2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: ren on November 17, 2023, 09:06:12 PM
-
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/11/18/hawaii-attorney-general-issues-clear-roadmap-legalizing-recreational-marijuana/
-
Wouldn't it have been easier, more efficient and less expensive for all the states that legalized pot to petition their states' Congressional representatives to change the federal law -- i.e. remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I drugs under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970?
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), determine which substances are added to/removed from the various schedules, although the statute passed by Congress created the initial listing.
Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, determined to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, prohibiting its use for any purpose.
38 states, 4 out of 5 permanently inhabited U.S. territories, and the federal District of Columbia (D.C.) all have laws permitting the medical use of marijuana. Sounds like there just might be a flaw in classifying it as having "no accepted medical use" when over 76% of the states, territories and DC say otherwise.
With such an overwhelming majority, it seems there should have been a push among those states to change the law nationally.
Just sayin'.
-
With such an overwhelming majority, it seems there should have been a push among those states to change the law nationally.
Just sayin'.
This ship turns slower than an oil tanker
-
illegaler...
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/11/18/hawaii-attorney-general-issues-clear-roadmap-legalizing-recreational-marijuana/
-
it's all about money.
You can do whatever you want as long as you pay the state for your pleasure.
Just like cigarettes.
They would make us pay to shoot guns too if it weren't for that pesky 2nd amendment.
-
Makes the sheeple easier to control.
-
More revenue. Are they going to do a Social Impact Study? Of course not. There's no money in that.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I hope the AG is also working on more important issues. Like crime.
-
The State has been against and resisting this for years.
Finally they are starting to bend at the knee.
-
it's all about money.
You can do whatever you want as long as you pay the state for your pleasure.
Just like cigarettes.
They would make us pay to shoot guns too if it weren't for that pesky 2nd amendment.
If the feds remove it from the Schedule I list, the states can still tax it.
It's not like they are taxing a civil right -- you know, like firearms and ammo.
-
More revenue. Are they going to do a Social Impact Study? Of course not. There's no money in that.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I hope the AG is also working on more important issues. Like crime.
If they legalize a statutory crime, it follows that the crime stats will improve, too.
Win-win! :geekdanc:
-
Turbo cancer from the clot shots is on the rise and mmj is exceptional for palliative care without the hefty price tag or nasty side effects of big pharma poison painkillers.
Studies have shown cbds can actually help prevent cancer, but the turbo versions popping up now are so fast that by the time it's diagnosed there's only weeks or months at best.
-
Turbo cancer from the clot shots is on the rise and mmj is exceptional for palliative care without the hefty price tag or nasty side effects of big pharma poison painkillers.
Studies have shown cbds can actually help prevent cancer, but the turbo versions popping up now are so fast that by the time it's diagnosed there's only weeks or months at best.
"turbo" cancer?
-
"turbo" cancer?
Yeah a bunch of the batches were contaminated with strange particles. Manufacturing process was totally rushed and safety protocols ignored. They figured they could get away with it because of the Emergency Use Authorization that gives them a liability shield.
Try booking an appointment at an oncology center. They are totally slammed and chemo drugs are in short supply. MJ might be the only hope for relief for the majority of patients if the trend accelerates.
-
:tinfoil:
Turbo cancer is an anti-vaccination myth centred on the idea that people
vaccinated against COVID-19, especially with mRNA vaccines, are suffering
from a high incidence of fast-developing cancers. The myth, spread by a
number of vaccine opponents and related influencers including doctors,
has no factual basis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_cancer
-
Yeah a bunch of the batches were contaminated with strange particles. Manufacturing process was totally rushed and safety protocols ignored. They figured they could get away with it because of the Emergency Use Authorization that gives them a liability shield.
Try booking an appointment at an oncology center. They are totally slammed and chemo drugs are in short supply. MJ might be the only hope for relief for the majority of patients if the trend accelerates.
Maybe the problem with packed oncology centers and limited supplies has more to do with people avoiding doctors visits during the pandemic -- when many are diagnosed early during routine exams. And the supply problem is the same as for firearm parts, car parts, etc, etc. Trucking is suffering a number of problems which interferes with supply chain delivery. Manufacturers are backlogged still from the pandemic as workers and raw materials were hard to find. Also, if the incidence of cancer diagnoses rises, that would have an impact on available therapeutic medicines. Chemo drugs have a short shelf life and require refrigeration. I don't think they produce 5 years worth at a time -- just in case there's a hgher than anticipated demand.
I feel like there are more obvious and reasonable explanations for the anecdotal issues you raised other than a vaccine-created "turbo cancer."
-
https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1725376662047437192
-
:tinfoil:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_cancer
Wikipedia is pay for play
(https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED441/64b9ae03a57b1.jpeg)
-
Wikipedia is pay for play
Is that an argument? Or are you just deflecting from the information I shared?
Wikipedia has more good info than bad, especially since you can do a deep dive using the footnotes for the articles. For example:
Gorski, David (19 December 2022). "Do COVID-19 vaccines cause "turbo cancer"?". Science-Based Medicine.
"False claims persist about COVID-19 vaccine-linked "turbo cancers"". Public Health Communication Collaborative (PHCC). 2023-08-18. Retrieved 5 October 2023.
"Fact Check-No evidence COVID-19 vaccines cause 'turbo cancer'". Reuters. Reuters. 14 December 2022.
"COVID-19 Vaccines and People with Cancer - NCI". www.cancer.gov. 10 February 2021.
Seneff, Stephanie; Nigh, Greg; Kyriakopoulos, Anthony M.; McCullough, Peter A. (June 2022). "Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs". Food and Chemical Toxicology. 164: 113008. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2022.113008. PMC 9012513. PMID 35436552.
Morris, Jeffrey (21 April 2022). "Does McCullough's paper really "establish a mechanistic framework" for mRNA vaccine harm?". Covid-19 Data Science.
Yandell, Kate (31 August 2023). "COVID-19 Vaccines Have Not Been Shown to Cause 'Turbo Cancer'". FactCheck.org.
