Anybody know Anty506 new news?

[wrightme]

imported post

You are a fantastic copy/paste poster, for a subject that obviously you feel strongly about, which has only marginal relevance to the topic of this thread.

Dreamer wrote:

Although I doubt that ANY amount of racist quotations from Senators, Congressmen, State representatives, the press, or "scientific experts" will convince you that the origins of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 were based entirely in anti-Mexican and anti-Black sentiments, I will provide you with a few of the more choice examples I found...

Wake up, people...

 

[Dreamer]

imported post

When I write my own original thoughts, you accuse me of making things up.

When I supply copious documented references and quotations, you accuse me of being a "cut and paste artist".

There is no winning with you.

I can see now the game you are playing, and I refuse to play anymore.

I refuse to fence with an unarmed opponent...

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

When I write my own original thoughts, you accuse me of making things up.

When I supply copious documented references and quotations, you accuse me of being a "cut and paste artist".

There is no winning with you.

I can see now the game you are playing, and I refuse to play anymore.

I refuse to fence with an unarmed opponent...

Must everything you posted is freely available, virtually verbatim at hemp/marijuana legalization "talking point"FAQ websites.

You are the one who is "playing a game." I disagree with the conclusions you draw, and those conclusions are in lockstep with the NORML/industrial hemp industry PoV.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

Just because they are "talking points" does not make them incorrect. They are "talking points" because they are powerful and true.....because you do not share the same view and can't back up your position with facts like the other side can, you declare the argument invalid. A piss poor method of debate.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Just because they are "talking points" does not make them incorrect. They are "talking points" because they are powerful and true.....because you do not share the same view and can't back up your position with facts like the other side can, you declare the argument invalid. A piss poor method of debate.

Not accurate. The data behind the "talking points" is very likely to be accurate. As mentioned above, my disagreement is with the conclusions drawn in the talking points.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Now if the basis was racist, and the law only applied to certain races, THEN I could see a solid claim for "immoral.

I'd like to see cites to the law only applying to certain races as well... :?

Still waiting... where does the law say it is only a crime to possess controlled substances if your race is African or Spaniard in origin, and all Anglo-Saxons are immune from prosecution?

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

I'm an ex-Peace Officer and I think that grass should be legalized. Suprised?

You have no argument. The law is the the law and he broke it. If you disagree with the law, change it.

Thoreau. Gandhi. Parks. Schindler. The Apostle Paul. Mandela.

A great many people would disagree with you, and point out that obeying an immoral law is, in itself, immoral.

A law requiring people to convert to one religion or another is immoral, and should not be obeyed.

Ditto laws requiring return of runaway slaves, and lots of other stuff.

For some reason a law that says you cannot get whacked out on pot does not seem "immoral". Unreasonable and stupid maybe, but it is a big convoluted stretch to claim moral superiority because you have some weed on you. :banghead:

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Now if the basis was racist, and the law only applied to certain races, THEN I could see a solid claim for "immoral.

I'd like to see cites to the law only applying to certain races as well... :?

Still waiting... where does the law say it is only a crime to possess controlled substances if your race is African or Spaniard in origin, and all Anglo-Saxons are immune from prosecution?

These days, I would say that the law has transmuted into being applied equally, while still being immoral and unconstitutional......however, if you look at the roots of these laws, they most definitely were based on racial grounds.

Some would make the argument that the laws, while according to the letter of those laws, are applied equally to all races, in reality they are still targeted against certain minorities......I dunno if that is true or not, but you do hear this argument being made all the time.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

I'm an ex-Peace Officer and I think that grass should be legalized. Suprised?

You have no argument. The law is the the law and he broke it. If you disagree with the law, change it.

Thoreau. Gandhi. Parks. Schindler. The Apostle Paul. Mandela.

A great many people would disagree with you, and point out that obeying an immoral law is, in itself, immoral.

A law requiring people to convert to one religion or another is immoral, and should not be obeyed.

