I don't get why you would favor legalization only after federal laws make it legal. Also don't understand people that drink alcohol but have such a problem with people smoking weed. I've never awakened to a splitting headache and dizziness that made me throw up from smoking a joint before, I've never heard of people smoking so much weed that they die while I've had people close to me die from consuming too much alcohol. You should try it, it might make you realize how stupid it is that it's illegal while alcohol is still legal(not to mention the people killed and hurt in drug wars, the insane amount of people in jail, etc, etc).
It's called HYPOCRISY! Especially as you point out that the author here seems to celebrate ingestion of alcohol.
Another piece of hypocrisy is for this author to chide others in some contexts for not having an "expert opinion" yet the author here openly admits not having ANY firsthand knowledge on the subject here. Seems he is just saying "marijuana should be illegal because I SAY SO!" One would think you Capitalists_Nightmare would be the expert here as you have said in the past that you were heavily involved with marijuana directly in both the sense of a user and distributer.
Also interestingly hypocritical is that this same author in the past has advocated for state's rights yet seems to conveniently ignore that principle now that state's are exercising that right counter to the author's own personal bias.
The drug war in America is an analogous to modern slavery. I would love to have a discussion regarding that, but , I feel this particular blog would not be the place for such rationality.
You are always vague and shady in regards to your "law enforcement" past. What are your credintials?
You either can't read or have a horrible memory. I have never been 'vague or shady' regarding my credentials. You obviously have confused me with crimeriddendump.
For most of my adult life I have been employed in military or civilian law enforcement. I spent 21 years in the USAF Security Police field as a law enforcement specialist, supervisor, and manager. I graduated form the SP Academy and completed all of the rigorous training standards required. With the exception of K-9 handler, I held every position available within law enforcement at numerous assignments at California installations and many locations overseas.
Prior to retiring from the USAF, I completed a California approved POST academy in order to be a sworn police officer. I worked for a year on patrol for a small police department in the foothills, then was hired as a correctional officer and deputy sheriff for a foothill county.
In 1997, I was hired by a central valley community police department where I worked special assignments and patrol until I retired in December 2011. I am currently a free-lance investigator and consultant on traffic collision investigation and accident reconstruction.
Pretty vague, huh.....
“The only source of knowledge is experience” - Albert Einstein
“There's no substitute for experience” - Proverb
I'm sorry you don't get it, but I am old-fashioned. Marijuana is illegal under federal law. If California wants to legalize it, I would only consider legalization if it were not illegal under federal law. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept to grasp.
I personally don't care what good you get from smoking marijuana. I don't care if you get blitzed on alcohol, as long as you don't try and drive. I've been enforcing marijuana and other drug laws my whole life. I'm not about to change my opinion and my mind just on your say so. I've seen the harm caused by alcohol consumption and by consuming marijuana. I'll take my experience over yours any day.
What may seem stupid to you is common sense to many others. It doesn't really matter, after all, it's just my opinion, right?
“Of course drugs were fun. And that's what's so stupid about anti-drug campaigns: they don't admit that. I can't say I feel particularly scarred or lessened by my experimentation with drugs. They've gotten a very bad name.” - Anjelica Huston
“I tried marijuana once. I did not inhale.” - Bill Clinton
Your credentials are just as vague as the ones I presented in the past. Yet, you feel everyone should accept yours without question and attack mine. VERY hypocritical. Besides that, how do any of the supposed credentials you present have anything to do with medical, social, or any other factor that would matter in this case?
It would seem like your only position here is again the "Because I say so" routine and the hypocritical postion of putting being a states rights advocate and conveniently abandoning that position here.
It's sad that you feel your baseless opinion trumps not only everyone else's but actual facts as well. I don't see why you bother posting if you are not interested in what other think. Again, seems close minded and obstinate if you ask me.
Lol what happened to states rights Bull. It would be great if it were legal on a federal level so places like Oaksterdam don't get raided anymore, I understand it's a weird situation itself. But if it was up for a vote in congress, a bill legalizing consumption of weed casually, would you support it? I'd hope so.
But I'm a pretty casual drinker/smoker, don't do it that often anymore, not like I used to where being sober for five days was a miracle. Haven't spent money on weed in months. But from personal experience alcohol is just so much worse than smoking. I get drunk and want to do crazy stupid crap, I get high and it's like who wants to chill and listen to Radiohead? Black Ops anyone? And it really helps relax you. And when I'm drunk I'll smoke right before going to bed and I won't have a hangover. Take NYE, got drunk off my butt, drank more than anybody there, rolled a blunt and smoked it right before going to bed with a friend. No hangover in the morning, everybody else is dying, throwing up in the toilet, the tub, etc, while me and a friend are out eating breakfast. But they didn't want to smoke because weed is bad, LOL! Plus dreams are so much cooler high haha.
And your condescending attitude to smokers is funny, just too high to care huh, stupid stoners can't think. Tell that to my friend Carl Sagan.
Some people don't like smoking weed, gives them bad experiences, makes them anxious, makes their heart race, etc. there's a simple solution for those people, just don't smoke it.
States rights all the way one second and Federal LAw is suddenly gospel the next. Funny how the blog author here had the exact OPPOSITE reaction in regards to Arizona's illegal immigration laws ...
Oh well, apparently some have a major problem with hypocrisy
You sound like you just smoked a doobie, but I don't care. Condescending? Not really. If you want to fry your brains with booze or muddle it with dope It doesn't bother me. I take responsibility for my actions. I wish everyone would.