"Paper does not prove Pfizer mRNA vaccine causes 'turbo cancer'". Fact Check. AFP. 21 July 2023.
"Claim linking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, cancer in mouse distorts study | Fact check". USA TODAY.
If you take the first one in the list:
There is no such thing as “turbo cancer”
Unsurprisingly, “turbo cancer” isn’t a thing. Oncologists don’t recognize it as a
phenomenon, nor do cancer biologists, and if you search for it on PubMed, you
won’t find a reference to it. Basically, it’s a clever term coined by antivaxxers to
scare you into thinking that COVID-19 vaccines will give you cancer, or at least
greatly increase your risk of developing cancer. The “evidence” marshaled to
support the concept consists of the usual misinformation techniques used by
antivaxxers: citing anecdotes, wild speculation about biological mechanisms without
a firm basis in biology, and conflating correlation with causation, no matter how much
one must squint to see it.
Unfortunately, “turbo cancer” is also too frightening and pithy of a term to go away
any time soon. I expect antivaxxers to be using it for years to come, perhaps for the
rest of my life.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/do-covid-19-vaccines-cause-turbo-cancer/
That's not a paid-for Wikipedia source. It's a separate source that was used to add to the wiki article.
-
Is that an argument? Or are you just deflecting from the information I shared?
Wikipedia has more good info than bad, especially since you can do a deep dive using the footnotes for the articles. For example:
If you take the first one in the list:https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/do-covid-19-vaccines-cause-turbo-cancer/
That's not a paid-for Wikipedia source. It's a separate source that was used to add to the wiki article.
If you trust your life to the editors at wikipedia that's fine with me. By all means go right ahead.
-
Wikipedia is pay for play
(https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED441/64b9ae03a57b1.jpeg)
Ukranian Nazi's? What did I miss?
-
Ukranian Nazi's? What did I miss?
Google
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Google
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ukraine-has-nazi-problem-vladimir-putin-s-denazification-claim-war-ncna1290946
-
If you trust your life to the editors at wikipedia that's fine with me. By all means go right ahead.
Please show me where I said, implied or hinted that I take anything posted on Wikipedia as sound medical advice.
So far, you've offered nothing to dispute the claim that "Turbo Cancer" is anything other than a myth. It's not even a good conspiracy theory, because there is no evidence it even exists. It would be like saying COVID vaccinations are responsible for a sharp decline in the population of blue-eyed people when there's been no data to suggest such a decline exists.
Turbo cancer is just a term that's been traced back to at least fall 2020, where someone posted in the comments of a post about the impending EUA for the Pfizer vaccine, after which a commenter sarcastically wrote on November 30, 2020, “I can’t wait for the turbo cancer”.
Once again, the Wikipedia article has footnotes. I guess you don't care enough about getting to the truth to bother reading them.
-
i posted the evidence for hvy...
Please show me where I said, implied or hinted that I take anything posted on Wikipedia as sound medical advice.
So far, you've offered nothing to dispute the claim that "Turbo Cancer" is anything other than a myth. It's not even a good conspiracy theory, because there is no evidence it even exists. It would be like saying COVID vaccinations are responsible for a sharp decline in the population of blue-eyed people when there's been no data to suggest such a decline exists.
Turbo cancer is just a term that's been traced back to at least fall 2020, where someone posted in the comments of a post about the impending EUA for the Pfizer vaccine, after which a commenter sarcastically wrote on November 30, 2020, “I can’t wait for the turbo cancer”.
Once again, the Wikipedia article has footnotes. I guess you don't care enough about getting to the truth to bother reading them.
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ukraine-has-nazi-problem-vladimir-putin-s-denazification-claim-war-ncna1290946
Google
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
My thought on this topic is that I worry about tokers driving around all goofy.
There are enough dopey drivers on the road already.
Before I retired, I would drive to work in town.
I like to drive with the window open because I like the breeze.
But almost every day, I smell pot in the wind.
I liken that to driving drunk.
==============
coincidentally, here is a news story that was just published today. LOL
I know some of those folks.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/11/19/high-rate-fatal-crashes-oahu-involving-impaired-drivers-prompts-new-campaign/
-
I'm also concerned with the Brave New World aspect of numbing people down to make them more compliant, but if that was the case they would have taken it off schedule 1 a long time ago.
My guess is Big Pharma has been lobbying hard to keep it illegal because so many of their dangerous drug patents are about to be replaced by a cheap flower that you can grow in your back yard.
What if we find out it's effective at treating cancer and they medical industry was poisoning people with expensive chemo just for the money? Execs would be lucky to make it to prison.
-
I also worry about pot heads driving on the road. The gov't don't give a rat's ass. Just revenue. Screw the masses and their safety.
On the highways and byways only you can be assured to committing to safe driving. There's no way in hell you will know if the driver coming towards you will do the same.
You think the pot head will be held accountable? Hah, Good Luck to that.
-
I'm also concerned with the Brave New World aspect of numbing people down to make them more compliant, but if that was the case they would have taken it off schedule 1 a long time ago.
My guess is Big Pharma has been lobbying hard to keep it illegal because so many of their dangerous drug patents are about to be replaced by a cheap flower that you can grow in your back yard.
What if we find out it's effective at treating cancer and they medical industry was poisoning people with expensive chemo just for the money? Execs would be lucky to make it to prison.
....
Sale ends today
(https://i.postimg.cc/kgtXnNrw/20231119-113804.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/w1gd2mjs)
-
Schedule 1 is laughably absurd. Who profits the most from keeping it off the market?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0oDc--yrWQc&pp=ygUQRGV3ZXkgY294IHJlZWZlcg%3D%3D
-
There is pushback from LEO to the woke AG pothead plan
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/11/23/hawaiis-law-enforcement-community-opposes-attorney-generals-plan-legalize-use-marijuana/
-
There is pushback from LEO to the woke AG pothead plan
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/11/23/hawaiis-law-enforcement-community-opposes-attorney-generals-plan-legalize-use-marijuana/
Makes sense. These are the people that will have to deal with the negative side of legalizing the drug.
