DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Are Americans Intolerant of Being Wrong?

Do you go to prison for weed or are you fined?

depends on the state.

No, the conversation is about Federal Laws which currently override State Laws.

you asked this question:

Do you go to prison for weed or are you fined?

_____

and i gave you the answer.

so then are you for state's rights or not?

i've been following along with this current conversation, just observing and listening, and some of you guys seem to be confusing yourselves. yall can't seem to decide whether you want state rights or you want the feds to take over.

Well of course I am for States Rights and making the Federal Government smaller but what does that have to do with Weed?

Right now, the Feds have the Law in their hands about weed.
Thats fine with me. There are some things I want decided at the Fed level and some things currently handled by the Feds I want to be sent to the States.

I certainly don't want the States handling the Nations food safety or our Military just as I don't want the Feds issuing Drivers License.

40's not a troll.

well up until now, the fed's have pretty much taken a hands off approach to weed, and are letting the states handle the laws.

your argument has read like somebody who doesn't agree with the feds letting the states decide their own laws on it.

so, do you want the feds to enforce the law, or are you ok with the feds taking a step back and letting the states handle it?

Yes, I want the Feds, the States and the Locals to enforce ALL our Laws. That has been the problem here in America, Nobody has been enforcing the Laws we already have in the books!!!
Society runs amok!
People like Pitt encourage others to break the Law because they don't personally agree with the Law! That is Wrong!

I don't care who has jurisdiction, just so someone does and enforces the Law!

anyway, to answer the actual question of the OP:

it isn't just Americans, but pretty much everyone around the world. Who likes being wrong, with regards to their opinions on social/political issues?

talking specifically about this country, i still maintain my belief -and evidence seems to support my views - that the country was doing fairly well with balance, bipartisanship, and tolerance of others based on skin tone, culture, etc, right until 9/11 happened.

a very brief period of unity when we went to war in Afghanistan. and that quickly went to crap over the most divisive decision that plagues us to this very day: going to war with Iraq.

that literally split the country in half all over again. it took us decades - which by the way, we still haven't completely moved past - to move forward with regards to pre-civil rights era.

July 2, 1964.

every decade, we moved closer and closer to unity, tolerance, and equality, right up until March 19, 2003.

and since then, people can make a valid argument (i know i have) that everything with regards to how we interact with one another has gotten progressively worse.

that's an odd way to look at things.

so, have you ever drank alcohol?

Why?

answer the question.

Why? You can't make a point without my input?

i could.

but i asked you a question. why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question?

do you drink alcohol? currently, or in the past?

Actually it is not hard to answer your question, I am just not sure I want to answer your question.

What? You a Cop now?

your refusal to answer a simple question suggest that you already know where i'm going with this, and are trying not to get put on blast in front of everybody.

and a cop? lol, please.

Yes.

so that's a yes that you drink alcohol, correct?

You are a Cop and now you are badgering me!

You ask one question after another and then claim I am not answering your question!

Where is Arch at a time like this?

He really is a cop then

He asks, I answer, and somehow it isn't enough for him...Cop!

Ok, one more time.

Yes.

ok, cool. So you drink. remember when you said this?



so you actively partake in something that is legal now, but only became legal through a massive defiance of the people (as well as the mob) during the prohibition era, which made alcoholic beverages illegal.

So all those people who didn't follow the law, the defiance of the people, forcing the feds to not enforce the law, and ultimately make it legal altogether, leads to today, where you are able to enjoy with minimal to no consequence.

just because something is a law doesn't make it right, or ethical. which means some laws shouldn't be followed, quite honestly.

because if we take this to another law back in the day, then when you said this:



you are saying that before 1967, you fully support couples going to jail because interracial marriage was illegal, and the law is the law, right?

the same thing that the people went through with regards to the prohibition era seems to be the same thing people are going through now with regards to weed.

it was demonized for stupid reasons, made illegal for stupid reasons, and now through education, science, and just flat out defiance from the people, weed is starting to become legal in the states.

this is how progress works, 40. don't demonize people for their choice of drug while you actively partake in your own choice of drug.

Where have I ever demonized people for their drug of choice?

I can certainly be accused of demonizing people for breaking our Laws, which is wrong and unAmerican.

We have a Legal system for making, changing, creating our laws, we don't just break them and then cry from a jail cell.

So what now? Let the states do as they see fit, right? The fed's are doing that for the most part.

What about illegals? Let the sanctuary cities harbor them? Fine. Don't get federal money. Just like the ovi laws - states were free to set their own BAC limit, but if it wasn't .08, they got no federal money for roads.

Don't confuse pot with illegals.

The fed's are saying "we won't enforce our laws on pot usage, for the most part" in states that have legalized it.

Next issue: Illegal sanctuary cities: The feds' won't come in, but the fed. gov't. will also with hold money from said cities."

See, the cities can do as they want. They'll just have to suffer a loss of money over it. Just like states could do as they saw fit with the BAC level. Accept the fed. standard and all is ok. Set their own standard higher than .08, lose money.

Do all of you people who are talking about liberals and conservatives realize how you have helped prove the author's point.



Both sides are so narrow-minded. You don't want to learn. You want to jam your biased opinions down other people's throats.

I also like how this thread wasn't even political in nature.

Although we are constitutionally blessed with the freedom of speech, that doesn't mean that what we say is at all important. Too many think that the ability to express ones opinions goes hand-in-hand with those opinions being right.

Yeah I totally get what you're saying. I just think in real life and day to day that people just need to get thicker skinned instead of being so delicate and fragile. I can't even imagine today's kids being put through what I had to growing up.

I have always believed that Federal Law trumps State law and the constitution supports that. States can only enact their own laws that are either left void by the federal government.

I mean if fed law doesn't matter then I guess stats that don't want gay marriage can ignore that law too right? Letting states pick and choose which laws they want to enforce leads to anarchy and possible civil war.

If you don't like the laws then fight to have them changed. Federal law needs to be enforced period.

I don't know about y'all but my wife says I am still wrong.

What does any of that have to do w/the article and the intent of the thread?

I don't know what part of reading has been difficult for you. I have stated repeatedly in this thread that I support the feds withholding funds from sanctuary cities. I agree that securing our nations borders and our immigration laws are the only way to keep order. I've never stated otherwise.

That's not at all what he said. What he said was that as long as something is the law then if you don't obey it, expect to be punished.. if you want to change the law, our country blesses us with a mechanism to do that.

We either have to accept that or move forward with this notion that the laws are kind of subjective and if you don't really like them, then you don't have to enforce them.. or if something just doesn't seem fair to you, then you can enforce or not enforce the law as you see fit without regard to whatever it actually says in the law.

I don't see how he can say that if you break the law you should go to jail and not realize that if that is done to people who smoke weed there won't be a huge increase in our prison or jail population. That would mean far more cells would be needed and a lot more prisoners. It's basic cause and effect.

I wasn't on all weekend, I haven't read the whole thread so I was just responding to the one comment.

Possession of marijuana is punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. For a second conviction, the penalties increase to a 15-day mandatory minimum sentence with a maximum of two years in prison and a fine of up to $2,500. Subsequent convictions carry a 90-day mandatory minimum sentence and a maximum of up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

That right there is the Federal Law!

Can't pay the fine?
Can't do the time?
Don't do the crime!

Well I hope this clears up DC's misconception that you aren't willing to spend billions upon billions of dollars to lock up weed smokers.

I guess we'll just take the money to pay for that from Meals on wheels from our seniors or something far more useful.