If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   WA stoners: "You can't, like, own nature, man." Federal park rangers: "Yes, yes we can"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 206
    More: Fail, Olympic National Park, Jay Inslee, Tacoma, Mount Rainier National Park, DOJ  
•       •       •

14854 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 2:00 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-17 06:23:14 PM

xevian: ZAZ: OtherBrotherDarryl

Yes, petty crimes go to federal court if a federal LEO cites you. In a few places you can get federal speeding ticket on what looks like an ordinary city street or state highway. The DC area parkways are federal land, for example.

If you get a marijuana citation on federal land some courts will treat it as a real crime. That may mean six months real probation, with regular reporting and testing, if you don't go to jail.

Makes me happy that in my state, the good land belongs to the state, while the crappy parts no one goes on except to hunt, belong to the feds.


I was going to say "so you live in Nevada?" but I see it's CA. Dude, you're doing it wrong. Or you don't get outside of the Bay Area much.
 
2013-09-17 06:24:09 PM
It is terribly simple. If an activity is illegal on the federal level, you don't do it on federal land. Doesn't matter if it is legal in the state, federal law supercedes. Any idiot stoner should be able to comprehend this.
 
2013-09-17 06:24:32 PM

ZAZ: Who watches I-90: park rangers or state patrol?


Playing the odds on which branch of law enforcement you'll interact with is not a good plan for anyone -- individuals, cops, and society are all harmed by the unequal application of law.

And if you'd bother to read the article you'd find at least one example of someone driving along on a normal road that just happened to be in federal land
 
2013-09-17 06:26:02 PM

Bandito King: ITG time.

Who the fark gets ticketed by a park ranger? That's like getting a citation from a mall cop. I mean, common fear of government force aside, how do you meet someone in the forest miles away from anything and let them boss you around for ID and such?

Pothead: "My gun is bigger and no one knows who I am or that I'm out here."

Ranger: "...I will let you go with a warning."

Or even better, just push him in a river and run. The fed can't find people lost in national parks who want to be found, how the hell are they going to find someone deliberately hiding?


I encourage you to try exactly this and report back to the class with your results. Please.
 
2013-09-17 06:26:09 PM

profplump: dywed88: There are already thousands upon thousands upon thousands of places in the US where taking one step cause an action to go from innoccuos to illegal. Every municipality and state border, plus many existing rules for Federal land and protected areas. This doesn't make anything different.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. I'm not saying the feds are technically wrong here. I'm just saying the system of geopolitical-based rule making is not intuitive, has detrimental outcomes, and is not the only way we could organize things.


I am pointing out that this is hardly a unique occurance.

Should all municipal laws and bylaws be brought into line? What about the laws in each state?

What makes this one case of a law depending on geographical borders affecting laws different (even though it doesn't actually do that, it is just selective enforcement, something also very common) special from the multitudes of others?
 
2013-09-17 06:27:51 PM

Bandito King: ITG time.

Who the fark gets ticketed by a park ranger? That's like getting a citation from a mall cop. I mean, common fear of government force aside, how do you meet someone in the forest miles away from anything and let them boss you around for ID and such?

Pothead: "My gun is bigger and no one knows who I am or that I'm out here."

Ranger: "...I will let you go with a warning."

Or even better, just push him in a river and run. The fed can't find people lost in national parks who want to be found, how the hell are they going to find someone deliberately hiding?


www.migdale.com
radios are faster than you are.
 
2013-09-17 06:28:24 PM

profplump: FormlessOne: I know I won't be visiting a national park any time soon, that's for damned sure.

If it was just national parks it wouldn't be such a problem. But there are hundreds of federal sites in WA making up a significant proportion of the total land area -- western states are lousy with federal land. For example, I'm not sure you can get across the Cascades without crossing through federal land.


Nope ya can't. You'd have to learn how to thread a needle with private property owners or a plethora of "conservatory" clubs to just hike on across it. You have a better chance just getting a permit to cut a xmas tree or salvage logs after a forest fire. But that's kind of how it's always been.
 
2013-09-17 06:35:24 PM

dywed88: profplump: randomjsa: Ah the age old 'because it's legal somewhere I'm entitled to do it anywhere' idea.