We need laws that will make people think of consequences. Seems like that used to be the norm but nowadays, not so much.
My heart cries for victims of traffic accidents, crimes, and violent assault caused by drunk driving and drug abuse.
Meanwhile, the abusers of drugs and alcohol get their wrists slapped.
Interesting that in the article, Alm mentioned that the AG would work with LE on this proposal.
And she said we did and that the train has left the station ::) ::) ::)
This official of the banana republik of hawaii is trying to pull a fast one. As they always do.
-
There is pushback from LEO to the woke AG pothead plan
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/11/23/hawaiis-law-enforcement-community-opposes-attorney-generals-plan-legalize-use-marijuana/
Most all "drugs" with some exceptions ( eg Meth) should be legal for adults, those 18 or older.
Don't tax drugs so hard it makes a black market possible.
Some people pass laws expecting to change people, those law makers are fools.
The infamous American prohibition of alcohol
proved that.
People should be free, but nail them to the wall if they hurt other people.
I'd rather build prisons than have a large police force, that mostly writes civil citations
and is political.
BTW Police are not even in the top ten, for the most deadly jobs in the USA.
BS on them risking their lives daily for us.
:wave:
-
Law enforcement loves prohibition because it’s a master key to violating our 4th amendment rights. Also they make a ton of money from the fed grants and asset forfeiture.
It’s the difference between Andy Griffith and the militarized road pirates of today
-
Law enforcement loves prohibition because it’s a master key to violating our 4th amendment rights. Also they make a ton of money from the fed grants and asset forfeiture.
It’s the difference between Andy Griffith and the militarized road pirates of today
So true!
-
Law enforcement loves prohibition because it’s a master key to violating our 4th amendment rights.
How so?
-
How so?
Why do u think?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Why is the sky blue?
-
Why is the sky blue?
"The sky is blue because of X. But maybr because of Y. Thus my opinion is DFGUSBSLCOCYEBWNALCUCNELQCCJSBSJCKJCDNJSJSNND.
I also cannot prove red flag laws are constitutional."
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
How so?
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=51781.msg467251#new
-
"The sky is blue because of X. But maybr because of Y. Thus my opinion is DFGUSBSLCOCYEBWNALCUCNELQCCJSBSJCKJCDNJSJSNND.
I also cannot prove red flag laws are constitutional."
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You should stick to boardgames instead of trolling. And they accuse me of derailing a thread, you cannot even keep your false statement to the appropriate topics. :stopjack:
BTW it is amazing how readily to reject objectivity...
-
Why is the sky blue?
Mine is a serious question. Hvy's sentence suggests cops are just sitting around looking for ways of violating rights, no real purpose, they are trying to mess with everyone just because. Two cops start their shift and decide they want to invade your and my 4th amendment rights then find unique ways of doing it, for no other purpose. That is a paranoid, unrealistic assumption.
-
Mine is a serious question. Hvy's sentence suggests cops are just sitting around looking for ways of violating rights, no real purpose, they are trying to mess with everyone just because. Two cops start their shift and decide they want to invade your and my 4th amendment rights then find unique ways of doing it, for no other purpose. That is a paranoid, unrealistic assumption.
U already stated multiple times that HIs red flag is constitutional. Which means YOU decided to violate peoples 4th amendment if needed.
Thanks for playing. Checkmate.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
U already stated multiple times that HIs red flag is constitutional. Which means YOU decided to violate peoples 4th amendment if needed.
Thanks for playing. Checkmate.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
The question was whether the law had due process. A law can have due process and be unconstitutional.
There are things I would change about Hawaii's red flag law though to provide more protection if I had the chance.
-
Why is the sky blue?
Since I worked at the Kecks for ten years, I'll answer your question with a question.
Why is a new moon, cloudless night sky black?
BTW all those stars are still there in the daytime.
:shaka:
-
The question was whether the law had due process. A law can have due process and be unconstitutional.
There are things I would change about Hawaii's red flag law though to provide more protection if I had the chance.
Wwrrrroooonnnngggg (in trump voice)
Thanks for playing. U still arent allowed to pass Go.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Mine is a serious question. Hvy's sentence suggests cops are just sitting around looking for ways of violating rights, no real purpose, they are trying to mess with everyone just because. Two cops start their shift and decide they want to invade your and my 4th amendment rights then find unique ways of doing it, for no other purpose. That is a paranoid, unrealistic assumption.
no he did not
but if you want an example:
https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/09/honolulu-settles-malicious-prosecution-case-involving-kaneshiro-kealoha/
https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/01/botched-illegal-gambling-case-prompts-lawsuit-against-prosecutors/
-
no he did not
but if you want an example:
https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/09/honolulu-settles-malicious-prosecution-case-involving-kaneshiro-kealoha/
https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/01/botched-illegal-gambling-case-prompts-lawsuit-against-prosecutors/
Dont 4get that eef thinks red flag is constituional. So if he got a call to impliment it, he would as its constitional.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Dont 4get that eef thinks red flag is constituional. So if he got a call to impliment it, he would as its constitional.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
New York supreme court ruled their Red flag laws as unconstitutional.
Of course Hawaii is "special", personal rights don't mean squat here,
and nobody will challenge the Hawaiian red flag law. Y'all to busy working
to pay your taxes for the rail to wherever, and begging for Koko head to fully reopen.
:shaka:
-
Mine is a serious question. Hvy's sentence suggests cops are just sitting around looking for ways of violating rights, no real purpose, they are trying to mess with everyone just because. Two cops start their shift and decide they want to invade your and my 4th amendment rights then find unique ways of doing it, for no other purpose. That is a paranoid, unrealistic assumption.
Am I paranoid? Or do you mindlessly go along with whatever the establishment tells you no matter how ridiculous?