If you want to smoke weed, go ahead. If there are consequences, so be it. If you want to get drunk, go ahead. If there are any consequences, so be it. Whatever you do is fine with me until it affects me... Then I'll do what I need to do in order to mitigate the circumstances. That's life... get used to it.
“It is easy to ignore responsibility when one is only an intermediate link in a chain of action.” - Stanley Milgram
“We're in a fight for our principles and our first responsibility is to live by them.” - George W. Bush
It's funny how pointing out one's blatant flaws makes them to further demonstrate their hypocracy, arrogance, selfcenteredness, and utter lack of reasoning.
Lol I wish I was smoking a doobie, I have a headache from typing my last response while on a car ride. Yeah it can help with headaches. Not really condescending? Your first response was "you sound like you just smoked a doobie" which is very condescending, your whole post reeks of "stoners are stupid". Which is kind of funny because I can make perfectly sound arguments while I'm high, it's not like getting drunk(you wouldn't know though would you).
I do take responsibility for my actions. The thing is these consequences for consuming weed are ridiculous. I mean you can sit there and say that I could do whatever I want but that there's consequences and I'll agree but the point of the discussion was those consequences right? As it stands today I can go over to my friends house crack open a few beers and watch the games and the consequence may be feeling bad in the morning, if that. But if I were to go to my friends house, light up a joint or two and watch the game my whole life could be ruined. I could be thrown in jail, fired from my job, all that crap for the harmless crime of smoking/carrying weed with some friends. The consequences are disproportionally bad for the "crime" committed. That's why we need to legalize it.
"So be it" has to be the lamest excuse for the failing drug war ever. "So be it" your mother or father are in prison, "so be it" your dead because you spoke out against drug cartels getting rich off of criminalizing marijuana.
With almost 500,000 responses now recorded, 46% favor legalizing the 'evil weed' while 40% object. The remaining 14% either think it should be decided by the states, or just don't care.
While not scientific by any means, it does show what half a million Americans feel about legalizing marijuana. 40% of your neighors and friends don't think legaliziation is a good thing, and less than half are for it. Seems that it isn't such a 'cut and dried' or really great thing after all, despite your personal positive experience.
“Look, just in the context of school, we know that marijuana negatively affects concentration, focus, memory and retention. Hello out there? Concentration, focus, memory and retention. If you were in school, arguably, concentration, focus, memory and retention are important things.” - Unknown
“I talked to Snoop doggy dogg today. Well I'm not sure if you could realy call it talked because I could hardly understand what he was saying. But I think he was trying to communicate was that he wanted to work with me in some sort of capacity and something involving marijuana.” - Marilyn Manson
So are you saying that if 46% - or less - feel that if Officer Moody was justified in shooting Ernest Duenez Jr. then it would not be "a 'cut and dried' or really great thing after all, despite your personal positive" take on the situation?
Again, amazing how hypocritical you can be. Are you saying popular opinion does not matter or it does? I can't tell anymore as you constantly change you "beliefs."
I fail to realize your point, especially considering more people were for legalization instead of criminalization. Remember you're talking to the guy who gets his views not based on if it's popular or not. You obviously can't argue in favor of criminalization so all you could do is show us a poll where marijuana obviously won, makes sense I guess.
I had always thought that marijuana was a drug that's as bad for you as all the other drugs out there ,I've seen kids on it and they'd seem to have no life in them just seemingly drifting through everything school,work,life,no interest in much.
I suppose like most things if you use in excess this is the result.
Alcohol will do pretty much the same thing look at people who drink too much it certainly isn't good for them.
I don't believe the war on drugs will ever be won,I've talked to a couple of the Manteca Police Officers and it really isn't the minor marijuana users that they focus on much anymore I would think their mostly after people who are doing crank,cocaine ,heroin .
I'm not saying marijuana is good for you either but I think it's time to reevaluate what is more likely to do greater harm from more dangerous drugs.
Maybe I have also changed my outlook because it's possible somewhere down the road I myself might have to contemplate a decision to use marijuana for my glaucoma ,I've had this eye disease for 26 years I've been on all the drops that they have,I've had several types of laser treatments and everything they do seems to have a limit of how long it works to keep my eye pressure at an acceptable range.
Some of the drops I've used have had serious side effects ,luckily there has been others to replace the ones I can't tolerate.
My point is there may come a time there isn't any new drops to use ,and laser treatments can only be performed so many times,surgery will be a last option as I only have one eye that has ok vision and no matter how careful things can and do go wrong with surgery it's a high risk for someone who has only one eyed vision.
So marijuana may be a only choice someday I simply don't know, I don't want to feel like a criminal if I have to use it.
I've never used marijuana but for my eyesight I feel I would.
I know that it's permissible to use it for medical reasons,yet the ones who do are usually made to feel by society as tho they're drug addicts for even having to use it.
There are legitimate medical reasons to use it for many people look at people fighting cancer or aids who have no appetites I understand that marijuana stimulates the appetite .It is also used to help critical pain.
All I'm saying is maybe marijuana needs to be looked at differently ,maybe people using it for occasional recreational use isn't something we should be as worried about as the other drugs out there alcohol being one of them.I'm not saying people should ,or kids should go around stoned all the time either.
Excess in anything is wrong.
This is just something I've been thinking on for the last year or so,it's just my opinion tho so............