I agree that sentiment isn't a good reflection of the way things actually work, but it's not exactly intuitive to think "If I step 4 inches to the left, the thing I'm doing right now will become illegal even though the people, culture, geography, infrastructure, etc. are all identical" -- the geopolitical boundaries that are part of modern life are very abstract. And the situation isn't helped by the fact that "federal lands", particularly rural sites, typically do not have well-marked boundaries.

There are already thousands upon thousands upon thousands of places in the US where taking one step cause an action to go from innoccuos to illegal. Every municipality and state border, plus many existing rules for Federal land and protected areas.

This doesn't make anything different. And no matter what the state of Washington says, marijuana is still completely illegal in the entirety of that state (even if the Federal government said they would not prioritize enforcing that fact outside of Federal lands).


A: We have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.

B: Why do you believe that the will of legislators is more important than the will of the people they represent?

C: Why do you believe that anyone's opinion on marijuana use is more important than an adult who has decided that's the substance they want to inhale with their body? Would you let someone tell you you're not allowed to eat bread or get a tattoo?
 
2013-09-17 06:43:10 PM

Russ1642: Won't be long before you need a passport to cross into federal land. If the laws are so different there it might as well be another country.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg
 
2013-09-17 06:45:20 PM
The_Original_Roxtar:
radios are faster than you are.

gadian:
I encourage you to try exactly this and report back to the class with your results. Please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXRVZKfnVFg
 
2013-09-17 06:47:43 PM
Can we do this to the tobacco smokers, too?
 
2013-09-17 07:01:03 PM

Bandito King: The_Original_Roxtar:
radios are faster than you are.

gadian:
I encourage you to try exactly this and report back to the class with your results. Please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXRVZKfnVFg


Youtube doesn't count. Neither does Wiki. Try better.
 
2013-09-17 07:02:36 PM

profplump: FormlessOne: I know I won't be visiting a national park any time soon, that's for damned sure.

If it was just national parks it wouldn't be such a problem. But there are hundreds of federal sites in WA making up a significant proportion of the total land area -- western states are lousy with federal land. For example, I'm not sure you can get across the Cascades without crossing through federal land.


No argument there - my point was "avoid giving money to the federal government", more or less.

The sequester has meant that agencies are looking to monetize in any way possible, and this is a lovely way for the Federal Park Service to easily fatten their ledger while staying well within the letter of the law. The only way to avoid having park rangers "farming" people for citations is to avoid the parks in which the park rangers have jurisdiction. There are quite a few other federal sites that aren't as heavily patrolled or policed, so risk remains low, but federal park rangers are apparently taking an active role in seeking out potential marijuana users specifically to cite them, and a $5,000 shakedown for a few hundred bucks per citation is still a good deal for them.
 
2013-09-17 07:12:58 PM
What a bunch of bullshiat.  I want big nanny state government for lots of other things but not for this!
 
2013-09-17 07:18:31 PM

Bandito King: ITG time.

Who the fark gets ticketed by a park ranger? That's like getting a citation from a mall cop. I mean, common fear of government force aside, how do you meet someone in the forest miles away from anything and let them boss you around for ID and such?

Pothead: "My gun is bigger and no one knows who I am or that I'm out here."

Ranger: "...I will let you go with a warning."

Or even better, just push him in a river and run. The fed can't find people lost in national parks who want to be found, how the hell are they going to find someone deliberately hiding?


First, most of these people probably aren't out in the middle of nowhere. They will be on roads or popular areas.

Second, most people aren't psycopaths.

Third, the size of your gun doesn't matter when you are a few feet away, and he is probably better trained and more experienced.

Fourth, even a very small chance of being caught committing murder is a LOT worse than a citation for having pot.

Fifth, if you don't murder him, he has a good description of you and you will probably see some heavily armed agents in your vicinity in the near future, with charges a lot worse than getting caught with weed.

Need any more?
 
2013-09-17 07:18:47 PM

paygun: What a bunch of bullshiat.  I want big nanny state government for lots of other things but not for this!


But then who will keep the wilderness looking like the beautiful green natural forests where all the animals get along with each other and work in perfect harmony together like we see on the Discovery Channel, instead of the disgusting weed-choked garbage-strewn parasite-infested slaughterhouse it turns into if it's not carefully managed?
 
