T1B

Stay on topic. We're talking about civil asset forfeiture which is clearly against the fourth amendment. But you're cool with it. Because you don't care, as long as police wallets are fat.

Screw_Michigan wrote:civil asset forfeiture which is clearly against the fourth amendment.

Which was deemed as such in Oregon many years ago. Just like "sobriety checkpoints."

Rape is rape. Robbery is robbery. Motive doesn't matter nor does it (usually) matter if you were high during your crime. The FACT is that prohibition causes more victims than it stops and their blood is on YOUR hands.

Sugar is the most abused drug in the world. And it's not even close.

Moving Sale wrote:Sugar is the most abused drug in the world. And it's not even close.

It also makes you fat. Sup, Spray and Gobbles McTubesteak?

That said, I was high on sugar earlier today.

Yeah so was my 7yo. Dangerous substance.

Screw_Michigan wrote:
That said, I was high on sugar earlier today.

No, you weren't, since there's no such thing.

Complete myth perpetrated by parents everywhere.

Any "high" you had was 100% psychosomatic.

FACT

88 wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:Stay on topic. We're talking about civil asset forfeiture which is clearly against the fourth amendment. But you're cool with it. Because you don't care, as long as police wallets are fat.

Fourth Amendment wrote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You got anything to support your assertion that civil asset forfeiture "is clearly against the fourth amendment"? The SCOTUS has issued a couple of civil asset forfeiture decisions in the past year or two, and they must have completely missed this clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Read this decision authored by Justice Kagan (and joined by Justice Ginsburg).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 4_7mi8.pdf

Good call, Resident Authoritarian. Nothing wrong with seizing property from individuals without conviction or even trial, not at all!

Scumbags like you make me fucking sick.

Dinsdale wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:
That said, I was high on sugar earlier today.

No, you weren't, since there's no such thing.

Complete myth perpetrated by parents everywhere.

Any "high" you had was 100% psychosomatic.

FACT

Yeah that's probably true.
And sugar is still a drug.

FACT

88 wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:Good call, Resident Authoritarian. Nothing wrong with seizing property from individuals without conviction or even trial, not at all!

Scumbags like you make me fucking sick.

I didn't pass any judgment on the practice. I simply pointed out that, as usual, you are talking out of your ass about shit you clearly know nothing about.

Actually what you did is abandon your "9 oracals" argument. Carry on hypocrite.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Left Seater wrote: Drug users are hardly harmless. They cause all sort of issues and harm just within their own families. They also have a high tendency to rob and steal. I do believe they need help with the addiction end, but just because they chose to use drugs doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for the crimes they committed in order to finance their next hit.

And what a telling comment from BSmack about Dems views. So Repbulicans want criminals to answer for their crimes and to be held accountable. Clearly he and therefore Dems don't want criminals held accountable.

This is a consequence of the illegality of drugs, not solely of addiction.

You are also very silent on the role of alcoholism in those issues, yet alcohol is legal.

No doubt alcoholism is a huge issue. No one on this board is more aware of that than I am. However, we don't see the same issues of alcoholics robbing and stealing to get their next drunk on. Alcohol can be obtained quite cheaply compared to drugs. An hour of panhandling on a street corner can get a drunk enough cash for their next high.

So generally there is a difference between drug abusers and alcohol abusers. That said I am all for punishing alcoholics along the same lines as drug users for their crimes. I have argued as much here multiple times.

LOL, alcohol is legal because of lawyers? Moron.

Alcohol is legal because it is possible to have one or possibly two drinks & not be under the influence. With controlled substances the entire purpose is to become under the influence.

Tell me you knew...

Diego in Seattle wrote:it is possible to have one or possibly two drinks & not be under the influence.

Complete and utter bullshit.
Tell me you knew.

MY HERO!!!!!!

This man will be the GREATEST AG EVER!!!!!!!

He will make sure that WALL is built!
He will DEPORT all those illegal CRIMINAL aliens!
He will pass voter ID laws so MUDS and LIBTARDS can't vote multiple times anymore!
He will pass a MOOOOOSLIM Ban NO MORE ALLAHU AKBARS coming to America!