Ditto laws requiring return of runaway slaves, and lots of other stuff.

For some reason a law that says you cannot get whacked out on pot does not seem "immoral". Unreasonable and stupid maybe, but it is a big convoluted stretch to claim moral superiority because you have some weed on you. :banghead:

Civil disobedience used to be considered a great tool to fight immoral laws. You just have to be willing to be a test case or to be imprisoned for your belief. How strongly do you believe that this is wrong? Strongly enough to go to jail for it? In many cases, people are willing to go that far. It should show how many people feel so strongly that this law is injust, unconstitutional, and immoral.

I love how you state "whacked out on pot".....you show an automatic negative bias, which is a learned response to this topic, and makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion on the matter when the person you are speaking to obviously already has their mind made up. If you cannot stand in the middle, unbiased, and be open to hearing the pros and cons of a situation, you will find it hard to have a real debate.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

what do you call being high on pot? Sober?

I was high on the pot yesterday, but I was standing on the toilet to change a light bulb in the bathroom. :celebrate

Calling a spade a spade and a Jack a Jack in no way weakens an argument; in fact it strengthens it.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

So you want to ban alcohol too, do you? Prescription pain killers? Drugs that alter the mental state whatsoever? And more importantly.....why the hell do you care? Nobody is MAKING you take them or infringing on your rights by consuming whatever substances they please. Yes....you are just as bad as an anti....."because I don't like this act, I will do everything I can to make sure you can't do it either"......what a hypocritical view of the world.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

It seems that most states have laws against suicide and self-harm and can hold people involuntarily for varying lengths of time (in CA it's a 72 hour hold in a mental facility).

I say it's hypocritical for the government not to put every person who is "a danger to others, or to himself or herself" through this type of procedure. If you intentionally consume anything which disconnects you from your full mental capacity, and you are probable to cause serious injury or death to yourself or others, I say call the white coats.

If you consume alcohol, you should not then be able to drive. In a way, bars could be ad-hoc mental facilities. You can't leave until you pass the breath test set at the legal limit for driving. If there were a reliable way of testing blood concentration via breath analysis for controlled substances, there could be a new market for these type of bars where people can consume safe amounts of drugs, then clear them out before being allowed back in public.

Being a fibromyalgia sufferer, I know pain. I have been unable to find a NSAID (whether OTC or in prescription strength) that will consistently lessen the pain and raise my mental capacity to full (pain=brain fog). So rather than escalate to narcotics or other drugs, I have sought out non-drug alternatives, and infrequently take NSAIDs during periods of acute pain in case they actually happen to work.

Life is hell: it has pain, it has pleasure. If you want to disconnect from your body and life completely, there's plenty of ways to do so that are immediate and permanent.

I'm too much of an ahole to ever give up living. Guns are my anti-drug, and they are for saving lives.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Not arguing for banning anything, in fact I am in favor of legalizing cannabis and regulating it like beer, wine and liquor. My point is that the marijuana laws are not malum in se and that having a baggie full of ganja in your pocket does not qualify you for sainthood.

 

[architect]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Not arguing for banning anything, in fact I am in favor of legalizing cannabis and regulating it like beer, wine and liquor. My point is that the marijuana laws are not malum in se and that having a baggie full of ganja in your pocket does not qualify you for sainthood.

+1 on both counts, I'll give Anty some benefit of the doubt when I learn that he has contributed to NORML and volunteered his time to their cause (trying to get back on topi here).

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Yeah, back to topic: Hey, Anty506. Thanks for the nice black eye you just gave the movement. Nice postings on the legal site, too. Thw world must think we are all freaking stupid and dangerous, too.

Oh well. I guess we can just be grateful that you weren't carrying while waiting to meet a cop you thought was a teenager for some hot-cha-cha. :banghead:

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Yeah, back to topic: Hey, Anty506. Thanks for the nice black eye you just gave the movement. Nice postings on the legal site, too. Thw world must think we are all freaking stupid and dangerous, too.