2013-09-17 07:24:51 PM

mediablitz: ZAZ: Karen Strand didn't think she'd get in trouble for having a small container of medical marijuana when she went hiking in Olympic National Park this summer. But a ranger pulled her over on a remote gravel road, and Strand wound up as one of at least 27,700 people cited for having pot on federal land since 2009, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal court data.

Is this a common pothead misconception? A friend of mine acted like Colorado legal = OK to smoke openly on federal land. Luckily no rangers were around.

Wonder how long that stupid word is going to stick around. I guess it makes it easier for you to overlook the fact that the federal government is wasting its time and money busting someone for having a joint?

Do you drink at all? Does that make you an alcoholic? No? Then why is ANYONE who smokes marijuana immediately a "pothead" in your book?


Because ZAZ is a regressive asshole. Why ask - you already knew that.
 
2013-09-17 07:26:58 PM

Bandito King: dywed88: profplump: randomjsa: Ah the age old 'because it's legal somewhere I'm entitled to do it anywhere' idea.

I agree that sentiment isn't a good reflection of the way things actually work, but it's not exactly intuitive to think "If I step 4 inches to the left, the thing I'm doing right now will become illegal even though the people, culture, geography, infrastructure, etc. are all identical" -- the geopolitical boundaries that are part of modern life are very abstract. And the situation isn't helped by the fact that "federal lands", particularly rural sites, typically do not have well-marked boundaries.

There are already thousands upon thousands upon thousands of places in the US where taking one step cause an action to go from innoccuos to illegal. Every municipality and state border, plus many existing rules for Federal land and protected areas.

This doesn't make anything different. And no matter what the state of Washington says, marijuana is still completely illegal in the entirety of that state (even if the Federal government said they would not prioritize enforcing that fact outside of Federal lands).

A: We have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.

B: Why do you believe that the will of legislators is more important than the will of the people they represent?

C: Why do you believe that anyone's opinion on marijuana use is more important than an adult who has decided that's the substance they want to inhale with their body? Would you let someone tell you you're not allowed to eat bread or get a tattoo?


I think marijuana should be legal (and pretty much all other recreational drugs).

We don't have any moral obligation to disobey unjust laws. You may not have a moral obligation to obey them, but those are two completely different things. And it isn't like these people were protesting the law or anything.

I have no sympathy for some idiots that got cited for committing (what they knew, or had every reason to know, to be) a crime. When a little common sense would let them do the same thing with no penalty.
 
2013-09-17 07:28:22 PM
dywed88:
First, most of these people probably aren't out in the middle of nowhere. They will be on roads or popular areas.

Second, most people aren't psycopaths.

Third, the size of your gun doesn't matter when you are a few feet away, and he is probably better trained and more experienced.

Fourth, even a very small chance of being caught committing murder is a LOT worse than a citation for having pot.

Fifth, if you don't murder him, he has a good description of you and you will probably see some heavily armed agents in your vicinity in the near future, with charges a lot worse than getting caught with weed.

Need any more?


Honestly, you lost me at 2. I started looking up the differences between socio and psycho pathologies and you might be onto something there.

Gun size thing was a joke dude, I hate guns.
 
2013-09-17 07:32:36 PM

Russ1642: James10952001: Don't they have anything better to do? When it comes to pot, I could take it or leave it, but I find it absolutely absurd that someone can get in trouble for possessing a small piece of a naturally occurring plant.

Uranium is naturally occurring. Should it be available at every corner store?



Sure, why not?.  Uranium used to be fairly common in glass and colored glazes.  Natural uranium is mostly U-238, which is mostly as harmless as other heavy metals like lead.  It takes a whole lot of massively expensive and difficult processing to separate out the weaponizable U-235 isotope.

Now plutonium on the other hand, contrary to the expectations of scientists in 1955, probably shouldn't be sold at the corner store.
 
2013-09-17 07:33:56 PM

Bandito King: dywed88:
First, most of these people probably aren't out in the middle of nowhere. They will be on roads or popular areas.

Second, most people aren't psycopaths.

Third, the size of your gun doesn't matter when you are a few feet away, and he is probably better trained and more experienced.

