Police return seized pot

The Tribune (San Luis Obispo, CA) ^ | Jan. 04, 2003 | Patrick S. Pemberton

[tacticalogic]

These Drug Warriors are a lazy lot, aren't they? Think it's from too much booze?

I don't think it's as much a matter of laziness as paralysis. They're not too lazy to look, they're afraid of what they might find.

[Dane]

By the same standards it could be said that alcohol distributors "cost and hurt the public". Or the tobacco companies. Or McDonald's

Again using Hillary "standards" to further your one issue(pot) Libertarian cause.

You Libertarians(just like Hillary) have no shame, IMHO.

[Dane]

No, "major voices" are those recognized and respected by the public. The names on Rye's list are far ahead of Soros (or Frank) in that regard

Really? Huh, I guess you are on the McCain bandwagon of saying money in politics is bad and that the first amendment should be chucked.

Oh BTW, I know your next response is that GW signed McCains's Campaign Finance Reform, but IMO, I beleive the most vile part of that bill(ad bans) will be ruled unconstituional by the courts.

Again I state that your position that Soros(#1 Hillary friend) is just a minor "cog" in the pro-drug movement is maybe "naive" at best, but in truth, disingenuousness at it's worst. But what the hey, what else should I expect from the pot obsessed LP crowd.

[Dane]

I don't think it's as much a matter of laziness as paralysis. They're not too lazy to look, they're afraid of what they might find

Well gee, if being "afraid" of the the obvious Lbertarian naivete of your position(i.e drugs do no harm whatsoever,) is going to be condemned as being "lazy", then so be it.

Ayn Rand has deemed it so.

[tacticalogic]

your position(i.e drugs do no harm whatsoever,)

More crap from thin air. Show me where I have made that statement, or any statement to that effect.

[tacticalogic]

I haven't seen you post anything to back up your assertions that the vast majority of pot smokers are liberal, Ralph Nader worshiping greenie whackos. Did you even bother to look for it?

[Dane]

More crap from thin air. Show me where I have made that statement, or any statement to that effect.

Huh, I guess you asserting the crap from thin air is the LP position that basically states that drug legalization would make the US into a "shangri-la"

Yada, Yada, your next reply will say "Prove it!!!", when all one has to to do is look and read thouroughly the LP platform.

[Dane]

I haven't seen you post anything to back up your assertions that the vast majority of pot smokers are liberal, Ralph Nader worshiping greenie whackos. Did you even bother to look for it?

And I never seen you denounce the #1 moneybags to your pro-drug cause(Hillary friend #1, George Soros).

Oh well anyway you all are losing in the arena of ideas(i.e the beating the pro-drug intiatives took at the ballot box on November 5th, 2002).

I guess you all will be getting behind another smarmy and lying southern democrat(John Edwards) like you all did in 92, IMO.

[tacticalogic]

And I never seen you denounce the #1 moneybags to your pro-drug cause(Hillary friend #1, George Soros).

And I don't intend to. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy not worth dignifying with a response. When and if you ever have a rational argument, I'll be more than happy to address it.

[tacticalogic]

More guilt by association. I don't belong to the LP. Do you have a rational thought in your head?

[Dane]

And I don't intend to. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy not worth dignifying with a response. When and if you ever have a rational argument, I'll be more than happy to address it

What "guilt by association". This a fact and the fact is that Geroge Soros(Hillary friend #1) is the main money backer of the pro-drug cause.

Neglect the facts all you want. Neville Chamberlain went down the same road and look what that gave the world.

[snippy_about_it]

Here is Prop 215. Doesn't mention Medical Practitioner, only "physician".

I like what the young man said about being well enough to fight it, unlike others. Good for him.

1. The Compassionate Use Act

On November 5, 1996, the voters of California passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, also known as the Medical Marijuana Initiative, adding Section 11362.5 to California’s Health and Safety Code. The law took effect at 12:01 a.m., on. Wednesday, November 6, 1996. The Compassionate Use Act provides, in relevant part, that:

seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5(a) (West 2000). The Compassionate Use Act specifically protects physicians who recommend medical marijuana: "[No] physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes."

[tacticalogic]

What "guilt by association". This a fact and the fact is that Geroge Soros(Hillary friend #1) is the main money backer of the pro-drug cause.

It's a textbook example of guilt by association. There's plenty of socialist connections to be found on both sides of the issue. Anslinger was appointed by FDR. Our current policy is exactly in line with UN recommendations. The most repressive, socialist governments in existence have prohibitions on marijuana. And none of these are relevant to the issue of marijuana itself. Your insistence that all of these are irrelevant, but that George Soro's involvement is some kind of definitive smoking gun, and your inability to come up with any other arguments simply demonstrates how little you have to offer in the way of reasoned debate.

[Hacksaw]

No name there. Just wondering.

[E Rocc]

Again using Hillary "standards" to further your one issue(pot) Libertarian cause.

Just because certain statists only choose to respond on one issue doesn't make us "one issue". >:)

-Eric

[Joe Hadenuf]

I think that question has an obvious answer

Why does Ashcroft bring the full weight of the federal government to bear against CA's medical marijuana laws, but allows their gun registration and confiscation programs to go unchallenged?

[MrLeRoy]

I guess you are on the McCain bandwagon of saying money in politics is bad and that the first amendment should be chucked.

Wrong as usual.

I know your next response is that GW signed McCains's Campaign Finance Reform

Wrong yet again; I don't judge actions based on whether GW approved them---he is far from a lodestar of conservatism.

your position that Soros(#1 Hillary friend) is just a minor "cog" in the pro-drug movement

That is not my position. Battling straw men again---typical Drug Warrior.

[MrLeRoy]

Here is Prop 215. Doesn't mention Medical Practitioner, only "physician".

Thanks! That's what I get for taking the word of a Drug Warrior.

[MrLeRoy]

[tacticalogic:] I haven't seen you post anything to back up your assertions that the vast majority of pot smokers are liberal, Ralph Nader worshiping greenie whackos. Did you even bother to look for it?

And I never seen you denounce the #1 moneybags to your pro-drug cause(Hillary friend #1, George Soros).

One is intellectually obligated to support one's claims; one is not intellectually obligated to denounce the wrong ideas of people who happen to share one's right idea on a certain issue. Your squirming and dodging is quite pathetic.

For the record, I am firmly against 99% of what George Soros stands for. But I would no more oppose drug freedom because he supports it than I would stop breathing air because he breathes air.

I guess you all will be getting behind another smarmy and lying southern democrat(John Edwards) like you all did in 92

More baseless assertions. Provide evidence that any drug-freedom advocate supported the Democrat in 1992; I did not.