First, I'm sorry about your vision issues. My wife has severely impaired vision in one eye, and I have had to have cataract surgery. My sister suffers from glaucoma, so I have an understanding of your situation. I hope you can find some resolution, eyesight is such a precious commodity.
I have always felt that medical marijuana - legitimate medical marijuana - use should be allowed. There are all sorts of studies and papers out there, but from what I know it does have properties that are beneficial for medical treatment.
Recreationally, that's a whole 'nother matter. Look, we already have people that abuse legitimate drugs for recreational purposes. We also have abuse of other non-medical drugs. So, go ahead and add another one, who cares who is out there staggering around higher than a kite, or driving on the road you share, or building the house you are going to buy.
I am against legalization. I will always be against legalization. That is my choice. If the federal government wants to legalize it, fine. If the state wants to legalize it after the feds do, fine. If people want to smoke dope for recreational purposes, fine. I choose not to. That is what freedom is about.
You will have my support if you decide to use marijuana for medical reasons. If you just want to feel good, you won't until it is legalized. It is a simple concept, and one that all of us have their own opinion on.
No matter what you decide, I truly hope that you are able to find relief. No one should have to suffer with pain.
“There is no medicine like hope, no incentive so great, and no tonic so powerful as expectation of something better tomorrow” - Orison Swett Marden
“No one ever injured his eyesight by looking on the bright side of things” - Unknown
It is the studies that show that using marijuana for glaucoma to lower the eye pressure is my interest ,pain I can tolerate to a very high degree ,but it would be the pressure lowering that would be the greatest benefit ,after all it's the high pressure that destroys the nerve.Many people can have high pressure within their eyes and not feel any pain each person is different,this is why glaucoma can be a silent disease that without close monitoring can rob your eyesight without many symptoms.
I also fear the smoking of marijuana due to lung cancer ,its like a catch 22 if I do it to save my eyesight I could get lung cancer..
I don't advocate people using it to get high,but I also know that right now people are out there driving and working and doing all kinds of things while possibly under the in*fluence of alcohol ,prescription drugs ,and goodness knows what else.
And marijuana as well.Thus far the law is having a hard time ,people are still using it ,still obtaining it.
The issue of whether it should be legal or not will be discussed for along time to come,it is a very serious subject that every person has a strong opinion on you can see by the reactions in the forum each time this topic comes up :)
I never thought in my lifetime that I would think that the use of marijuana would be acceptable in any way ,but my own situation has made me step back and have to look with a different perspective I believe.
The fear in a Democracy is that the majority will put restrictions on the liberties of the minority.
Consuming marijuana falls under civil liberties, and are something that this country was founded on. Every law written to restrict the populous grows and further empowers the government. The consumption of this herb has no effect on others any more that any other intoxicant such as alcohol or nicotine does. We have seen the prohibition argument fail big time in the past and there is no reason to believe it didn't fail here as well.
As it has been said in the past, your liberties end where mine begin. If I am not restricting your rights, then stay out of mine.
Unlike Conservatives, I don't believe in a big overbearing government providing us with a nanny state. I don't need to be protected from myself, especially by those who fear everything.
The is a subject that Dan Carlin just spoke on in his "Common Sense" podcast. It is a short one, and it is suggested listening: www.dancarlin.com.
Then there is the Corporate angle, as long as it is made by a corporation it is good, but if it is holistic it is bad. As long as Rush was taking a corporately made drug, that he took for recreational reasons, he gets a slap on the wrist, but someone with an once of weed can be looking at time.
My favorite bumper sticker said: Man made beer, and god made pot, who are you going to trust?
I'm really starting to get confused now. Showing polls were people favor marijuana and then saying they say people DON'T favor it seems a bit off. Also, we have contradicting comments like:
"I have always felt that medical marijuana - legitimate medical marijuana - use should be allowed."
Quickly followed by:
"I am against legalization. I will always be against legalization."
WHICH IS IT??
All this hypocrisy and double talk is making my head spin. Seems this poster has no idea what he is talking about.
Like many things, it helps to get facts rather than extrapolate from imagination or prejudice:
First, medical marijuana has numerous non-smokable delivery methods such as pills and other ingestibles as well as topical oils and vapor delivery. All have zero impact on lung function.
Second, some brands of medical marijuana are concentrated into oils that have had the negative "getting-high" element removed only leaving the medically beneficial compounds.
Finally, there is scientific evidence that suggests marijuana FIGHTS CANCER - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles... .
Just a bit of clarification.
Guess in the movies old ladies baking Brownies with marijuana wasn't just comedy :)
Shows how much I know about marijuana
Hello folks. Yes I am still lurking, although I do not post since I firmly believe that as a local blog, the content should come from the good people who still live in Lathrop/Manteca.
However I would like to remind everyone of an often overlooked point in the whole marijuana debate. The original laws against marijuana were as much rooted in pure racism as they were in public safety.
Marijuana laws are the last remaining vestige of Jim Crow, and have absolutely no place in 21st century America. The fact is that through the 1920's, both cocaine and marijuana were legal. Cocaine was given to black dockworkers in Alabama as a stimulant to keep them working. Musicians like Cab Calloway and Louis Armstrong were regular marijuana users. The story goes that Armstrong smoked regularly almost until the day he died.