Fourth, even a very small chance of being caught committing murder is a LOT worse than a citation for having pot.

Fifth, if you don't murder him, he has a good description of you and you will probably see some heavily armed agents in your vicinity in the near future, with charges a lot worse than getting caught with weed.

Need any more?

Honestly, you lost me at 2. I started looking up the differences between socio and psycho pathologies and you might be onto something there.

Gun size thing was a joke dude, I hate guns.


Taking murder off the list of options doesn't improve your situation much. If you are caught you really are better off just cooperating most of the time.
 
2013-09-17 07:36:43 PM

buckeyebrain: abiigdog: scottydoesntknow: stirfrybry: ZAZ: I'll call pothead when smoking is a major part of lifestyle rather than an occasional recreational activity.

Like when it's used for medicinal purposes. Those potheads should just deal with their cancer. Eat something already!

That's pretty stupid. Do you call patients needing pain medication "pill-poppers"? No. When it's required to live a somewhat normal life, then it's not a recreational activity.

Unfortunately for you all the recreational smokers claim (gasp) medicinal requirement to the point where no one believes you anymore, the pot culture shot themselves in the foot on that one.

"Hey, man!  I have cold, man!  Can I get a pot card, Doctor Man?"
"Heeeeey, sure, man!  I can do that over the phone, man!  You don't even need to come to the office, man!"


You haven't been near anyone smoking pot since 1972 have you? Come on, you can admit it.
 
2013-09-17 07:38:48 PM

meanmutton: I absolutely hate the decriminalization bullshiat that we have going on.  Make it farking legal and get it over with.  Having it be inconsistently applied, with some wink-and-nudge-not-going-to-charge-you or some "prescription" you get for $59 from someone advertising on temporary signs at expressway offramps is ridiculous.

Make it legal, legitimate companies will make it, it'll get destigmatized, most people will consume it as edibles, and we can get on with this idiocy.


That is the first rational comment of the thread.
 
2013-09-17 07:44:03 PM

liam76: mediablitz: ZAZ: Karen Strand didn't think she'd get in trouble for having a small container of medical marijuana when she went hiking in Olympic National Park this summer. But a ranger pulled her over on a remote gravel road, and Strand wound up as one of at least 27,700 people cited for having pot on federal land since 2009, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal court data.

Is this a common pothead misconception? A friend of mine acted like Colorado legal = OK to smoke openly on federal land. Luckily no rangers were around.

Wonder how long that stupid word is going to stick around. I guess it makes it easier for you to overlook the fact that the federal government is wasting its time and money busting someone for having a joint?

Do you drink at all? Does that make you an alcoholic? No? Then why is ANYONE who smokes marijuana immediately a "pothead" in your book?

Using the word pothead for people who can't be assed out to figure out laws that are pretty clear has nothing to with a stance on federal enforcement of said laws.

If somebody needed alcohol so bad they had to bring it to a park where it wasn't allowed then claimed ignorance of laws on alcohol in a park, I hink the alcoholic lable works.


Says the dickwad who has never hiked to the top of a mountain and cracked a beer at the summit. Or puffed a J just because you were out in nature and felt like enjoying a natural drug.

STFU dude - your shiat is weak.

/shiat's weak
 
2013-09-17 07:49:42 PM

Internet Meme Rogers: liam76: mediablitz: ZAZ: Karen Strand didn't think she'd get in trouble for having a small container of medical marijuana when she went hiking in Olympic National Park this summer. But a ranger pulled her over on a remote gravel road, and Strand wound up as one of at least 27,700 people cited for having pot on federal land since 2009, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal court data.

Is this a common pothead misconception? A friend of mine acted like Colorado legal = OK to smoke openly on federal land. Luckily no rangers were around.

Wonder how long that stupid word is going to stick around. I guess it makes it easier for you to overlook the fact that the federal government is wasting its time and money busting someone for having a joint?

Do you drink at all? Does that make you an alcoholic? No? Then why is ANYONE who smokes marijuana immediately a "pothead" in your book?

Using the word pothead for people who can't be assed out to figure out laws that are pretty clear has nothing to with a stance on federal enforcement of said laws.

If somebody needed alcohol so bad they had to bring it to a park where it wasn't allowed then claimed ignorance of laws on alcohol in a park, I hink the alcoholic lable works.

