Marijuana: Mason Tvert thinks Amendment 64 boosted national poll favoring legalization

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

2 Like

*** Donkeys Now Considered Intelligent and Loyal ***

http://www.denverpost.com/style/ci_10921163

Boo-Yaa!!

ryan.cordova topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay Too bad they didn't do any research on douchebags, then you'd have something.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

1 Like

@ryan.cordova "You do know that ANY city/county in Colorado can ban all sales of ANY type, right? Whether it's a tobacco store, a porn shop, a strip club, or the local liquor store, every county has the right to decide what types of businesses are present within their jurisdiction."

ROTFLMAO !!

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

1 Like

@ryan.cordova

In an opinion by U$ SUPREME Court Justice Byron White, the majority ruled 7-2 that the borough’s exclusion of live entertainment clearly violated the First Amendment.

White wrote that “nude dancing is not without its First Amendment protections from official regulation.”

Try more K-Y jelly, you pig-ignorant clueless imbecile.

ryan.cordova topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay In summary, you lose.

Again.

ryan.cordova topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @ryan.cordova Oh by the way, the decision in Barnes v. Glen reads: "The CHIEF JUSTICE, joined by JUSTICE O'CONNOR and JUSTICE KENNEDY, concluded that the enforcement of Indiana's public indecency law to prevent totally nude dancing does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression."

ryan.cordova topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @ryan.cordova ROFL you should probably read some of the laws that came after that one before you go about declaring victory again.

"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, although noting that this Court in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 u.S. 560 (1991), had upheld an Indiana ordinance that was "strikingly similar" to Erie's, found that the public nudity sections of the ordinance violated respondent's right to freedom of expression under the United States Constitution. . . . We hold that Erie's ordinance is a content-neutral regulation that satisfies the four-part test of United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and remand for the consideration of any remaining issues."

CITY OF ERIE v. PAP'S A.M.

"Being "in a state of nudity" is not an inherently expressive condition. As we explained in Barnes, however, nude dancing of the type at issue here is expressive conduct, although we think that it falls only within the outer ambit of the First Amendment's protection."

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

1 Like

@ryan.cordova

HipTip: apply copious amounts of K-Y Jelly the next time you decide to fist-fuck yourself in the ass with your home-made dildo of ignorance ... it might not hurt so much.

Ask your mom for help if needed.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

2 Like

@ryan.cordova = proven to be a legal ignoramus once again.

The U$ Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of restrictions upon nude dancing in its 1981 decision Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim.

The town of Mount Ephraim, N.J., had passed an ordinance prohibiting all live entertainment within its borders. An adult bookstore was charged with violating the ordinance after it began offering live nude dancing in coin-operated booths. The bookstore challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance, arguing that the banning of non-obscene nude dancing violated free-expression rights.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the ordinance was unconstitutional.

In an opinion by Justice Byron White, the majority ruled that the borough’s exclusion of live entertainment clearly violated the First Amendment. White wrote that “nude dancing is not without its First Amendment protections from official regulation.”

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the ordinance was unconstitutional.

“nude dancing is not without its First Amendment protections from official regulation.”

Ryan "the retard" Cordova punks himself in the ass once again!

ryan.cordova topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @ryan.cordova ROFL coming from the person who refuses to provide ANY citation.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

1 Like

@ryan.cordova = fails to provide legal citation for his laughably false claims.

You're still punking yourself, chump.

ryan.cordova topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @ryan.cordova So now you're saying USA Today is full of misinformation?

Perhaps you should provide evidence to support that claim.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

1 Like

@ryan.cordova U$A Today ain't a legal citation, chump.

Try again.

ryan.cordova topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @ryan.cordova "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cities and states can ban nude dancing"

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/2008-03-13-strip-clubs_N.htm

So where's your evidence that they can't again? Oh you don't have anything? Good to know.

Monkey

3 Like

I want a survey that asks real questions. Or better yet, a state policy that answers real questions. First on the list should be, should police be allowed to search you or your property without a warrant because they see or smell a lawful amount of marijuana or paraphernalia? Second one should be, should marijuana itself be regulated like alcohol, or should products that use marijuana be regulated like alcohol, and marijuana itself be regulated like the raw ingredients used to manufacture alcohol? Those are some of the questions I would like people to answer. Washington gave their people some answers, what's wrong with Colorado? All Iv'e seen is the Aurora police chief saying, the smell of weed is still reason to search, because of potential criminal activity. Colorado needs to stand up and tell Aurora pigs to feed somewhere else, while answering some questions worth asking. Colorado residents don't care what other people think, or what the feds think, we want to know what Colorado will do to us, and how our laws protect us. Many people want weed legalized, that's clear, but we supposedly already did it, so what the fuck does that mean, are they ever going to tell us?

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

1 Like

@Monkey "the smell of weed is still reason to search, because of potential criminal activity."

Legally True ... since smell is not quantitative. Nor is it temporal. It's the SEARCH ITSELF that determines if in fact you are under the pathetically puny limits.