If we ignore the constitutional question of exactly what empowers the federal government to criminalize non commerical agriculture conducted solely on private property, we are still left with the ugly history of this country which is the real foundation of marijuana laws. There is a wealth of material available on the role that racial hatred played in the formulation of American drug laws. This pithy quote from Franklin Roosevelt's head of the Bureau of Narcotics is just the tip of the iceberg.
take care everyone.. I will be lurking....
: "... most are Negroes, Hispanics,
Filipinos, and entertainers. Their
Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result
from marijuana use. This marijuana
causes white women to seek sexual
relations with Negroes, entertainers,
and any others."
Bull what you don't seem to understand is weed is regularly used by tons of people already. "Add another to the list"?! LOL, bro, it's been on the list for decades! People are already "staggering around high as a kite," etc, whether it's illegal or not! And we're talking about one of the least addictive, least harmful, drugs out there. How many times you hear about someone overdosing on marijuana? 0. Because it's impossible. You'd have to literally smoke tons of weed in a very short time span to overdose on marijuana, an impossible feat. You're more likely to get addicted to alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, cocaine, meth, etc, then marijuana. Withdraws from marijuana are not severe, you're not going to have a stroke, you're not going to be throwing up, you're not going to die, you might have some memory loss for a couple days(if you smoke on an everyday basis for years). Plus you already admit that it has legitimate medical uses. What is so bad about it that you will have your life turned upside down for having an ounce of it?
There are negative effects to it, studies show that kids who are developing still should not smoke weed, at least not on a regular basis, or else it can slow down or stop some development in some parts of the brain. This is true for just about every drug, a reason why there would be an age limit.
So what's the reasoning? Propaganda, you were taught way back when that drugs are bad, people that smoke pot are bad/losers, and you'll stick to your guns no matter what kind of information comes forward against the bs we are taught. That's called being close-minded.
Rozemist, yeah there are tons of products out there made with weed in them, you don't just have to smoke it. There's weed beer, weed hot sauce, weed cookies, weed suckers, weed brownies, weed chocolate bars, weed pills, etc, etc. I could go on and on the list is so long of the number of ways you can consume marijuana. You can basically get it down to a sort of paste and put it in practically anything. And they will mess you up. You can smoke for 30 minutes and have a pretty cool high but you could also just eat a weed cookie and get totally stoned. They usually kick in after about 30 minutes, a lot of people just eat a lot of cookies(or whatever, brownies, suckers, etc) the first time they try edibles because they don't feel it as quickly as smoking it and get way too stoned. So you have to be careful about that, do it smartly. Eat some, wait 30-45 minutes and eat more if you're not as high as you want.
As an addendum to the above, there are also medicinal marijuana products specifically designed NOT to 'mess you up' or get you 'stoned' but only deliver medicine.
Oh, my friend... I do understand marijuana is used by many people already. That's one reason Washington and Colorado approved recreational use and California tried. I've hauled in more than a fair share of the populace for being under the in*fluence of weed - and to be fair, other things - so I do understand. If it is in fact such a beneficial drug and we are such an enlightened society, why hasn't the federal government changed the law? Society makes the laws and society changes the laws. Until they do weed is an illegal substance and I will treat it that way, just as you choose not to.
Unlike you, I have seen the damage marijuana can do. I have pulled mangled bodies out of cars when one driver was stoned only on pot. I've had to tell a parent their child isn't coming home because she was on a water tower with friends smoking weed and fell off. So, while booze and other drugs are more harmful, marijuana isn't always the harmless high some people proclaim
Call me closed-minded, I don't care. Smoke your weed, get high, suffer the consequences. It makes no difference to me. Just like many things in life, I choose not to embrace marijuana. I'm just an old fashioned closed-minded fellow, I guess.
“I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” - Robert A. Heinlein
“If you want children to keep their feet on the ground, put some responsibility on their shoulders.” - Abigail Van Buren
So now suddenly a state's rights advocate is championing Federal supremacy? So I'm confused. When do you choose to advocate state's rights and when Federal supremacy? Does your opinion changed based on your subjective opinion on the issue rather than objectively looking at the law? Seems incredibly hypocritical and not at all what "law enforcement" should be doing.
"Call me closed-minded, I don't care. Smoke your weed, get high, suffer the consequences" - This would be true with alcohol, nicotine, food, gambling, sex, driving, and just about any other human endeavor that when consumed, or acted upon, to an extreme will suffer consequences of one degree or another. It still does not make it the business of the government, or busy bodies who want to control others.
This is why we have liberties in this country, because we want to live our lives as we see fit, and not have to conform to the whims of the fearful.
Everything done to an extreme is harmful, especially politics. If obesity is one of the main reason for bad health and early death, why aren't you advocating for the elimination of junk food... oh yeah, corporately made junk food.
"I've had to tell a parent their child isn't coming home because she was on a water tower with friends smoking weed and fell off." - So, you are insinuating that smoking pot caused this child to climb a water tower? Is this one of those 1960s propaganda stories? The kid did what juveniles do, they do dangerous things that sometimes end up bad, like climbing a water tower without safety equipment. I guess this story needs the pot smoking thrown in to show that it makes reasonable people do unreasonable things.
Bull, you are a drama queen.
You can call me a drama queen all you want, I think you're just being an ass.
You want to do whatever you want and to hell with society. Fine. Pack your bags, move to an island somewhere and you can do as you see fit. As long as you are a member of our society, however, you should abide by societal norms. If the law changes and pot is legalized, fine. Meanwhile don't get in a hissy fit because others don't agree. You want to smoke dope, go ahead. Just quit cmplaining because I don't.