Good to see you going around being a sanctimonious dick and using specious arguments everywhere.


Thanks for your brilliant addition to the thread.

Doesn't top your last gem of claiming I am a secret supporter of the Catholic Church for pointing out people should focus on what they did instead of amping people up by ripping pictures with no context.

But the thread is young, I am sure you can too your stupid from last time.
 
2013-09-17 07:51:11 PM

Coconice: FTFA:    far less than the ounce, or 28 grams, allowed by Washington's recreational pot law, or the 24 ounces allowed by the state's medical marijuana law.

When I first read that, I read both as grams, and it struck me as odd that they allowed more for fun than they allowed for medical purposes.

When I realized that the medical law said "24 ounces" I realized that my first impression was wrong.  But, 24 ounces?  Holy shiat that's a lot of weed.  That is a pound and a farking half of weed.

What is that?  Buy a year's worth and get a discount?


Maybe the weight of whatever medibles you bought? I haven't looked into it but yea that's a lot of marijuana.
 
2013-09-17 07:58:04 PM

the801: thanks for the informative article, subby. there's no way i'm not getting high the next time i go to Olympic National Park (GIS); now i know to be sly about it no matter what washington law might say.

[imagecache6.allposters.com image 400x300]

/have you ever seen the sun rise over the grand canyon... on weed?!?


Nice pic. Rialto, 3rd Beach, or...?
 
2013-09-17 08:00:56 PM

Lerxst2k: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x653]This land is their land.


Wait, the state of Nevada is almost entirely Federal property?
 
2013-09-17 08:01:41 PM

dywed88: Bandito King: dywed88:
First, most of these people probably aren't out in the middle of nowhere. They will be on roads or popular areas.

Second, most people aren't psycopaths.

Third, the size of your gun doesn't matter when you are a few feet away, and he is probably better trained and more experienced.

Fourth, even a very small chance of being caught committing murder is a LOT worse than a citation for having pot.

Fifth, if you don't murder him, he has a good description of you and you will probably see some heavily armed agents in your vicinity in the near future, with charges a lot worse than getting caught with weed.

Need any more?

Honestly, you lost me at 2. I started looking up the differences between socio and psycho pathologies and you might be onto something there.

Gun size thing was a joke dude, I hate guns.

Taking murder off the list of options doesn't improve your situation much. If you are caught you really are better off just cooperating most of the time.


Whoah, there. I said I hate guns, not that I'm limiting options.

In terms of "keeping your head down and getting by" you are of course right that cooperating with armed fascists is the easiest and safest route to take. For now, at least. And we are probably a very long way off from the US becoming some Congo-esque hellhole where you can do whatever you want until you're killed by machete gorillas.

So enjoy doing... whatever it is the government allows you to do today.
 
2013-09-17 08:02:38 PM

TheDirtyNacho: as harmless as other heavy metals like lead


Wait, what?
 
2013-09-17 08:02:59 PM
But nobody owns the water. God owns the water.

unrealitymag.bcmediagroup.netdna-cdn.com

It's God's water.
 
2013-09-17 08:05:11 PM

Bandito King: killed by machete gorillas


someone please photoshop the Planet of the Apes gorillas wielding machetes please?  NO ONE THINKS IT CAN HAPPEN TO THEM!
 
2013-09-17 08:11:03 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: But ... states' rights!
Plan not thunk all the way through, legalizing states.


No we "thunk it through" just fine. WTF are you doing in your state? Sitting with your thumb up your ass and your index finger up your nose in your mom's basement? Thought so.
 
2013-09-17 08:11:43 PM

Bandito King: dywed88: Bandito King: dywed88:
First, most of these people probably aren't out in the middle of nowhere. They will be on roads or popular areas.

Second, most people aren't psycopaths.

Third, the size of your gun doesn't matter when you are a few feet away, and he is probably better trained and more experienced.

Fourth, even a very small chance of being caught committing murder is a LOT worse than a citation for having pot.

Fifth, if you don't murder him, he has a good description of you and you will probably see some heavily armed agents in your vicinity in the near future, with charges a lot worse than getting caught with weed.

Need any more?