(https://i.etsystatic.com/34507977/r/il/019a43/3738619145/il_570xN.3738619145_4lzu.jpg)
-
New York supreme court ruled their Red flag laws as unconstitutional.
Of course Hawaii is "special", personal rights don't mean squat here,
and nobody will challenge the Hawaiian red flag law. Y'all to busy working
to pay your taxes for the rail to wherever, and begging for Koko head to fully reopen.
:shaka:
But, but, but...HI's one is constitutional.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
But, but, but...HI's one is constitutional.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Goalposts moved
-
Am I paranoid? Or do you mindlessly go along with whatever the establishment tells you no matter how ridiculous?
(https://i.etsystatic.com/34507977/r/il/019a43/3738619145/il_570xN.3738619145_4lzu.jpg)
I am not talking about "the establishment" (whatever that is), I am talking about police officers. What makes you think they walk around all day trying to find ways to violate your 4th amendment rights?
-
I am not talking about "the establishment" (whatever that is), I am talking about police officers. What makes you think they walk around all day trying to find ways to violate your 4th amendment rights?
Where did he say that?
-
I am not talking about "the establishment" (whatever that is), I am talking about police officers. What makes you think they walk around all day trying to find ways to violate your 4th amendment rights?
The establishment narrative is that police are there to protect and serve, but you'd have to be really dim to believe that.
The job of the police is to maintain order, and given the opportunity to abuse their power and score some free stuff along the way there's no shortage of dirty cops who are more than happy to stomp all over the constitution.
If reality is too difficult for you to come to terms with then I guess we'll all have fun watching you slowly go insane. :popcorn:
-
Goalposts moved
Yes u do. Thanks for mentioning it
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I am not talking about "the establishment" (whatever that is), I am talking about police officers. What makes you think they walk around all day trying to find ways to violate your 4th amendment rights?
2nd goal post movement happening.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
The establishment narrative is that police are there to protect and serve, but you'd have to be really dim to believe that.
The job of the police is to maintain order, and given the opportunity to abuse their power and score some free stuff along the way there's no shortage of dirty cops who are more than happy to stomp all over the constitution.
If reality is too difficult for you to come to terms with then I guess we'll all have fun watching you slowly go insane. :popcorn:
Is that in the police training manuals?
Duty #1 - Maintain order
Duty #2 - Abuse power
Duty #3 - Get free stuff along the way
Yes there are dirty cops (corrupt) and bad cops (poorly trained/abuse authority), but it isn't a system that exists simply to go out and find ways to deny you of your rights. No one wakes up everyday thinking how they can go out and deny Hvybarrel's rights. Sorry, I don't subscribe to silly, baseless conspiracy theories.
-
Is that in the police training manuals?
Duty #1 - Maintain order
Duty #2 - Abuse power
Duty #3 - Get free stuff along the way
Yes there are dirty cops (corrupt) and bad cops (poorly trained/abuse authority), but it isn't a system that exists simply to go out and find ways to deny you of your rights. No one wakes up everyday thinking how they can go out and deny Hvybarrel's rights. Sorry, I don't subscribe to silly, baseless conspiracy theories.
Your only defense is putting words in my mouth. What gives?
Are you trying to bury guilty feelings or something?
-
Is that in the police training manuals?
Duty #1 - Maintain order
Duty #2 - Abuse power
Duty #3 - Get free stuff along the way
Yes there are dirty cops (corrupt) and bad cops (poorly trained/abuse authority), but it isn't a system that exists simply to go out and find ways to deny you of your rights. No one wakes up everyday thinking how they can go out and deny Hvybarrel's rights. Sorry, I don't subscribe to silly, baseless conspiracy theories.
Is due process in the manual? If it is, you either need to re-read it or have someone read it and then explain it to you. Which we've done here and you won't accept the correct answer.
If it isn't in the manual, it should be along with stuff about the constitution, specifically the 2A since HPD firearms seems to be violating it often. I'll post examples if you require it, but start with any lawsuit that HI has won...which is ZERO in the past 8 years.
-
Your only defense is putting words in my mouth. What gives?
Are you trying to bury guilty feelings or something?
That was the takeaway I got from your statement. If that is not what you meant by all means please elaborate, I don't wish to have an incorrect understanding of your position.
-
That was the takeaway I got from your statement. If that is not what you meant by all means please elaborate, I don't wish to have an incorrect understanding of your position.
Hahahhahahahha. Have someone read it to you very slowly.
-
:popcorn:
need to buy more popcorn
-
My point is that cops love prohibition because it gives them all sorts of extra powers to shake people down, and those powers get abused all the time.
Anyone who supports keeping cannabis in the same category of dangerous drugs as heroin and fentanyl is either clueless or has a hidden agenda.
-
My point is that cops love prohibition because it gives them all sorts of extra powers to shake people down, and those powers get abused all the time.
Anyone who supports keeping cannabis in the same category of dangerous drugs as heroin and fentanyl is either clueless or has a hidden agenda.
Gives them a woody.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
My point is that cops love prohibition because it gives them all sorts of extra powers to shake people down, and those powers get abused all the time.
For what purpose though? Shake people down just for the sake of shaking people down?
You are taking things too personally, cops don't wake up looking to abuse powers. They aren't demented kids pulling the legs off of bugs for fun. Most of the time you see cops crossing the line of peopole's civil rights it is because they have a job they are tasked with and it is easier to accomplish by pushing the boundaries. Maybe they get lazy or too passionate, or too angry and use too much force or infringe on your right to privacy but it is not out of a joy in doing so, it is about a task they have, a law to enforce. So, for example, if a cop is trying to catch a drug dealer they might detain without enough reason or search more than they are allowed but its because they want to get the bad guy, not out of some joy in violating the 4th amendment.
-
For what purpose though? Shake people down just for the sake of shaking people down?
