Fiona Apple Facing Up to 10 Years in Jail Over Texas Marijuana Bust, Sheriff's Department ask her to
153 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;37810990]You've never seen a drug dealer in your life.
Ever.
Stop believing what you see in TV shows and shit.[/QUOTE]
So what your saying is that the hypothetical situation that I posted as a 0% chance of happening, ever. When really, you dont harm anyone directly but contribute to the destruction indirectly
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37809550]Where did I say anything about cops only strictly following the law?[/QUOTE]
It's a required assumption for the following:
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37809550]Cops don't make law, they enforce the law.[/QUOTE]
Which is demonstrably wrong. That would be a valid claim if law enforcement personnel had no lobbyists, had no impact on procedural elements, did not directly shape legislation, and did not outright circumvent the law at times.
However:
-Law enforcement personnel do have lobbyists
-[URL="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/in-lawsuit-police-officers-are-accused-of-ignoring-directive-on-marijuana-arrests/"]Law enforcement personnel do shape procedure[/URL]
-[URL="http://www.coss.fsu.edu/economics/sites/coss.fsu.edu.economics/files/users/bbenson/escalating-stanford.pdf"]Law enforcement personnel do shape legislation[/URL]
-[URL="http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2345&context=dlj"]Law enforcement personnel do outright circumvent the law[/URL]
So you're wrong. Whoop.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37809550]They can and should use discretion while enforcing the law, but this does not do away with the fact that if you want weed to become legal, you'll have to try and change the law, and not direct your anger at the police whom are only doing their job (saying she shouldn't have been arrested is blaming the police for doing their job, instead of blaming a law that should change).[/QUOTE]
That one is "only doing their job" isn't a defense for doing something morally wrong. Ever.
We were supposed to have lost this weird cops-as-lesser-deities mindset during the 60s and 70s when the imperfections of law enforcement became extremely visible, and the studies from the 50s on discretion and its impact on lawmaking matured. This intellectual regression is disturbing.
[QUOTE=areolop;37811255]So what your saying is that the hypothetical situation that I posted as a 0% chance of happening, ever. When really, you dont harm anyone directly but contribute to the destruction indirectly[/QUOTE]
To be fair the marijuana dealers I know are just chill guys supplementing their income. In their case the money is more likely to go to video games and gas.
[QUOTE=Viper202;37808681]So? The law is the law.[/QUOTE]Oh so what you're trying to say is that we shouldn't question whatever bullshit laws the government makes?
[QUOTE=Killer900;37811524]Oh so what you're trying to say is that we shouldn't question whatever bullshit laws the government makes?[/QUOTE]
Is that what he said?
No.
He is saying that the cops are just doing what they are told, and that the law, no matter how you beleive it should/should not be there, is still going to be enforced.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37811382]It's a required assumption for the following:
Which is demonstrably wrong. That would be a valid claim if law enforcement personnel had no lobbyists, had no impact on procedural elements, did not directly shape legislation, and did not outright circumvent the law at times.
However:
-Law enforcement personnel do have lobbyists
-[URL="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/in-lawsuit-police-officers-are-accused-of-ignoring-directive-on-marijuana-arrests/"]Law enforcement personnel do shape procedure[/URL]
-[URL="http://www.coss.fsu.edu/economics/sites/coss.fsu.edu.economics/files/users/bbenson/escalating-stanford.pdf"]Law enforcement personnel do shape legislation[/URL]
-[URL="http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2345&context=dlj"]Law enforcement personnel do outright circumvent the law[/URL]
So you're wrong. Whoop.
That one is "only doing their job" isn't a defense for doing something morally wrong. Ever.
We were supposed to have lost this weird cops-as-lesser-deities mindset during the 60s and 70s when the imperfections of law enforcement became extremely visible, and the studies from the 50s on discretion and its impact on lawmaking matured. This intellectual regression is disturbing.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to read a fucking 30 page pdf, but have you even read the first page of the last link you provided? It's about police misconduct you dolt.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37811382]It's a required assumption for the following:
Which is demonstrably wrong. That would be a valid claim if law enforcement personnel had no lobbyists, had no impact on procedural elements, did not directly shape legislation, and did not outright circumvent the law at times.
However:
-Law enforcement personnel do have lobbyists
-[URL="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/in-lawsuit-police-officers-are-accused-of-ignoring-directive-on-marijuana-arrests/"]Law enforcement personnel do shape procedure[/URL]
-[URL="http://www.coss.fsu.edu/economics/sites/coss.fsu.edu.economics/files/users/bbenson/escalating-stanford.pdf"]Law enforcement personnel do shape legislation[/URL]
-[URL="http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2345&context=dlj"]Law enforcement personnel do outright circumvent the law[/URL]
So you're wrong. Whoop.