Honestly, you lost me at 2. I started looking up the differences between socio and psycho pathologies and you might be onto something there.

Gun size thing was a joke dude, I hate guns.

Taking murder off the list of options doesn't improve your situation much. If you are caught you really are better off just cooperating most of the time.

Whoah, there. I said I hate guns, not that I'm limiting options.

In terms of "keeping your head down and getting by" you are of course right that cooperating with armed fascists is the easiest and safest route to take. For now, at least. And we are probably a very long way off from the US becoming some Congo-esque hellhole where you can do whatever you want until you're killed by machete gorillas.

So enjoy doing... whatever it is the government allows you to do today.


Here I thought I was dealing to Internet Tough Guy, but it was really Crazy Idiot.
 
2013-09-17 08:13:17 PM
The story always leaves the part out where the people got huge attitudes with the cop and probably shot their mouths off trying to be street lawyers.   Do you people honestly think every person that ever got with weed on federal land got charged?  Hell no.  Only assholes get tickets like this.
 
2013-09-17 08:16:06 PM

Sybarite: Lot of no-go zones there.


[www.worldofmaps.net image 850x647]



jakerinard.com

4.bp.blogspot.com
www.humanevents.com
 
2013-09-17 08:18:04 PM

my lip balm addiction: liam76:Using the word pothead for people who can't be assed out to figure out laws that are pretty clear has nothing to with a stance on federal enforcement of said laws.

If somebody needed alcohol so bad they had to bring it to a park where it wasn't allowed then claimed ignorance of laws on alcohol in a park, I hink the alcoholic lable works.

Says the dickwad who has never hiked to the top of a mountain and cracked a beer at the summit. Or puffed a J just because you were out in nature and felt like enjoying a natural drug.

STFU dude - your shiat is weak.

/shiat's weak


Nowhere did I say I have never cracked a beer on the summit of a mountain. Most of my park visits since I turned 17 have involved alcohol.

Nowhere did I begrudge people whop want smoke up on a mountain.

Nowhere did I say I am for the current policies towards either in national parks.

What I was saying is if you are dumb enough not to know the laws are different on federal land, or dumb enough to think you can get away with breaking them by crying ignorance, you do deserve scorn. Now if you think that is "weak" that is probably because you were dumb enough to fall into one of those two groups.
 
2013-09-17 08:32:25 PM
liam76:
Nowhere did I say I have never cracked a beer on the summit of a mountain. Most of my park visits since I turned 17 have involved alcohol.

Nowhere did I begrudge people whop want smoke up on a mountain.

Nowhere did I say I am for the current policies towards either in national parks.

What I was saying is if you are dumb enough not to know the laws are different on federal land, or dumb enough to think you can get away with breaking them by crying ignorance, you do deserve scorn. Now if you think that is "weak" that is probably because you were dumb enough to fall into one of those two groups.


So it doesn't matter to you that there is no REASON to do this? That it harms people who are innocent of wrongdoing? Laws are not handed down from the gods. I realize that it's just the ravings of a crazy idiot but why the hell would something harmless suddenly become worth thousands of $ in fines and potential death just because a tiny group of oligarchs said so? (if you put your hand on your gun, you're making a deadly threat, period)

The fact that I find this activity and the culture that gives rise to it disgusting doesn't sound the least bit insane to me. Nor does defending yourself when someone wants to do you harm.
 
2013-09-17 08:41:58 PM

Bandito King: liam76:
Nowhere did I say I have never cracked a beer on the summit of a mountain. Most of my park visits since I turned 17 have involved alcohol.

Nowhere did I begrudge people whop want smoke up on a mountain.

Nowhere did I say I am for the current policies towards either in national parks.


What I was saying is if you are dumb enough not to know the laws are different on federal land, or dumb enough to think you can get away with breaking them by crying ignorance, you do deserve scorn. Now if you think that is "weak" that is probably because you were dumb enough to fall into one of those two groups.

So it doesn't matter to you that there is no REASON to do this?


Yes it does matter.

I think the war on drugs, wrt weed, is stupid at best. It has been very harmful to society on a myriad of levels and I see absolutely no benefits to it.

I thought the bolded made it pretty clear, in case there was any doubt.

My original statement in this thread made it clear I wasn't for it.