You are right, kids do dumb things both under the in*fluence of garbage and not. Kids fall onto freeways painting graffiti - not all smoke weed. Kids climb towers and fall, not always smoking weed. In this particular case however, it was the daughter of a well known NCO on base who had just graduated from high school and she with some friends decided to climb onto the base water tower and smoke some weed while watching the sky, the moon, and the stars. They may well have done it without smoking dope, but the fact remains they did. Contrary to what you want people to believe, marijuana isn't always harmless.
I will advocate for and against what I wish, just as you do. Reasonable people do unreasonable things for a lot of reasons - drama queen or not.
“A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day.” - Bill Watterson
Marijuana isn't always harmless(I pointed that out didn't I), but your examples are ridiculous. Weed doesn't make you drive, weed doesn't make you climb water towers. People do these things without getting high and die doing these things without getting high. By your logic we should be banning cell phones. I could see it now, "I had to pull a girls mangled body out of wrecked car because she was texting while driving. Cell phones are dangerous!" You shouldn't be driving while high, nobody is saying you should, just like nobody is advocating drinking and driving. Why don't you call for the criminalization of alcohol though considering these types of things accure way more often to people who are drunk?
We're an enlightened society? I don't think so, as anthony pointed out these drug laws were passed because of pure racism. The federal government doesn't represent me, it doesn't represent us, it doesn't work on the basis of popular opinion. Society changes laws? What does that even mean? The government is part of society, and government changes laws but it's not the broad mass of the people that change these laws. Majority of people support increasing taxes on the rich, support not cutting SS, Medicare, Medicaid, support cutting spending to the military, support ending the war in Afghanistan, support a more equitable income distribution, etc, etc.
Roze, my sister-in-law was a lot like you, severe eye problems but was scared of the evil weed. I gave her some brownies (Medical issue) and she found relief where she didn't before. Try it, it won't do you any harm to try. With your medical problems it should be rather easy to get a Medical Card. Please don't listen to the doom and gloom people, it's your health and your pain, not theirs.
Wow "accure" should be "occure", there should also be an "a" in between "wrecked" and "car". I often make grammar mistakes while typing from my phone :/
Very good point! Cell phones in a car would be just a dangerous as being intoxicated climbing a tower.
So far seems the only reasoning presented here so far by one poster has been hypocrisy.
Bull, it sounds like you are already living on an island in the middle of America. So quick to invite the masses to leave when it is you that don't fit in. It's a slow pace, but liberties have always won in the end, and when it does, we hear the fringe on the right whine that they are loosing their country.
You can leave at any time and we won't be any worse off. If you haven't noticed, your societal norms are not norms but temporary barriers to the liberties that we are guaranteed as Americans. It's obvious you are into controlling others with your societal norms, but as you continue to see from the feed back that you receive that we aren't accepting your view of norm. Its that way across the country as your repressive movement is dying out at a hurrying pace.
It's obvious that you are an extremist since you hyperin.flate the stance of anyone who counters your repressive statements. You have no sense of moderation, but what can one expect dealing with the conservative fringe.
Don't you see the irony in the fact that conservative cry about big government yet they are all in favor of giving it more power over us instead of us having more power over the government? Very unAmerican, very conservative.
Today's MSN unscientific poll question deals with 'Happy Hours'... Now, in my lifetime I have enjoyed my share of low priced drinks during said happy hours, both in military clubs and in the civilian environment. Perhaps I am biased.
The question is "Do you feel happy hours should be regulated across the US?"
First, my answer. I think each state should decide its own policies. Consumption of alcohol is legal, but there are some counties that restrict the purchase and consumption. Since it is a matter of commerce, I think it should be left up to the states to decide.
With some 182,000 responses so far, 45% feel happy hours should be legal everywhere. 41% of the respondents voted that each state should decide. Only 11% feel happy hours should be illegal everywhere, and 3% - probably patrons - don't know.
Happy hours are incentives to get patrons into establishments. As with anything, it doesn't negate personal responsibility to have a designated driver or call a taxi if one imbibes too much during these activities.
“Alcohol is necessary for a man so that he can have a good opinion of himself, undisturbed be the facts.” - Finley Peter Dunne
“The intermediate stage between socialism and capitalism is alcoholism” - Norman Brenner
I didn't invite the masses to do anything, I simply pointed out that you have that option should you wish to take it.
Say what you want about societal norms, you make assumptions that may not be accurate. Neither one of us can speak for the majority of Americans. We can postulate an opinion that more Americans may believe one way or another, but in the end, the truth is you have your opinion, I have mine, and every one else has theirs. There are over 300 million Americans. There is no way either of us can say what they think societal norms are. In fact, norms change from geographic area to geographic area and by the make up of the population in any given locale. For every outspoken individual there may be a hundred others who are the silent majority, who believe in basics and don't get involved in blogs, chat rooms, and discussions. Neither one of us can speak for them.
You mention feedback. On some issues I accept the feedback doesn't support my position. OK, so what. It is still my opinion. There will always be people who disagree with my view of societal norms. Just like others condemn Officer Moody's actions, he has been proven justified by an investigation by experts. That doesn't stop idiots from continuing their diatribe that Officer Moody was wrong. I don't care, people are going to be morons no matter what. I venture to say there are people out there who hold that opinion of me. That's OK, too.