You are taking things too personally, cops don't wake up looking to abuse powers. They aren't demented kids pulling the legs off of bugs for fun. Most of the time you see cops crossing the line of peopole's civil rights it is because they have a job they are tasked with and it is easier to do. Maybe they get lazy or too passionate, or too angry and use too much force or infringe on your right to privacy but it is not out of a joy in doing so, it is about a task they have, a law to enforce. So, for example, if a cop is trying to catch a drug dealer they might detain without enough reason or search more than they are allowed but its because they want to get the bad guy, not out of some joy in violating the 4th amendment.
A distinction without a difference.
-
For what purpose though? Shake people down just for the sake of shaking people down?
You are taking things too personally, cops don't wake up looking to abuse powers. They aren't demented kids pulling the legs off of bugs for fun. Most of the time you see cops crossing the line of peopole's civil rights it is because they have a job they are tasked with and it is easier to do. Maybe they get lazy or too passionate, or too angry and use too much force or infringe on your right to privacy but it is not out of a joy in doing so, it is about a task they have, a law to enforce. So, for example, if a cop is trying to catch a drug dealer they might detain without enough reason or search more than they are allowed but its because they want to get the bad guy, not out of some joy in violating the 4th amendment.
Is it violating the persons 4th if later on, like 14 days later said cop obides by it?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
A distinction without a difference.
Incorrect. If you only look at it from the lens of the person who is having their rights violated they might not see much difference but if you look at the problem as a whole, then it absolutely makes a difference. If you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of why a problem exists then you won't be as effective at tackling the problem.
-
Is it violating the persons 4th if later on, like 14 days later said cop obides by it?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Your question is vague and not serious.
But to try and answer anyway, an officer's actions are judged legally in most instances by the reasonableness standard. Things aren't always black and white, there are all sorts of legal and case law standards when it comes to the 4th amendment that determine whether an officer did something properly or improperly and small details can mean the difference between a legal search/detention and an illegal one.
-
Incorrect. If you only look at it from the lens of the person who is having their rights violated they might not see much difference but if you look at the problem as a whole, then it absolutely makes a difference. If you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of why a problem exists then you won't be as effective at tackling the problem.
A rights violation is a rights violation from anyone's viewpoint.
The reasons for Cops violating rights will vary and have never been prevented by any court. Pretending you don't see that doesn't change the fact that a violation is a violation for ANY REASON.
No difference whether the Cop is having a bad day or is power-tripping.
-
For what purpose though? Shake people down just for the sake of shaking people down?
Thanks to the war on drugs US citizens have been turned into ATMs for the government
$45 Billion generated between 2000 and 2019
How many more reasons do you need?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZUuXnBYego
-
I'm just going to assume the next silly question is going to be "what does civil asset forfeiture have to do with the war on drugs?"
See below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk6qaPntkqQ
-
Your question is vague and not serious.
But to try and answer anyway, an officer's actions are judged legally in most instances by the reasonableness standard. Things aren't always black and white, there are all sorts of legal and case law standards when it comes to the 4th amendment that determine whether an officer did something properly or improperly and small details can mean the difference between a legal search/detention and an illegal one.
So what you're saying is it's OK for an officer to be subjective when making a decision whether to violate someones rights.
My question is serious because you think since HI's red flag law allows the defendant to defend themself AFTER their 2A right is taken away, it's "due process". Even though they had no idea it was about to happen.
Thanks for playing and trying to sound smart. Case law is black and white as it has been thru the court system and all the "small details" have been presented. So this is not an example you can use.
-
:popcorn:
need to buy more popcorn
Let's have a BBQ and bring our chairs. And something to drink. Might be a while.
-
Let's have a BBQ and bring our chairs. And something to drink. Might be a while.
why spend time with people who argue? had enough of that just going to the last gunshow.
-
why spend time with people who argue? had enough of that just going to the last gunshow.
(https://i.imgur.com/6C5F8wi.jpg)
-
The price of avoiding politics is being ruled by criminals and morons
well...here we are!
-
The price of avoiding politics is being ruled by criminals and morons
well...here we are!
Politics non-stop 24/7/365?
I think even you could take a break for a BBQ, right?
-
Politics non-stop 24/7/365?
I think even you could take a break for a BBQ, right?
For real? I’m down.
As long as EEF promises to not plant any drugs on me
-
A rights violation is a rights violation from anyone's viewpoint.
The reasons for Cops violating rights will vary and have never been prevented by any court. Pretending you don't see that doesn't change the fact that a violation is a violation for ANY REASON.
No difference whether the Cop is having a bad day or is power-tripping.
So detail and nuance only matter when YOU identify them?
Yes, a rights violation is a rights violation. The point is that correcting the behavior that resulted in the violation requires understanding the root cause. In understanding the root cause, it absolutely matters whether it was a power-tripping cop getting his jollies by exercising power, or a cop trying to achieve a public safety outcome and bending the rules to get there, or a cop who just doesn’t understand the Constitution.
-
So detail and nuance only matter when YOU identify them?
Yes, a rights violation is a rights violation. The point is that correcting the behavior that resulted in the violation requires understanding the root cause. In understanding the root cause, it absolutely matters whether it was a power-tripping cop getting his jollies by exercising power, or a cop trying to achieve a public safety outcome and bending the rules to get there, or a cop who just doesn’t understand the Constitution.
Details (and nuance) are the Devil's playground.
If you caveat and nuance and hypothesize and analyze all of your core values, you soon find out you've created nothing but a world of gray areas with no concept, let alone existence, of right & wrong, individual liberty or any other ideal.
You can be the referee who calls balls and strikes, or you can be the judge who listens to all sides. in the end, the game hinges on the calls the referee makes. Let the line judge handle disputes. but when the violation is obvious, there's no "detail or nuance."
And unless you're all for "on the job training" for new recruits, Cops need to understand the part of the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. It's what tells them what not to do. if they can't be bothered to learn it before going out and areesting people, then we're going to have much bigger problems.
If someone that's a representative of the state is blatantly violating my constitutionally protected rights, i'm not going to have a conversation with them to discover if it's a training issue, if his wife beats him up, or if he hates old White people.