However I was talking to someone who got butthurt over the term "pothead" applied to people who were too dumb to know the laws or though playing dumb would get them out of it. Just because I disliek the law doesn't mean you aren't an idiot for not knowing it.
 
2013-09-17 08:49:59 PM

mediablitz: Do you drink at all? Does that make you an alcoholic? No?


I'm not an alcoholic, I'm a drunk. Alcoholics go to meetings.


Then why is ANYONE who smokes marijuana immediately a "pothead" in your book?

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-09-17 09:05:39 PM

Precision Boobery: StreetlightInTheGhetto: your INCREDIBLY LENIENT environment/state/city.

It is remarkable how some areas will now only make you pay a fine for the unbelievable privilege of personal choice.  It does, indeed, defy credulity.  Would you contend that kissing rings expresses adequate gratitude, or would you throw decorum to the wind and just lick their boots?


Compared to the surrounding areas, yes, INCREDIBLY LENIENT.  And if you smoke in your home, you're not even going to get a ticket.  Jesus f--king Christ.
 
2013-09-17 09:14:18 PM

SquiggsIN: TheDirtyNacho: as harmless as other heavy metals like lead

Wait, what?



From a toxicity standpoint, natural uranium isn't much worse than the other heavy metals around it on the periodic table.  You wouldn't want to breathe the dust, but it isn't terribly dangerous by itself.

And I said before, you have to separate out the very small amount of U-235 in a sample to create a weapon.  Sometimes you hear about that on the news, like Iran's mountain bunker with thousands of centrifuges that were sabotaged by a computer virus.  Those are for separating that particular isotope.

/sorry about the threadjack
 
2013-09-17 09:36:27 PM
Rangers or not, federal land or not... if you're out in the friggin' wilderness and can't figure out how to discretely get stoned, you fail at life.
 
2013-09-17 09:42:13 PM
If they give you a ticket or arrest you... demand a jury trial... Try to go for a jury nullification.

Reminder: Never, ever submit or give permission to a search of your person, property or vehicle.
 
2013-09-17 10:04:10 PM
If you are a LEO and you feel you have to arrest someone because they have a little pot, you need to reevaluate your life because, man, you've made a wrong turn somewhere.
 
2013-09-17 10:06:06 PM

profplump: I'm not sure you can get across the Cascades without crossing through federal land.


It is true...   I-90,  Hwy-2 & Hwy-12, SR-542,  SR-20  & SR-410 all cross the Cascades and cross federal territory.  All the east-west routes.
 
2013-09-17 11:31:20 PM
I thought this was going to be about people illegally growing pot on federal land, which is a big problem, since that shiat's horrible for the land.
 
2013-09-18 01:09:15 AM

mediablitz: ZAZ: Karen Strand didn't think she'd get in trouble for having a small container of medical marijuana when she went hiking in Olympic National Park this summer. But a ranger pulled her over on a remote gravel road, and Strand wound up as one of at least 27,700 people cited for having pot on federal land since 2009, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal court data.

Is this a common pothead misconception? A friend of mine acted like Colorado legal = OK to smoke openly on federal land. Luckily no rangers were around.

Wonder how long that stupid word is going to stick around. I guess it makes it easier for you to overlook the fact that the federal government is wasting its time and money busting someone for having a joint?

Do you drink at all? Does that make you an alcoholic? No? Then why is ANYONE who smokes marijuana immediately a "pothead" in your book?


When pot becomes legal in more places then it is not.  Right now, if you commit a felony to smoke, then yea, you're a pot head.
 
2013-09-18 01:46:03 AM
I don't understand why Park Rangers have this sort of power - are they not in charge of looking after National Parks, you know fixing signs and fences, cleaning up parking/camping areas, making sure people are safe? They are not exactly the DEA. It seems like a huge overstretch.
 
2013-09-18 02:10:11 AM

Langdon_777: I don't understand why Park Rangers have this sort of power - are they not in charge of looking after National Parks, you know fixing signs and fences, cleaning up parking/camping areas, making sure people are safe, and enforcing laws? They are not exactly the DEA. It seems like a huge overstretch.


FTFY. That you don't - or won't - understand this is both hilarious and sad at the same time.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report