That one is "only doing their job" isn't a defense for doing something morally wrong. Ever.
We were supposed to have lost this weird cops-as-lesser-deities mindset during the 60s and 70s when the imperfections of law enforcement became extremely visible, and the studies from the 50s on discretion and its impact on lawmaking matured. This intellectual regression is disturbing.[/QUOTE]
Right, but aren't all these police lobbyists just going to lobby to keep weed illegal because anyone who thinks it should be legal would still have to arrest people for it, and this couldn't be cops?
[QUOTE=areolop;37811255]So what your saying is that the hypothetical situation that I posted as a 0% chance of happening, ever. When really, you dont harm anyone directly but contribute to the destruction indirectly[/QUOTE]
youre a fucking ponce
[QUOTE=areolop;37811255]So what your saying is that the hypothetical situation that I posted as a 0% chance of happening, ever. When really, you dont harm anyone directly but contribute to the destruction indirectly[/QUOTE]
Hey guys I bought a car from some guy but it turned out he was homicidal and used the money to buy guns to shoot up public places. Don't buy cars.
See I can make dumb hypothetical situations too.
[QUOTE=legolover122;37811631]Is that what he said?
No.
He is saying that the cops are just doing what they are told, and that the law, no matter how you beleive it should/should not be there, is still going to be enforced.[/QUOTE]Oh shit my bad, I thought he was saying how we shouldn't question the laws made up. That was bad reading on my part.
[QUOTE=areolop;37809579]
The smoke from weed has been linked to MANY [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1212284]terrible[/url] things
That weed you just bought just increased some kids chances of having a defect later in life (and your own).
[editline]26th September 2012[/editline]
She wont get anything even close to 10 years[/QUOTE]
little timmy died of ball cancer from weed smoke
1 sniff is deadly![URL="http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dunce-cap.jpg"]![/URL]
[QUOTE=Viper202;37808681]So? The law is the law.[/QUOTE]
The law in Nazi Germany was to turn in your Jewish neighbors. Basically this is the same thing. I'm being super serious FYI.
[QUOTE=areolop;37809579]There are a lot of "stupid laws" but they still are the law, like it or not and you are expected to follow the rules set by society or face the consequences.
Look at this whole "doesnt affect anyone thing"
The weed you just bought from the dealer costed you $50.
The dealer now uses that $50 and combines it with his other $500 to buy a stolen gun
That gun is then used to shoot someone.
There you go. You buying that weed just killed someone.
or lets look at it from the buyers view:
You buy weed for $50
Thats $50 less then you had
Thats one less tank of gas
You committed a crime
You then go and smoke it in a public place (but for personal use)
Some child gets second-hand smoke
The smoke from weed has been linked to MANY [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1212284]terrible[/url] things
That weed you just bought just increased some kids chances of having a defect later in life (and your own).
[editline]26th September 2012[/editline]
She wont get anything even close to 10 years[/QUOTE]
i bet you think pot dealers are like those black guys from gta san andreas with the black beanie hat, the gold chain, the black tank top, etc
[QUOTE=Viper202;37808681]So? The law is the law.[/QUOTE]
Would you be saying that if you lived in the middle east and the law was to cut off both her hands ?
Religious Extremists : Their holy-book :: Recreational marijuana users : Legalising marijuana
[editline]no[/editline]
Rating me dumb is only supporting my analogy
[QUOTE=Ern;37813297]Religious Extremists : Their holy-book :: Recreational marijuana users : Legalising marijuana
[editline]no[/editline]
Rating me dumb is only supporting my analogy[/QUOTE]
No you get rated dumb for making a dumb post, your analogy doesn't make any sense.
[QUOTE=Dori;37808268]possession of marijuana affects literally nobody[/QUOTE]
it's called a victimless crime and mala prohibita.
[QUOTE=Yumyumbublegum;37813483]No you get rated dumb for making a dumb post, your analogy doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]
You guys defend legalising a substance like a Christian extremist would defend the Bible.
Is that so hard to understand?
The dumbs support the analogy because neither of you accept any sort of criticism.
[QUOTE=Ern;37813551]You guys defend legalising a substance like a Christian extremist would defend the Bible.
Is that so hard to understand?
The dumbs support the analogy because neither of you accept any sort of criticism.[/QUOTE]
Just accept the boxes.