And if you think a Cop "trying to catch a drug dealer" is justified in stepping over the line to violate ANYONE'S Constitutionally protected rights, then maybe it's people like you who are the problem.
A protected right is not a right if the law can't keep the government's representatives in check without having to take it to court.
-
Details (and nuance) are the Devil's playground.
So why do you spend so much time there?
If you caveat and nuance and hypothesize and analyze all of your core values, you soon find out you've created nothing but a world of gray areas with no concept, let alone existence, of right & wrong, individual liberty or any other ideal.
You can be the referee who calls balls and strikes, or you can be the judge who listens to all sides. in the end, the game hinges on the calls the referee makes. Let the line judge handle disputes. but when the violation is obvious, there's no "detail or nuance."
There may be little or no detail or nuance about whether the violation occurred, but whether you believe it or not, detail and nuance do matter when it comes to determining why the violation occurred so you can most effectively correct the problem.
And unless you're all for "on the job training" for new recruits, Cops need to understand the part of the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. It's what tells them what not to do. if they can't be bothered to learn it before going out and areesting people, then we're going to have much bigger problems.
I’m absolutely for OJT for cops. Not a single cop ever came out of the academy knowing everything they needed to know. I want every cop on the force to be learning and training every day.
If someone that's a representative of the state is blatantly violating my constitutionally protected rights, i'm not going to have a conversation with them to discover if it's a training issue, if his wife beats him up, or if he hates old White people.
I didn’t say I wanted you to have a conversation with cop about why they violated your rights. I said the reason why matters for correcting the problem for the future.
And if you think a Cop "trying to catch a drug dealer" is justified in stepping over the line to violate ANYONE'S Constitutionally protected rights, then maybe it's people like you who are the problem.
Good one! Except I didn’t say that either. As you and I both said, “a rights violation is a rights violation,” and it’s wrong. I used that scenario as a part of a set of examples that may require different approaches to corrective action.
A protected right is not a right if the law can't keep the government's representatives in check without having to take it to court.
So if you feel that a cop is violating your rights, you’re going to fight him/her over it? Let us know how that works out for you. I’ll take it up in court.
You love detail and nuance when you’re picking nits on somebody else’s post, but when someone points it out to you, it’s “the Devil’s playground?” :thumbsup:
-
yea...not hanging out with you people..
-
You love detail and nuance when you’re picking nits on somebody else’s post, but when someone points it out to you, it’s “the Devil’s playground?” :thumbsup:
You seem to enjoy attacking all my posts.
I wonder why you're even on here.
This instance is nothing special.
Have a nice night. :geekdanc:
-
You seem to enjoy attacking all my posts.
I wonder why you're even on here.
This instance is nothing special.
Have a nice night. :geekdanc:
I pass by WAY more of your posts than I reply to; every once in a while, I point out what appears to me to by flawed reasoning or hypocrisy.
I’m on here because there’s some useful info about 2A support efforts in Hawaii. And because it’s intermittently amusing.
And I attack a lot of posts? “Hey kettle, this is pot… You’re black.”
-
yea...not hanging out with you people..
That's the sad thing now. The Biden admin has been weaponizing the justice department going after anyone they consider a political enemy.
You never know who's a dirty fed working for the shitlibs.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/special-counsel-jack-smith-demanded-info-americans-who-favorited-or-retweeted-trump
-
I pass by WAY more of your posts than I reply to; every once in a while, I point out what appears to me to by flawed reasoning or hypocrisy.
I’m on here because there’s some useful info about 2A support efforts in Hawaii. And because it’s intermittently amusing.
And I attack a lot of posts? “Hey kettle, this is pot… You’re black.”
Well, give yourself a cookie!
:rofl:
-
I don't think we should BBQ.
Let's scratch that idea.
I'll just do as OF and buy some more popcorn. :popcorn:
-
I don't think we should BBQ.
Let's scratch that idea.
I'll just do as OF and buy some more popcorn. :popcorn:
Are you going to put the "special" butter on it? :D
-
I don't think we should BBQ.
Let's scratch that idea.
I'll just do as OF and buy some more popcorn. :popcorn:
....
:rofl:
Today, I actually did buy about $30 worth of popcorn. :popcorn:
I usually gift a can of multi-flavored popcorn to the RSO crew at kokohead.
But the new rules say "no eating or drinking" there now due to the thousands of sick people who ate lunch at the range.
-
Details (and nuance) are the Devil's playground.
Sounds like something a liberal says justifying disregarding facts... Just saying
-
A rights violation is a rights violation from anyone's viewpoint.
The reasons for Cops violating rights will vary and have never been prevented by any court. Pretending you don't see that doesn't change the fact that a violation is a violation for ANY REASON.
No difference whether the Cop is having a bad day or is power-tripping.
You quoted my response but clearly didn't read it
-
So what you're saying is it's OK for an officer to be subjective when making a decision whether to violate someones rights.
My question is serious because you think since HI's red flag law allows the defendant to defend themself AFTER their 2A right is taken away, it's "due process". Even though they had no idea it was about to happen.
Thanks for playing and trying to sound smart. Case law is black and white as it has been thru the court system and all the "small details" have been presented. So this is not an example you can use.
Didn't say any such thing. Neither the constitution nor case law is able to provide directions for cops in every possible situation they may face. So they have to take what they have and try to make the best decision possible. And until the SCOTUS rules on something there often isn't any clear answer. That is why you can have one circuit court say a particular search is legal while another says it is illegal. I will give you an example, imagine your yard has a 5 foot fence. A 5 foot cop comes along and wants to see into your yard so he stands on a box and sees drugs in your yard. Illegal search. However if a 6 foot officer comes along and can see over your fence without having to stand on anything his observations would be legal. Not saying it is ok to violate constitutional rights, I am explaining to you that what is constitutional or unconstitutional often is not clear or obvious.
