White 13 month old viciously shot in face by black teenager.

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
oh dumbfucky a misdemeanor and a fine isn't decriminalization. You don't suppose that graph was talking about the 2012 bill legalizing cannabis do you? Derp derp dumbshit

Definition of DECRIMINALIZE

: to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of



In 2012, voters in Oregon rejected Ballot Measure 80, a ballot initiative which would have legalized marijuana. 53 percent of voters opposed the measure.
In 1973, Oregon became the first state to decriminalize cannabis.[SUP][35][/SUP] Possession of 28.45 grams (1 ounce) or less is punishable by a $500 to $1,000 fine; stricter punishments exist for sale or cultivation.

OffensePenaltyIncarceration Max. Fine
Possession
Less than 1 ozmisdemeanorN/A$ 650
Less than 1 oz within 1000 feet of school groundsmisdemeanor30 days$ 1,250
1 - 4 ozmisdemeanor6 mos$ 1,000
4 oz or morefelony10 years$ 375,000
Possession of 150 g or more is punished more severely.
Sale or Distribution
Less than 5 g without compensationnot classifiedN/A$ 1,000
Less than 5 gmisdemeanor30 days$ 1,250
5 g - 1 oz without compensationmisdemeanor1 year$ 6,250
1 oz or more without compensationfelony5 years$ 125,000
5 g or morefelony10 years$ 250,000
To a minor or within 1000 feet of school groundsfelony20 years$ 365,000
http://norml.org/laws/penalties/item/oregon-penalties-2
Click to expand...

legalization and decriminalization are two very different and distinct policies with respect to cannabis, shit for brains.

don't get all yappy with me just because you're too dumb to understand the difference.

here's a very recent example for you to demonstrate that words have meanings:

Starting Monday, Vermonters will not be arrested for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana.
The decriminalization law, signed by Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) last month, will remove criminal penalties on small amounts of cannabis and replace them with civil fines.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/vermont-marijuana-decriminalization_n_3529294.html
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
legalization and decriminalization are two very different and distinct policies with respect to cannabis, shit for brains.

don't get all yappy with me just because you're too dumb to understand the difference.

here's a very recent example for you to demonstrate that words have meanings:

Starting Monday, Vermonters will not be arrested for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana.
The decriminalization law, signed by Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) last month, will remove criminal penalties on small amounts of cannabis and replace them with civil fines.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/vermont-marijuana-decriminalization_n_3529294.html
Click to expand...
And each State will get to define that and tax it and the tax has to have a kick up to the Don, ahem, the Feds. That's what is being worked out. And then the dealing can go on and on, behind the scenes State to Fed and State to State, run things through in the Farm Bills, etc over a few generations and the USA never has to break the banking treaty.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
And each State will get to define that and tax it and the tax has to have a kick up to the Don, ahem, the Feds. That's what is being worked out. And then the dealing can go on and on, behind the scenes State to Fed and State to State, run things through in the Farm Bills, etc over a few generations and the USA never has to break the banking treaty.
Click to expand...
well there ya go.

you weren't one of them best i recall, but where are all the ritt momney fans who said obama was gonna shut this all down? he hasn't barely acknowledged it, much less done a damn thing to stop it.

some prohibitionist he is.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Actually a good President as I have said. And he has, backed the fuck off, with the DEA in the States, afaik. You go in a Legal Grow State with DEA trying to interfere with Tax Revenue....well they don't.

The only reason Mitt ran was they had already run with Dole, and Quayle just does not have a good name for it. :)

But, Obama has not used that bully pulpit or those Executive Powers against these States and most Americans are not Bill O'Riely's any more, thank the ganga Gods. Nor has Obama used all those low blow mob boss powers he certainly has from the Chicago Machine.

He is not the first to fire up a fatty in the WH, but not the last either, looks like.
 
SHOTGUN420

SHOTGUN420

Active Member
Now now, Whites can't be discriminated against or have hate crimes committed against them just ask eric holder....
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
maybe he thought the white kid came from an inferior lot and believed he was doing the world a favor.
Click to expand...
There would be no evidence to support his thoughts. But that still might be possible since black people aren't known for their ability to think well.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
UncleBuck said:
http://www.sott.net/article/262876-Toddlers-with-guns-kill-more-Americans-than-terrorists?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

i thought the count was: terrorists - 2, toddlers - 3 or 4.

turns out it's a little worse than that, i guess they dug up a few more cases between when the headline first came out and now.
Click to expand...
I don't accept 4-6-year-olds as toddlers. I think of the 1-2-year age group as toddlers, and 3-year-olds usually have lost the chubby baby legs. For these purposes I'll allow them. But why that odd 5-month window? It could be extreme cherry picking.

I also note that sott takes a hard-left editorial position on the meaning of "well-regulated". Otherwise an interesting site. Some unexplained new-agey vibes though. cn
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I don't accept 4-6-year-olds as toddlers. I think of the 1-2-year age group as toddlers, and 3-year-olds usually have lost the chubby baby legs. For these purposes I'll allow them. But why that odd 5-month window? It could be extreme cherry picking.

I also note that sott takes a hard-left editorial position on the meaning of "well-regulated". Otherwise an interesting site. Some unexplained new-agey vibes though. cn
Click to expand...
i had seen the picture floating around and so i just googled the words, i have no interest in SOTT nor do i endorse them as a source.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
UncleBuck said:
i had seen the picture floating around and so i just googled the words, i have no interest in SOTT nor do i endorse them as a source.
Click to expand...
Considering how broadly they define toddlers and how narrowly, terrorists ... you may want to be a more aware/engaged consumer of information. Jmo. cn
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Considering how broadly they define toddlers and how narrowly, terrorists ... you may want to be a more aware/engaged consumer of information. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...
as far as i recall, there were only two terrorist related deaths on american soil this year in boston.

however, you can swap out "toddlers" with "little kids" and the startling point remains.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
UncleBuck said:
as far as i recall, there were only two terrorist related deaths on american soil this year in boston.

however, you can swap out "toddlers" with "little kids" and the startling point remains.
Click to expand...
If you accept that Drug Warriors are terrorists, that stat skews sharply without any need to contort into minimizing or defending shootings by kids. cn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top