When a drug dog hits on your vehicle on the interstate, it can't tell how much dope is in the car. Nor can it tell when the dope odor was left in the car.

It is of no legal defense that you had less than 1 ounce of medical marijuana in your car while in Colorado -- which you then removed -- when the drug dog indicates positive and gives the Omaha cops Probable Cause to search your car while transiting Nebraska.

It would have to actually be LEGAL in the literal sense of the word to negate probable cause to search.

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

3 Like

He's probably right. Pollsters can't explain the psychology (they're not psychologists) but voters tend to "pile on" to bandwagons when they know they're with general public opinion (which means their vote doesn't matter anyway, if it ever did) so as to create a cascading affect. It's as though sharing the public opinion makes them correct (the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum.)

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

2 Like

@Cognitive_Dissident "It's as though sharing the public opinion makes them correct"

Which is why the Founding Fathers were prescient enough to created the Electoral College ... they knew the average idiot voter was ... and average idiot.

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay Yet, they established a republic, knowing that roughly half of all voters are of below-average intelligence, and outside of the presidential elections, the 51% rule the 49%, even if they're the less-intelligent or less-successful half.

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

1 Like

@DonkeyHotay See where I used the term "republic," because I know the difference. In a republic, the 51 percent are capable of ruling the 49 percent in terms of party/candidate choices, initiatives, and referenda.

I disagree with you about constitutional initiatives. In several instances, they've been the only tool the people have to protect themselves from a legislature that has (impurely) different interests than than they.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident @DonkeyHotay

No, they did not set up a Direct Democracy ... they set up a Representative Democracy to protect the idiots from their own idiocy.

Which is why Public Legislation via Constitutional Initiatives is a bad idea. See California if there are any lingering doubts.

tutonehcc

@Cognitive_Dissident Or it could be the fact that marijuana prohibition real eyes entirely on lies and people are realizing through legalization that they have been lied to. Marijuana is not bad as officer friendly told us, it's good.

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@tutonehcc I believe that knowledge of being lied to has been the reason why polling numbers have been going up every year (as the old farts who don't know anything about it and believe the lies die off.) This additional affect is separate, though. It's as though more people now think it's okay to have the opinion because other people have shown they do. Either way, it's a win for this form of freedom.

ryan.cordova topcommenter

1 Like

@DonkeyHotay @ryan.cordova If that's what you want to believe, go right on ahead.

Doesn't make you look desperate at all.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

1 Like

@ryan.cordova ... so you admit the point was proven.

Noted.

ryan.cordova topcommenter

1 Like

@DonkeyHotay @Cognitive_Dissident LOL you know you have a winning argument when you have to break the word down to it's roots to prove your point, right?

I mean, it totally doesn't look like you're grasping at straws again or anything. Not at all....

tutonehcc

@DonkeyHotay @Cognitive_Dissident Hotay, they don't understand you like I do, keep up the good work man! TuTone is Hotay's caregiver!

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay Just keep thinking whatever you think flatters you.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident ... your ignorance of secondary, tertiary and quaternary meanings of English words further illustrates your Linguistc Ignorance ... add that to your "typos" and you'll be just another stupid stoner in no time.

... from uter "outer," comparative adj. formed from ut "out;" in part from M.E. verb outen "to disclose," from O.E. utan "to put out," from ut (see out). Cf. Ger. äussern "to utter, express,"

Sie scheitern, wieder!

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay

m-w again:

transitive verb1obsolete : to offer for sale2a : to send forth as a soundb : to give utterance to : pronounce, speakc : to give public expression to : express in words3: to put (as currency) into circulation; specifically : to circulate (as a counterfeit note) as if legal or genuine4: to put forth or out : discharge

Or my spell-checker:

utter 2verb [ trans. ]1 make (a sound) with one's voice : he uttered an exasperated snort.• say (something) aloud : they are busily scribbling down every word she utters.2 Law put (forged money) into circulation.• publish, circulate, or deliver

Note 4th ranking in one case, and absence in the other.

pwnt again

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident = vocabulary fail!

... to give public expression to : express in words

... to put forth or out : discharge

Synonyms: emit

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay Nope, they don't sound alike, and they don't act alike. I also never "uttered" it (look it up, smartass.) Was it a typo when you selected "DonkeyHotay" instead of "JackassTroll" as your screen name?

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident ... so was it a typo when you uttered "principled libertarian" instead of "weak anarchist" ?

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

1 Like

@DonkeyHotay Your problem seems to be that you're a troll. I'm aware of the etymology of the word typo. For a more correct definition than yours, see Merriam Webster:

ty·po noun \ˈtī-(ˌ)pō\plural typos

Definition of TYPO: an error (as of spelling) in typed or typeset materials.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident

HipTip: "typo", as in typographical error, is mechanical-digital in nature.

Your problem seems to be cognitive impairment ... perhaps due to copious cannabis consumption.

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

1 Like

@DonkeyHotay No. Sometimes my typos are phonetic in nature, and I tend to catch them because I have the spell check on, but when it amounts to a different word, I don't always catch it. It also happens to me with "there," "they're" and "their." "To," "two" and "too" are even worse. It's less often, but sometimes happens with "your" and "you're." In general, it seems to me with homophones.