As I pointed out to Flapp, if you get arrested for an alleged crime you don't have a hearing before you get arrested. Same with a involuntary mental health evaluation.
-
what do you mean, "you people"???
yea...not hanging out with you people..
-
Let's have a BBQ and bring our chairs. And something to drink. Might be a while.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WtnMzDKv/printable-no-guns-allowed-sign-1687224454.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/WtnMzDKv)
-
Didn't say any such thing. Neither the constitution nor case law is able to provide directions for cops in every possible situation they may face. So they have to take what they have and try to make the best decision possible. And until the SCOTUS rules on something there often isn't any clear answer. That is why you can have one circuit court say a particular search is legal while another says it is illegal. I will give you an example, imagine your yard has a 5 foot fence. A 5 foot cop comes along and wants to see into your yard so he stands on a box and sees drugs in your yard. Illegal search. However if a 6 foot officer comes along and can see over your fence without having to stand on anything his observations would be legal. Not saying it is ok to violate constitutional rights, I am explaining to you that what is constitutional or unconstitutional often is not clear or obvious.
As I pointed out to Flapp, if you get arrested for an alleged crime you don't have a hearing before you get arrested. Same with a involuntary mental health evaluation.
It's not as hard as you think it is. Lets use HPD's covid example. They were stopping people from exercising their 1A due to the proclamation by Ige. I was there multiple times witnessing this. It's not hard to understand the 1A. Some were then arrested later for not wearing a mask, after the cops got push back for trying to break up the gathering. They then looked for something else to arrest people. Kevin McDonald who ran against Karl Marx was 1 who was arrested for this during a protest.
Then there was a walking protest on the sidewalk heading toward Greens condo in Chinatown. HPD blocked the road so no one could cross the street toward his condo. Only to let people continue about 20 mins later.
Then issuing citations for people breaking the incoming traveler quarantine, being out and not going to and from grocery shopping or work, etc...
Someone brought a locked rifle case to a C&C hearing and a cop detained him. . Yes, he was detained as he asked if he was being detained or free to go and he was told he's detained. He then asked for what and was told the rifle case, which isn't illegal to carry around. Then more cops showed up and none released him knowing it's a rifle case. So not 1 came by to say, "hey this is unconstitutional". He then had his pockets searched and frisked. Then Chief Logan came by and put an end to this and released him.
You're example once again is wrong. Looking over a fence to items in view of the public is allowed. So if a tall cop or one who needs a boost to look over the fence, isn't violating anything. Same goes if they see something inside a home thru a window or open door. Again this shows you don't understand the 4th amendment.
It sounds like many HPD have no clue on what the constitution is as they violated it above, at the firearms division, and by your poor examples.
Thanks for playing. I brought my receipts, looks like you gotta accept the return.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/WtnMzDKv/printable-no-guns-allowed-sign-1687224454.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/WtnMzDKv)
If it's at someones home, the automatic ban takes place and no sign is needed.
**add
The injunction applies to "private property open to the public". Someone's home isn't open to the public, compared to a retail store.
-
I don't think we should BBQ.
Let's scratch that idea.
I'll just do as OF and buy some more popcorn. :popcorn:
I would come, just not interact with certain people. Esp that guy who has Tourette's.
-
heads
I would come, just not interact with certain people. Esp that guy who has Tourette's.
-
post was #facetiousness :rofl:
If it's at someones home, the automatic ban takes place and no sign is needed.
**add
The injunction applies to "private property open to the public". Someone's home isn't open to the public, compared to a retail store.
-
It's not as hard as you think it is. Lets use HPD's covid example. They were stopping people from exercising their 1A due to the proclamation by Ige. I was there multiple times witnessing this. It's not hard to understand the 1A. Some were then arrested later for not wearing a mask, after the cops got push back for trying to break up the gathering. They then looked for something else to arrest people. Kevin McDonald who ran against Karl Marx was 1 who was arrested for this during a protest.
Then there was a walking protest on the sidewalk heading toward Greens condo in Chinatown. HPD blocked the road so no one could cross the street toward his condo. Only to let people continue about 20 mins later.
Then issuing citations for people breaking the incoming traveler quarantine, being out and not going to and from grocery shopping or work, etc...
Someone brought a locked rifle case to a C&C hearing and a cop detained him. . Yes, he was detained as he asked if he was being detained or free to go and he was told he's detained. He then asked for what and was told the rifle case, which isn't illegal to carry around. Then more cops showed up and none released him knowing it's a rifle case. So not 1 came by to say, "hey this is unconstitutional". He then had his pockets searched and frisked. Then Chief Logan came by and put an end to this and released him.
You're example once again is wrong. Looking over a fence to items in view of the public is allowed. So if a tall cop or one who needs a boost to look over the fence, isn't violating anything. Same goes if they see something inside a home thru a window or open door. Again this shows you don't understand the 4th amendment.
It sounds like many HPD have no clue on what the constitution is as they violated it above, at the firearms division, and by your poor examples.
Thanks for playing. I brought my receipts, looks like you gotta accept the return.
Nuance swooshes you again. You say the 1st amendment is not that hard to understand yet you could fill a library with all the case law since it's inception.
BTW, since you would probably claim opposite if I didn't add this disclaimer, I do think HPD crossed the line during covid in some ways. Sometimes in ways they should have known was better, and other times in ways which were not as obvious.
My example is correct, that shows how little you understand the 4th amendment and the expectation of privacy. You think I just made up a very specific example illustrating a very specific out of thin air? That should have been your first hint I knew what I was talking about, but I guess it swooshed you.
Here is the actual case law. Read it, take your time, and then admit you spoke out your anus. It was a window instead of a fence but it is the same problem.
https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/1978/5926-2.html
-
Nuance swooshes you again. You say the 1st amendment is not that hard to understand yet you could fill a library with all the case law since it's inception.
BTW, since you would probably claim opposite if I didn't add this disclaimer, I do think HPD crossed the line during covid in some ways. Sometimes in ways they should have known was better, and other times in ways which were not as obvious.