I am conservative. You can use it like an insult, that's fine as well. Don't accuse me of being un-American though. You know why. You can say I am wrong, that I am bull headed, that I don't know what I am talking about all you want - that's fine. But to call me un-American, that just proves what I said earlier. You are just being an ass.
“Every man is a fool in some man's opinion” - Spanish Proverb
“There are certain times when public opinion is the worst of all opinions.” - Sébastien-Roch Nicolas De Chamfort
You are not unamerican, you just represent the worst traditions of this country. From your unbending defense of the powerful against the powerless, your closed-mind, your condescending attitude. Call us stupid or idiots for not accepting the "expert opinions" but I'm not going to trust pigs investigating pigs, especially ones I know to be corrupt.
Your post is FILLED to the brim with HYPOCRISY!
"[Moody's actions have] been proven justified by an investigation by experts. That doesn't stop idiots from continuing their diatribe that Officer Moody was wrong."
So, using your statement here, does that make you an "idiot" "continuing [your] diatribe that" The Journal News "was wrong" for publishing gun owners addresses even though the publication was "justified?"
"There is no way either of us can say what they think societal norms are. In fact, norms change from geographic area to geographic area and by the make up of the population in any given locale"
So now you are advocating for STATE and LOCAL rights over the Federal government when earlier you said the exact OPPOSITE and saying you favored laws exclusively endorsed by the Federal Government. Which one is it Bull153?
You here - and main argument - come from a POLL you mention from the MSN homepage. NOw suddenly you are talking about " the silent majority????? " How convient of you to invent this "silent majority" that agrees with you completely.
WHICH IS IT Bull153? Polls on MSN, or your imaginary " silent majority?"
Capitalists_Nightmare hit the nail on the head; you are not un-American, you just represent the worst of this country. HYPOCRISY is a terrible trait. I hope you are able to rid yourself of it sooner rather than later.
"Thank you for playing 'Who's Opinion Matters Most!'... Sorry you didn't qualify for the final round, see the nice lady in the corner for your consolation prize - today either a mirror in which to look at yourself, or a copy of our famous take home game...."
"We'll be right back after a word from our sponsor!"
“The unity of freedom has never relied on uniformity of opinion” - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
“I'm not sure I want popular opinion on my side -- I've noticed those with the most opinions often have the fewest facts.” - Bethania McKenstry
Somebody must have bought the book, "1,001 Quotes Nobody Cares About"
Speaking of people caring, did anybody catch Frank Aquilla's latest letter to the Editor today: "Made Up Facts To Amuse Almost Everybody".??
Karen, I think it's your turn to beat this guy down some...:-)
I think Frank Aquilla is now irrelevant. It is clear that he - like the author of this blog - thinks his imagination is superior to reality. I still don't understand why the Bulletin continues to publish his garbage.
I'm surprised he isn't moving to "Australia" as well ...
Crime....yes, we all know that but I just hate for his crap to go UN-answered.
Like his choice for VP last time around (Remember he took credit for that pick), I doubt he even knows where Australia is located. :-)
You know that really hurt my feelings Bull. I feel depressed now. Instead of being unhealthy and getting drunk I think I'll be healthy about it and go eat this weed chocalate candy bar.
I just don't know what to do with my life anymore, we're about to enter a depressing two months of debating what to cut, thousands of children die everyday from preventable diseases and starvation, Bull doesn't care what I think, what is there to live for?
I hated it up time recently when I realized that 99% of everything Frank has ever predicted has been absolutely false and his misrepresentations of facts are continually laughable. The shame is that the Bulletin dosen't seem to care and maybe hopes they can get a few bucks from the five or six extreme right-wing supporters that read the same Alex Jones articles Frank plagiarizes from.
People like Frank seem to want to keep repeating lies not seemingly to convince others, but to simply convince THEMSELVES that their invented reality and prejudices are still valid. Just look at the author of this blog trying to quickly replace any pictures of people protesting the proliferation of violence with ominous police stock photos. Same thing.
So long as a organization embraces ignorance like it has with Frank Aquila, it will never be successful.
Hello LarryBaca, Read revengeofmomo's blog rebuttal to Aquila's letter for a concise deconstruction of Aquila's assertions. As for me, I am satisfied with the headline chosen for Aquila's letter which states, "American know have a much thinner wallet". Ha! That is the PERFECT headline to introduce the letter since, by making no sense WHATSOEVER, it sets the tone for what is to follow. I suppose we can just excuse the headline as a series of unfortunate typos, but I prefer to think of it as a Freudian slip reflecting the nonsense of the letter's contents. Sincerely, Karen
Frank has become a side show for the local papers that tend to the more fringe elements in the valley. It's almost become satire. Makes me wonder how anyone can follow a person who is consistently wrong. Well, at least he is consistent.
I find Dennis Wyatt's opinion pieces to be almost as bad as Frank's. Take his recent piece on a Democrats plan to make a homeless bill of rights.
While I'll admit that Dennis Wyatt often does have an agenda, not all his pieces are without merit. You cite a perfect example. There is already class warfare being pushed by the liberal agenda. Tell me why the homeless need a bill of rights? They already have the same rights as the rest of us... what do they need that this 'homeless bill of rights' is supposed to give them?
