Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed, at one time I would have said the pot was OK but I've long since grown out of it.
I've never heard of anyone being an accomplice to smoking pot.
To prove that you are an accomplice, the government must prove that you intentionally aided in the commission of a crime. This means that the defendant/you must realize that the principal is going to commit a crime and that the accomplice/you intends to help the crime succeed. Just don't give up the matches.
I think a lot of it depends on the police dept. where you get caught as well...because a roommate of mine had some issues when she was pulled over and it was found that her boyfriend had a little over an ounce of weed on him that she didn't know about. Since that much means 'intent to sell' and she was driving the car, she was considered an accomplice. She was basically a drug trafficker without knowing it and there really wasn't any way she could prove she didn't know he had it.
Weed is legal here...Federal laws will be changed or else the State (the people of) won't follow them.
People won't accept the voting in of a new law only to have it be struck down by a government agency on the other side of the continent simply because it's not agreeable to that agency. The people of the State of Washington passed the law democratically and that law has, and will continue to, take(n) effect. We do not live in an oppressive regime, not to that degree, and should we find that we do, it is necessary that it is opposed by all, but especially those that it directly affects. This is not about marijuana legalization anymore. The particulars of the marijuana situation exposes deficiencies of the legal system as it is concerned with the relationship between the State(s) and the Federation. It's due time that that relationship is reconsidered.
The power balance between the Federation and the State is recently, more and more, skewed towards the Federation. Simple logistical considerations lead to the conclusion that it is difficult for a single government to effeciently control a region if that region is too large, either geographically or population-wise. This has lead to contradictions within the law as it applies to people and the land on which they live. The wants of the whole populace are too many and too varied for any singular legal system to govern convincingly. The result of this can be seen in the number of laws in different States that directly oppose one another as well as the excessively large number of citizens deemed criminals and subsequently imprisoned in our nation's jail system. I'm my own situation, there are two laws of the land, two seperate constitutions to which I am bound. This in itself exposes the inefficiency of the current system.
The Federal constitution asserts itself as above all State constitutions. This is not particularly problematic. Really, it is essential that a hiearchy is established for the smooth functioning of the State, and the Federation beyond it. What becomes problematic, however, is when a people do all they can to express their civic desire and still find themselves unable to change the system legally, a system under which they are expected to live and are punished for not complying with. It's complicated further by the fact that succession from the Federation, even if deemed appropriate by the State, is prohibited. Essentially, this amounts to a situation where a large population of people is told by the powerful few that control the Federal Government that they must do as they are told, no 'ifs, ands, or 'buts'. In other words, the States are slaves legally owned by their Masters, those in control of the Federal Government.
It is with these considerations that, going forward, I will choose to support State successionist efforts generally and especially, if individual rights, when protected by State, are being trampled on by the Federal Government. I refuse to be ruled by a regime which refuses to consider the wants of my own community as valid, as decided upon in an open and fair democratic process, particularly when that regime also refuses to let my community explore self governance as an alternative. Until State succession is legalized, the relationship between Federal and State Governments rethought, and power equality between the two institutions pursued, I will actively engage, contribute, and encourage succesionist sentiment.
As for the weed, do whatever you wish. It's trash anyway...
Last edited by dub dub II; 08-20-2013 at 02:39 AM..
Cigs for me. BUT only if the pot isn't majorly negatively impacting her life. I know some who have smoked for a long time occasionally with minimal negative effect on their lives. Then you have others and it has a major negative impact on their life.
The cigs. Im a reformed smoker. My last bf was a smoker and I cant see myself dating a smoker again. The smell, the butts, yuck. And the agitation when on a date because he cant smoke inside.
A little recreational pot smoking wouldn't bother me.
Neither. Whether pot is legal or not. I still won't do it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