[QUOTE=Ern;37813551]You guys defend legalising a substance like a Christian extremist would defend the Bible.
Is that so hard to understand?
The dumbs support the analogy because neither of you accept any sort of criticism.[/QUOTE]
The dumbs are there because the way you wrote it makes no sense, even though you phrased it so it made sense, it's still a terrible analogy. I'm not going to go to open that can of worms though.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37809550]Where did I say anything about cops only strictly following the law? Cops don't make law, they enforce the law. Which is correct. They can and should use discretion while enforcing the law, but this does not do away with the fact that if you want weed to become legal, you'll have to try and change the law, and not direct your anger at the police whom are [B]only doing their job[/B] (saying she shouldn't have been arrested is blaming the police for doing their job, instead of blaming a law that should change).[/QUOTE]
yeah this sucks and is stupid and you should stop saying it forever
"dont get mad at the ______, get mad at the guy who paid him"
now a word exercise, fill in the gap with any other detestable act and see how it holds up. sample keywords listed below:
- hitman
- kidnapper
- thief
- arsonist
- hacker
just because you get paid to do something shitty and immoral doesn't mean its right, so stop acting like police/military/anyone is immune to criticism just because someone is writing them a paycheck to be a shitty person
I have no idea who this chick is.
[QUOTE=areolop;37811255]So what your saying is that the hypothetical situation that I posted as a 0% chance of happening, ever. When really, you dont harm anyone directly but contribute to the destruction indirectly[/QUOTE]
Keep your slippery slope bullshit elsewhere.
what is it with everyone in here having such a hard on for authority
[QUOTE=areolop;37809579]There are a lot of "stupid laws" but they still are the law, like it or not and you are expected to follow the rules set by society or face the consequences.
Look at this whole "doesnt affect anyone thing"
The weed you just bought from the dealer costed you $50.
The dealer now uses that $50 and combines it with his other $500 to buy a stolen gun
That gun is then used to shoot someone.
There you go. You buying that weed just killed someone.
or lets look at it from the buyers view:
You buy weed for $50
Thats $50 less then you had
Thats one less tank of gas
You committed a crime
You then go and smoke it in a public place (but for personal use)
Some child gets second-hand smoke
The smoke from weed has been linked to MANY [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1212284]terrible[/url] things
That weed you just bought just increased some kids chances of having a defect later in life (and your own).
[editline]26th September 2012[/editline]
She wont get anything even close to 10 years[/QUOTE]
tell me this is a joke please fuckin tell me its a joke
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37813963]just because you get paid to do something shitty and immoral doesn't mean its right,[/QUOTE]
Oh get off your cross and stop acting like cops are fascists for arresting someone taking drugs across a border.
[QUOTE=areolop;37811255]So what your saying is that the hypothetical situation that I posted as a 0% chance of happening, ever. When really, you dont harm anyone directly but contribute to the destruction indirectly[/QUOTE]
shut up shut up SHUT UP
even if your slippery slope bullshit was even a little bit feasible it has literally no relevancy to the war on drugs because it can be applied to anything. don't buy a used car!! he might use the money to buy drugs! don't shop at the grocery store, or the clerk might get their paycheck and go on a killing spree
[editline]27th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Paramud;37814094]Oh get off your cross and stop acting like cops are fascists for arresting someone taking drugs across a border.[/QUOTE]
you don't need to be on a cross to realize ruining people's lives for drug possession is fucked up dude
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37814113]you don't need to be on a cross to realize ruining people's lives for drug possession is fucked up dude[/QUOTE]
She's a celebrity who can easily afford a lawyer that will likely get her almost no punishment.
her life RUIIINED!!!!1
[QUOTE=Paramud;37814131]She's a celebrity who can easily afford a lawyer that will likely get her almost no punishment.
her life RUIIINED!!!!1[/QUOTE]
yes because every kid who gets arrested and sent to jail for marijuana possession is bursting at the seams with money to hire a lawyer and get a reduced sentence (and to wipe a drug possession charge from their criminal record) you monkey
why is everyone fawning over this?
i'm not a Fiona Apple fan at all but you do realize there's potential misconduct going on here?
and i think it's quite strange that this weird dude who came out of literally no-where suddenly becomes a major news story because he said something mean to Fiona Apple.
seriously, fuck TMZ.
[editline]26th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Paramud;37814131]She's a celebrity [/QUOTE]
she's a minor indie musician who's last "hit" was in 1996 hardly a celebrity.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.