“People who are homeless are not social inadequates. They are people without homes.” - Sheila McKechnie
Class warfare is something that exists at all times, conservatives just call it class warfare when the lower classes want to make some gains. Was it class warfare when Modesto was passing laws trying to get rid of homeless people, when landowners try to make parks private so they can get rid of homeless people, etc? They have the same rights as the rest of us, but we should remember that these rights are written and made to sustain bourgeois society. There is no better example of class antagonism then a homeless person and a capitalist. On one hand you have someone who owns basically nothing but what they can carry in a bag on their back and on the other hand people that own the land, the businesses, the property; the haves and the have nots. What is a homeless person supposed to do when the homeless shelter is full, or when they can't travel to one? When they're hungry and they see people throwing away food that is perfectly edible? It's illegal to dumpster dive in many areas, class warfare for sure right? Oh that food in a garbage is someone else's property right?
The homeless are obviously at a disadvantage in our society, making laws to protect them against police/business interests who wish to get rid of them is good in my book. Of course I think the right to a home would be better, but I'm guessing you'd have a problem with that too.
"Tell me why the homeless need a bill of rights?" - I have to agree with Bull on this one. It was my same argument against the ERA, we are all equal under the law.
The issue is, that the Conservatives see rights as being limited, which is one reason Madison, the inspiration for the Bill of Rights felt that once you wrote down some rights it would impose a limit on other rights. Madison really felt that our rights did not need to be written down, that they were understood, but for posterities sake he championed the Bill of Rights in order to appease those pushing for the powers of the citizens to be put into our Supreme laws. Seems he was right again.
It is our history that the citizens of this country have had to fight the government for our freedoms, and it continues today. There are those who feel the need to control others, and then there are those who live and let live.
"There is already class warfare being pushed by the liberal agenda"
Spoken like a true "moderate" alright ... When will we ever be free of this selfish TeaParty mentality?
Dennis Wyatt is worse than Frank because Dennis Wyatt is supposed to be a PROFESIONAL journalist and EDITOR. It is clear that Dennis Wyatt is in reality neither. He's not a journalist, he is a copy boy just regurgitating the lies he is fed here and he is clearly not an editor as the Bulletin is so often filled with typos, poor grammar, and non-existant fact checking.
Frankly, Dennis Wyatt is probably one of the WORST newspaper editors in the whole Country! That is not hyperbole, that is a actual conjecture here based on evidence.
Please be so kind as to provide me the location of your domicile so that I may be the first to urinate on your front door if this bill becomes law.
Immature attitudes as displayed above and by comments by this blog's author do not help foster rational discussion.
I wonder why these people are so angry and incapable of basic civility.
Support for insane legislation does not help foster civil society.
Hoffman, Who in the wide wide world of sports appointed you as arbiter of rational discussion?
I don't think anyone would call your above response rational. But then again, it seems clear that people like you and the author of this blog only care about your own imaginary brand of rationality.
Hoffman you are wrong again. I just asked eight people in my office to review my post. They all agreed that my post was contextually rational. Your adherence to your own hyperbole has skewed your ability to dertermine what is factually rational.
If saying you are going to urinate on someone's house is "rational" then I guess I'm the irrational one then ...
So is it rational to say you are going to urinate on someone's house because they support a homeless bill of rights? What makes your childish comment "contextually rational" here? Does a bill simply mentioning the word "urinate" give you carte blanche to make immature and pointlessly antagonistic bathroom jokes?
As before you and the "eight" people in "your office" should grow up and learn what rationality and maturity really are.
What do you do for a living where it is OK to slack off in the middle of the day and create outlandish posts and then and solicit all of your coworkers to come look and decide if your wasted office time was "rational" or not? If were your boss, all you would be FIRED eight times over!
There is only one problem with your proposal. The article was specific that only the homeless would be allowed to urinate and defecate at will on public property. I would imagine you would have no protection under the law should you decide to use someone's front door as a toilet.
It is just another example of the class warfare the current administration is fostering as they pursue their socialist agenda.
I take issue with your comment on Friendo's posts. First, how do you know anyone slacked off in the middle of the day? Federal and state laws require meal time and break periods for employees. What an employee does on their break with their IPod or SmartPhone is none of the business' concern.
So, if you were to fire these folks, I'd be the first one supporting their lawsuit for unlawful termination.
As someone else pointed out, why do the homeless need a bill of rights? What rational person proposes legalizing public urination and defecation? Perhaps you should be directing your ire at the author of the bill rather than at someone pointing out its absurdity.
Clearly you did not read AB5 since you site here "public urination" which is not mentioned at all in the actual bill and if you asked the bill's author Assemblyman Tom Ammiano he would say the rights would be regarding people charging for restroom facilities.
Perhaps instead of imagining ire, you should read the actual bill and base your comments on facts.
"While I'll admit that Dennis Wyatt often does have an agenda, not all his pieces are without merit." - and a broken clock is correct twice a day, it is still broken.
I still find it hilarious that this blog author gets lambasted for his ignorant/hypocritical take on marijuana laws; how hee tries to distract how absolutely wrong he is by bringing up AB5 and then does the same thing again by inventing things that aren't in AB5 to get upset about!
This guy's obstinance is HILARIOUS!
I've read AB5 and it doesn't in so many words permit public urination. What it does do is infer that the homeless can piddle at will.
I contend that almost everything in the bill is already covered for the homeless. There is nothing that says the homeless cannot vote. They already have the same protections as everyone else. What Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is doing is establishing another entitled class when one is not needed.
