to ask for a simple misdomeanor driving offense, unless he 'suspects' illegal activity. Just because someone looks and speaks Hispanic shouldn't be considerable cause for 'suspected illegal activity'.
The states I lived in don't allow riding in the back of an open truck, don't know about Texas.
It depends on the conditions of a traffic stop as far as a cop asking for ID. If it's a traffic infraction and the driver has proper ID then the cops really have no reason to ask passengers for ID. If the driver can't produce ID then all bets are off. I'd say at that point it's reasonable for the cop to identify those with the person driving because it is a crime to drive without your ID in your possession.
I have been in the car more than once when a cop has asked passengers for ID. Once as a driver and once as a passenger. When I was a passenger we were pulled over because a guy had his tag stolen and the cops though we were driving with expired registration. It was back in the dark ages before they had computers in the cars and could check on such things.
When I was driving it was because I hadn't put the plates on a new truck yet. That was actually pretty funny. My buddy's mom had given him some jars of veggies and Barney FIfe, the cop's partner though he was going to throw the mean bust on up. He knocked on the passenger side window while I was taling to his partner and my buddy rolls the window down like 2 inches and says "Yes?". Cop makes him roll it down all the way and asks for his ID and if there was a reason he didn't want to roll down the windo. Buddy says "It's cold". The cop asks about the jars. My friend says "Here we have some lovely pickled beets and here we have beets packed in mustard". The cop tells him to roll the window back up. My buddy tells him he's hot and doesn't want to roll it up. I wanted to slap him. The cop could have been a jerk and ticketed me for no plates plus anything he wanted to make up.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Serious question-no sarcasm. For folks who want to see marijuana legalized: What definitive standard should be used to judge which drugs should be legal? What I mean is, is there any characteristics that would make a drug more likely to be safer and less impacting on society that would justify condemning them or make them legal?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/386238/fire-s-coming-this-way/120#post_3393195
Serious question-no sarcasm. For folks who want to see marijuana legalized: What definitive standard should be used to judge which drugs should be legal? What I mean is, is there any characteristics that would make a drug more likely to be safer and less impacting on society that would justify condemning or justifying them being legalized?
I can't answer that. I've never done anything more than weed. Well, I got Morphine in the hospital. Don't think I'd be legalizing that LOL!. Thing with weed is it isn't addictive like most other drugs and it's "high" is pretty minor.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/386238/fire-s-coming-this-way/120#post_3393195
Serious question-no sarcasm. For folks who want to see marijuana legalized: What definitive standard should be used to judge which drugs should be legal? What I mean is, is there any characteristics that would make a drug more likely to be safer and less impacting on society that would justify condemning them or make them legal?
Marijuana was deemed a narcotic because of it's hallucinogenic qualities, not necessarily because of it you becoming addictive to it. There are certain forms of mushrooms that can give you the same 'high' as MJ. Don't see them outlawing those. If you recall, one of the main ingredients of Coca-Cola in it's early form was cocaine. Gave you that "Refreshing Feeling". Cocaine has become more of a social drug for the elite, rich, and what you would call the "famous crowd". Is it addictive? You bet it is. So is meth, crack, and heroin. I'd could she justifications for not legalizing those drugs simply because they will lead to a destructive lifestyle. But should we restrict a person's freedoms to do something they choose to do to their own body? Drag Car racers, NASCAR, IRL, Formula 1 drivers risk their lives everytime they get on a track. Should we restrict them from these professions because of the risks? How about boxers or these MMA fighters?
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Believe it or not, I was actually asking and not being rhetorical. There are drugs that cause people to be a danger to others and not just themselves. I was just wondering what criteria would be used to determine what should be legal. If all drugs are legal, I think it would be a Pandora's box. But some folks think all drugs should be legal, I think that just won't happen. Not even countries that have liberal drug laws have made things like heroin legal, for instance.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/386238/fire-s-coming-this-way/120#post_3393224
Marijuana was deemed a narcotic because of it's hallucinogenic qualities, not necessarily because of it you becoming addictive to it. There are certain forms of mushrooms that can give you the same 'high' as MJ. Don't see them outlawing those. If you recall, one of the main ingredients of Coca-Cola in it's early form was cocaine. Gave you that "Refreshing Feeling". Cocaine has become more of a social drug for the elite, rich, and what you would call the "famous crowd". Is it addictive? You bet it is. So is meth, crack, and heroin. I'd could she justifications for not legalizing those drugs simply because they will lead to a destructive lifestyle. But should we restrict a person's freedoms to do something they choose to do to their own body? Drag Car racers, NASCAR, IRL, Formula 1 drivers risk their lives everytime they get on a track. Should we restrict them from these professions because of the risks? How about boxers or these MMA fighters?
Race car drivers don't freak out and kill others, generally speaking. Try selling someone a baggie of magic mushrooms in front of a cop and see how legal they are.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
BTW, I drove up the mountain today. I'll post some pics in the next day or two. It is total devastation. The entire oak forest on the slopes is gone. Just a tree here or there not burned. No green anywhere. Just black and gray everywhere. The firefighters saved so many houses. I hate throwing "hero" around, especially people who are just doing their job, but those guys worked miracles saving houses that had burned trees surrounding right up against the house, but the houses are still standing. It is remarkable to see no foliage and just charred terrain and a house standing, with just a bit of soot or even melted trim. Those men and women have my utmost respect. They really are heroes.
 
deejeff442

deejeff442

Active Member
i would bet 70-80% of the firemen were volunteer.i know the ones here in texas were.volunteers committed two weeks to these fires.the texas forest service reimbursed the stations but the firefighter dont get paid.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
And the other side of the coin I know someone in Mt who owns a dozer. He makes his living during fire season every year and pretty much plays the rest of the time.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/386238/fire-s-coming-this-way/120#post_3393229
Race car drivers don't freak out and kill others, generally speaking. Try selling someone a baggie of magic mushrooms in front of a cop and see how legal they are.
You'd rarely if ever see someone trying to sell magic mushrooms on the street. Why would you? You can grow those all day long in your backyard, and no one (not even the cops) would know the difference. You could have a variety of Psilocybin mushrooms growing in your local pasture right now.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
They are still illegal. I remember back when my brother was 18 he had been up at Laserium and had been eating shrooms all night. He gets home and my mom had locked the door. So he starts knocking on the door not realizing he's leaning on it. She opens the door and he falls inside the house. He stumbles to his feet and she says "YOU'VE BEEN DRINKING!!!". Brother says "No I haven't, smell my breath" and breaths in her face. You ever smell raw shrooms? I've been in a house when someone was boiling some into tea. GAWD!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top