I wish I was in the land of cotton
Ole times there are NOT forgotten
Look away Look away...DIXIE LAND!


Make America WHITE AGAIN!

Mikey wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:it is possible to have one or possibly two drinks & not be under the influence.

Complete and utter bullshit.
Tell me you knew.

Unless you're Native American or Asian, yes it is. SYHTFOTW

Diego in Seattle wrote:Alcohol is legal because it is possible to have one or possibly two drinks & not be under the influence. With controlled substances the entire purpose is to become under the influence.

Both of these takes are complete bullshit.

You need to think further than the end of your penis.

Talking about alcohol in a Jeff Sessions thread....

Douchebag libtard monkey loving morons!

It's been awhile since I've looked at a blood/alcohol chart, and I have to amend my statement. Most guys & some women can have a drink & not be under the influence.

So while I was slightly inaccurate in my first post, my point is still valid. One can still drink w/o being under the influence. The only reason for using controlled substances is to be under the influence.

No matter what chart you look at, impairment begins with the first drink. It's impossible to drink alcohol without being "under the influence."
To assume that you can consume any amount of alcohol without some effect, no matter how small, is just unbelievably stupid.



If you want to talk about being legally "under the influence," that's a different question. I'm pretty sure it varies by state but one or two drinks, depending on your body weight, etc. will not put you over the limit. But by that measure, there's no legal limit on how much THC you can consume before you're "under the influence" so, by either argument you're full of shit.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Most guys & some women can have a drink & not be under the influence.

So, your entire "theory" is based on the assumption that everyone has the same physiological reaction to alcohol.

Once a person has made a statement as monumentally stupid as this, it's best to just slowly exit the thread.

I'm pretty sure I could drink 19 Bud Rices and still perform brain surgery. Provided I knew how to perform brain surgery in the first place.

Mikey wrote:But by that measure, there's no legal limit on how much THC you can consume before you're "under the influence" so, by either argument you're full of shit.

Full of shit, you say? Interesting choice of words.

Sin,
Montana, Nevada, et al.

OK so I could be wrong. It's been known to happen - just ask my wife.
(not about alcohol impairment though)

However,

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/05/10/l ... ana/53943/

Dinsdale wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Most guys & some women can have a drink & not be under the influence.

So, your entire "theory" is based on the assumption that everyone has the same physiological reaction to alcohol.

Once a person has made a statement as monumentally stupid as this, it's best to just slowly exit the thread.

I suggest you enroll in a RIF program, as your reading comprehension isn't worth shit. Where did I say everyone's reaction is the same? I even pointed out one big exception. Try again, slappy.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Where did I say everyone's reaction is the same?

You made a blanket statement based off a chart -- ergo (Latin) assuming a standard physiological reaction based on weight and gender.

You said it -- own it.

Dinsdale wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Where did I say everyone's reaction is the same?

You made a blanket statement based off a chart -- ergo (Latin) assuming a standard physiological reaction based on weight and gender.

You said it -- own it.

Just because I used a chart doesn't mean I said all people are this way. I used the words "some" and "most." How TF do you get out of that that I'm saying all people react the same?

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Actually what you did is abandon your "9 oracals" argument. Carry on hypocrite.

They sometimes act as oracles. And there are presently only 8 of them. But sometimes they are just doing their job. If you can explain how the Fourth Amendment prohibits civil forfeitures, have at it. But I suspect the oracles would have to divine something in the text that isn't there in order to adopt your contentions.

Because Civil Forfeiture is not addressed in the USC it is the perveiw of the states, but I am sure you will find a way to shoehorn it in.

Civil forfeiture is a disgrace to America, it's as simple as that. But it's not very surprising 88 plays semantics with it as he hates freedom.

There is no such thing as federal forfeiture laws. I think you meant national forfeiture laws.
That being said: Congress can't pass those kinds of laws because the USC does not give them the power to seize anything. The only way you can find those laws legal is by oracle power. Other than that you have a great post, for a nazi.

Nice white flag. Now you have more time to blow the orange pedobear.

Speaking of SCOTUS, I hope they get this one right:

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.s ... river_home


Has huge implications for the Redskins (but it took a band that no one has heard of to get the case heard?).