He is circumventing the will of the people to have standards of behavior and conduct in their cities. AB5 limits the ability of the cities to establish standards of behavior for the betterment of the citizens. It permits certain people allowances not granted to everyone. It limits the enforcement action available to law enforcement. If there are not 'public restrooms' available and a homeless person relieves himself on the street, there is little the police can do under AB5. The homeless now become a protected class. What is next, protected status for convicted molesters? Creating a protected class for drug addicts? A bill to protect criminals that are released from prison? Where does this madness stop?
When are people going to accept that everyone is equal and already protected. AB5 just gives the homeless the 'homeless' card to play just as others like to play the 'race' card.
I'd have more respect for Assemblyman Ammiano if he would sponsor legislation to cut rampant state spending. Or do something about violence in our cities and towns. AB5 is a needless and useless exercise in legislative stupidity. It allows the homeless to remain disadvantaged rather than providing for meaningful help in ending their homelessness.
It does not infer "homeless can piddle at will." You are mistaken. Ask the author of the bill if you want clarification. Again, your imagination does not trump reality.
You can believe what you will, but AB5 guts the local ordinances that provide for the safe and sanitary public areas each community wants. If a homeless person were to urinate in public because a clean public restroom was not immediately available, the police would not be able to sanction the person with a citation. But if I were to do the same thing, I could be cited since I'm not homeless.
Seems that is more than just an inference, it will be a fact if this lunatic bill is passed.
Belief has nothing to do with it REALITY does. Feel free to quote where in the bill it says "If a homeless person were to urinate in public because a clean public restroom was not immediately available, the police would not be able to sanction the person with a citation."
It does not say that ANYWHERE in the bill.
Please try to avoid asserting that your opinion is the same as facts - it is NOT!
I enjoy proving you wrong. AB5 does in fact permit urination in public by the homeless without fear of sanctions from the police.
(f) The right to engage in life sustaining activities that must be carried out in public spaces because of homelessness, including, but not limited to, eating, congregating, possessing and storing personal property, urinating, or collecting and possessing goods for recycling, even if those goods contain alcoholic residue, without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest by law enforcement, public or private security personnel, or BID agents.
A reasonable person would apologize, but since you have never been reasonable I don't expect an apology. Just being right is enough for me.
You are clearly not understanding how laws work. If this was what you claim it to be, it would have to EXPLICITLY say it was voiding Section 640(b)(8) of the California Penal Code. It does not, so it would not. The idea here that being homeless would not be a viable reason for denying a person from using a public restroom.
Feel free to be "right" in your own imagination. Lucky for me, I only care about reality.
44Magnum part of the socialist agenda is providing everybody with a house(Which is already physically possible, the number of vacant homes/buildings far surpasses the number of homeless), I'm just not going to argue against what is obviously going to make homeless people's lives a little better.
I would consider legalizing marijuana for medical use, but not for recreation. There are still too many questions. It may not be as dangerous as alcohol, but there are still risks associated with its use. Until more studies are done and there is a greater understanding of the dangers involved, we don't need to add another legal drug to those we already have to deal with.
But we already deal with it whether it's illegal or not. The only thing that that's doing is creating enormous problems that are worse than lighting up a joint. Tens of thousands have been murdered because of the criminalization of a drug that no one has ever overdosed on!
Hello44Magnum, You write that under AB5 you could be cited for public urination, if you chose to urinate in public, because you are not homeless, while a homeless person would not be subject to this same citation. The obvious point to me is that you HAVE a home which presumably has a bathroom which you can freely use when needed, while public restrooms are the only recourse for the homeless, unless they have access to a shelter. If there are no public restrooms available for use by the homeless, just exactly where do you think they can relieve themselves? What are their options? Libraries, stores, and gas stations are not all open 24 hours. I do not support public urination/defecation either, but recognize that in order to avoid this, it is necessary to make public restrooms more accessable to all. Sincerely, Karen
Thanks for clarifying Bull153's confusion! This is all about preventing discrimination, not setting up a parallel set of laws for homeless.
What if a nonhomeless person is away from home, therefore immediate use of their bathroom is not possible and no public restrooms are available, would the same law apply or would the nonhomeless person be subject to legal consequences? The law would be unequally applied if it passes.
You've hit the crux of the matter. It is a poorly written needless piece of legislation that creates another class of people the government can continue to wean.
I've dealt with a lot of homeless people. Most of them were able to overcome their situation. Some are the professional homeless that use the system. All of them have the same protections as you and I. Rather than create this new needy class, why not pass legislation that really helps, like requiring cities to provide shelters. Or requiring public restrooms to be open 24 hours. You don't need a bill that in plain English says homeless people can tend to their needs, including public urination, without fear of citation from security employees or the police. There are alternatives to this ridiculous legislation.
"I was planning on my future as a homeless person. I had a really good spot picked out." - Larry David
"After-school tutoring programs, care for the elderly, shelters for the homeless, disaster relief work, and a variety of other services would all benefit from government funding." - Tony Campolo
I wonder if this bill allows the homeless to smoke weed without repercussions? I guess only if it is considered a life sustaining activity.
Perhaps the bill should be reexamined and rewritten. It seems out of whack as it is.
It is AMAZING how "Ramrod", "44Magnum" and Bull153 all seem to think, act, and write exactly the same! What are the odds ...
...Kind of like the way you constantly pass emotionally based judgement on the entire population of Manteca. Grow Up!!