My example is correct, that shows how little you understand the 4th amendment and the expectation of privacy. You think I just made up a very specific example illustrating a very specific out of thin air? That should have been your first hint I knew what I was talking about, but I guess it swooshed you.
Here is the actual case law. Read it, take your time, and then admit you spoke out your anus. It was a window instead of a fence but it is the same problem.
https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/1978/5926-2.html
Wrong again. Thanks for playing. Maybe u should donate $ to MDA and ET since all of u think red flag laws are constitutional.
So no post of a constitutional red flag law yet? Hmmm...i wonder why.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Wrong again. Thanks for playing. Maybe u should donate $ to MDA and ET since all of u think red flag laws are constitutional.
So no post of a constitutional red flag law yet? Hmmm...i wonder why.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Wrong again? I gave you case law.
I think everyone here can clearly see who is the one who cannot admit they are wrong.
-
Wrong again? I gave you case law.
I think everyone here can clearly see who is the one who cannot admit they are wrong.
(https://i.imgur.com/AY0y6K4.gif)
-
Wrong again? I gave you case law.
I think everyone here can clearly see who is the one who cannot admit they are wrong.
Since u wanna play and ur still wrong. Lets use the Bruen test and go ahead and post history and tradition. Ill wait.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Wrong again? I gave you case law.
I think everyone here can clearly see who is the one who cannot admit they are wrong.
Idk why ur even posting this. R u not able to find a constitutional red flag law, so ur posting something from 1978 about stepping on a box to see inside, not a yard?
Also ur example is far diff from the case law u posted. "Seeing into someones yard". And very vague. Thanks for playing.
I mean ur showing how hard ur trying to be right and still cannot prove u are right.
*edit
LackLuster posted about this many times across the nation. And he brings his recepits (shows case law).
Tism awareness is real
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Since u wanna play and ur still wrong. Lets use the Bruen test and go ahead and post history and tradition. Ill wait.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I gave you an example, you said it was false. I gave you the specific Hawaii case which showed you are wrong and all you can do is retort your same empty claim I am wrong. Talk about moving goalpost. The ball is in your court, good luck proving the Hawaii supreme court got it wrong. Better concoct a better argument than nitpicking looking over a fence vs inside a window. You need to look up the concept of expectation of privacy
Now you are going to try and switch topics by using a federal test? Someone doesn't understand federal case law vs state law.
-
I gave you an example, you said it was false. I gave you the specific Hawaii case which showed you are wrong and all you can do is retort your same empty claim I am wrong. Talk about moving goalpost. The ball is in your court, good luck proving the Hawaii supreme court got it wrong. Better concoct a better argument than nitpicking looking over a fence vs inside a window. You need to look up the concept of expectation of privacy
Now you are going to try and switch topics by using a federal test? Someone doesn't understand federal case law vs state law.
You gave a very vague example, which isn't even close. Going ty to look thru a blocked window (closed blinds) thru a 1 inch gap at the top is different from passing someone's yard and being able to see over a fence. Now had you said the fence was tall enough that even that 6' tall officer can't see over it, then maybe it's a diff story. THen you would also have to add in if the area the cops are standing on is public or private. In your case you posted, they were the private common area part of the land and not a public sidewalk. Like one may be when passing someones yard that has a fence on it in your vague example.
The courts add in reasonable expectation of privacy, so the case stated that blinds were closed. Versus someones yard that has a medium height fence.
Thanks for playing. Your example is like posting "1+1" and someone anwers 2, but you then post "+5-9+100=?"
-
You gave a very vague example, which isn't even close. Going ty to look thru a blocked window (closed blinds) thru a 1 inch gap at the top is different from passing someone's yard and being able to see over a fence. Now had you said the fence was tall enough that even that 6' tall officer can't see over it, then maybe it's a diff story. THen you would also have to add in if the area the cops are standing on is public or private. In your case you posted, they were the private common area part of the land and not a public sidewalk. Like one may be when passing someones yard that has a fence on it in your vague example.
The courts add in reasonable expectation of privacy, so the case stated that blinds were closed. Versus someones yard that has a medium height fence.
Thanks for playing. Your example is like posting "1+1" and someone anwers 2, but you then post "+5-9+100=?"
Tism awareness month.
Wong. The issue is the height and the expectation of privacy. If the officer were tall and could see in the window unaided it would have been legal but he wasn't tall enough and he needed help and that is why it was illegal. A fence would be the same issue. If the fence had wide slots that would be different than if it were a tight fence same like the height of the window and blinds, it all dictates what a person's reasonable expectation of privacy is. Even if you want to nitpick some difference between a fence and a window all of that is irrelevant to my point I made to you about the complexity of search and seizure law.
You are clinging onto a thread to not have to admit you were wrong.
-
Wong. The issue is the height and the expectation of privacy. If the officer were tall and could see in the window unaided it would have been legal but he wasn't tall enough and he needed help and that is why it was illegal. A fence would be the same issue. If the fence had wide slots that would be different than if it were a tight fence same like the height of the window and blinds, it all dictates what a person's reasonable expectation of privacy is. Even if you want to nitpick some difference between a fence and a window all of that is irrelevant to my point I made to you about the complexity of search and seizure law.
You are clinging onto a thread to not have to admit you were wrong.
Wrong. Do you even read what you post, or just the first few paragraphs. Are you ready for April so you can be acknowledged?
-
Wrong. Do you even read what you post, or just the first few paragraphs. Are you ready for April so you can be acknowledged?
I will reply when you actually articulate a point.
-
I will reply when you actually articulate a point.
You mean you will reply with another way of deflecting you're wrong. We all know this. Thanks for playing.
-
I will reply when you actually articulate a point.
LOL!
That WAS a reply, genius. :rofl:
-
LOL!
That WAS a reply, genius. :rofl:
[/quot
-
:popcorn: just like the ACOG MRO debate. Indecisive bitchiness.