If I bother to proofread, I generally catch them. You're not worth it.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident ... so on your Russian keyboard, the A is next to the E ?

darren1988

@DonkeyHotay You should change your name to JackassHotay

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

1 Like

@DonkeyHotay Actually, it IS a typo. You've already see me admit when I'm wrong. I know the difference between affect and effect.

It would also not have anything to do with pot, as it's been over 72 hours since I've been medicated.

tutonehcc

@DonkeyHotay @Cognitive_Dissident now now Donkey play nice, here have some Cheetos

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

1 Like

@Cognitive_Dissident

ps ... the correct word is EFFECT, not affect.

Pot + Grammar = Fail

... and don't try to excuse it as a typo.

Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @Cognitive_Dissident @tutonehcc Actually, I was referring to lies for fascism. Reefer madness, ad nauseam.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

1 Like

@Cognitive_Dissident @tutonehcc

*** Lies for Freedom! ***

iWannaTalkToSampson

1 Like

I think we are all missing a huge point here when we argue over these comment boards regarding whether A64 did or did not legalize marijuana. I agree that A64 is not "full legalization" however, it is a huge step in the right direction and a huge victory for the reformation of marijuana laws. Only a couple of years ago it seemed completely outlandish to think any state would pass legislation allowing for "legalization" or "regulation" of recreational marijuana use.

But here we are in 2012 with 2 states passing this type of legislation. No these amendments aren't perfect. They don't completely protect marijuana users in ways that many of us would like or need. But what we need to also consider here is the impact these laws have made moving forward. Legal marijuana is now a topic of every major news broadcast, major publications are writing front page articles about it, shows like 60 minutes are airing fairly unbiased segments on what the future could now look like. And most importantly, marijuana, and the hypocrisy surrounding the vast majority of laws related to it, is a household topic.

No matter what the federal government's stance on A64 or I-502 is in the coming months, they now won't be able to quietly snuff out these movements or fight against them without widespread media coverage. The federal government's actions in the near future will fall under national criticism and continue these important discussions about how we really should govern the use of cannabis and what the extent is of our state and individual rights.

This movement had to start somewhere and i'm proud it started in my home state of Colorado. A64 has opened the door for not only other states but also the federal government to change marijuana policy and this is the real victory.

tutonehcc

@iWannaTalkToSampson Well spoken! I think the biggest proof the Feds aren't about going to do anything is the fact that they haven't done anything about medical marijuana in Colorado. There are hundreds of medical marijuana outlets in our Great State of Pot, which is just as illegal Federally as recreational pot, and the Feds have let it slide for years. I think it's time to move forward and quit worrying about the Feds, they really don't care and aren't going to bother Colorado if we want to regulate and tax marijuana and give the money to the children.

iWannaTalkToSampson

1 Like

@tutonehcc @iWannaTalkToSampson Thanks Tutone!

Just as the medical marijuana industry paved the way for legislation addressing recreational use like A64, A64 will pave the way for new discussions and legislation regarding full legalization.

As with all social change, be it gay rights, women's rights, or racial equality, once a movement becomes a mainstream topic it will never go away. Those in opposition can only hope to slow it.

A public paradigm shift is now occurring regarding the perception of recreational marijuana use and the strict laws that apply to it. This is proof that mainstream attention can quickly shift public opinion.

tutonehcc

Mason Tvert's efforts have led to the greatest political achievement in modern mankind, the legalization of cannabis. Though the details are to be ironed out, to the world it says 'LEGAL'! Everyone else in every god forsaken corner of the world where cannabis is illegal sees this as a step forward in ideas, and politics, which will lead to change. Cannabis should be available to everyone who knows its use. We should all have the opportunity to purchase and consume cannabis just like we can alcohol and send the tax money to the children's schools where it's needed. Long live the ganja warrior and down with the pot clowns.

Dander

1 Like

Best news yet - Mason Tervert has taken a job kissing ass and bending over at MPP - Hopefully he will move to Washington DC so we can be rid of this lying liar in our state! Prohibition lasted 70+ years based on LIES and we don't need any more LIES from the supposedly "pro" legalization camp. Oh, I forgot, Am. 64 is NOT legalization, it is regulation, so Sieg Heil and prepare to be regulated. Resistance is futile.

GOOD RIDDANCE TO MASON!

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

2 Like

"Mason Tvert thinks ..."

This from the same LIAR who falsely claimed that A64 would "prevent 10,000+ arrests for marijuana crimes" in Colorado every year.

Mendacious Mason Tvert = ZERO credibility!

ryan.cordova topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay "Mendacious Mason Tvert = ZERO credibility!"

Speaking of credibility, you should probably post proof of your claim, you're not exactly Mrs. Credible there yourself what with your "petty offense isn't a crime!" "strip clubs are constitutionally protected from moratoriums and bans!" and "no cops will ever listen to A64!"

As of yet, you haven't gotten anything right....