Oh well. I guess we can just be grateful that you weren't carrying while waiting to meet a cop you thought was a teenager for some hot-cha-cha. :banghead:

+1 to BACK ON TOPIC...

Anty made some decisions that have had a profound effect on the remainder of his life. He made many posts toOCDO and other forums about OC, steroids and illegal drugs.

I wonder if any of his posts were used against him in court? I shuddered when I read some of his OCDO posts about "getting a good kill" and going around LOOKNG for trouble while OCing. He isn't exactly a posterboy for our cause, but he has a point of view and freely expressed them on a regular basis.

ONLY in AMERICA could he have expressed his views for so long without being arrested, beaten, jailed or tortured.
Agree with his ideas or not, I'm quite sure mostof us are willing to defend his Natural and Constitutional rights to speak his mind. Its unfortunate he didn't have the maturity to make correct decisions and will have to pay a serious penalty.

Sadly, one decisionwas irreversable and cannot be undone: The taking of human life.

Something for all of us to remember: Our "printed" (or published) words here become "public property" as soon as you click on the "send" box. What you say here may come back to haunt you. I try to remember that every time Iopen the board and start "typing". I am outspoken andpassionate about my feelings. No doubt I've said things here that may very well "bite me in the buttocks" if I ever end up in a legal situation.
We all need to accept responsibility for our actions. That's a hard thing for many "youngsters" to grasp in this day and age. They'retoo willing to blame their troubles on someone or something else rather than accept responsibility.

Very sad...

 

[HankT]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Yeah, back to topic: Hey, Anty506. Thanks for the nice black eye you just gave the movement. Nice postings on the legal site, too. Thw world must think we are all freaking stupid and dangerous, too.

Well, there is that old saying about birds of a feather...

Our boy anty506 made several bad decisions on that fatefulJuly 24th day last year.

Although Anthoy Manzella's lawyer did come up with an unexpectedtechnical defense, the latest developments don't seem to bode well for good ole anty506. The phones are a problem.

Here'san interesting article about his situation:




Judge allows prosecutors use of evidence in killing

By JAMES MINTON
Advocate Baker - Zachary bureau
Published: Mar 5, 2010 - Page: 2B

CLINTON — A state district judge ruled Thursday that prosecutors can use much of the evidence gathered from a house where a man was killed during a drug deal last year, including a cell phone that made an audio recording of the fatal encounter.

An East Feliciana Parish grand jury indicted Anthony Manzella, 20, of Hammond, for first-degree murder in the shooting death of Jeral Wayne Matthews Jr., 21, on July 24 in Clinton.

The grand jury also indicted Manzella’s friend, Andrew Robertson, 23, and the shooting victim’s acquaintance, Johnny Barnes, 27, of Jackson, for principal to second-degree murder.

Clinton police said Manzella and Robertson went to a house on Kennedy Street to buy drugs from Matthews and Barnes, but during the transaction, Matthews allegedly struck Manzella in the head with a rifle butt.

Manzella responded by pulling a .40-caliber handgun and shooting Matthews, Clinton Police Chief Eddie Stewart said.

Attorneys for the three defendants asked 20th Judicial District Judge George H. Ware Jr. to throw out evidence found at the crime scene because Clinton police did not obtain a search warrant for the shotgun-style residence.

After hearing testimony from three Clinton police officers and a state attorney general’s computer analyst, Ware ruled the state can use at trials items that were “in plain sight” when officers learned of the shooting and went to check on Matthews.

An iPhone that police linked to Manzella was resting on a plastic storage bin in the bedroom where the drug transaction and shooting occurred, officers testified.

District Attorney Sam D’Aquilla said the phone contained a short recording made during the incident, in which voices and a muffled gunshot can be heard. The recording also was sent to another person’s telephone and recovered by police.

The judge said prosecutors can use another cell phone, drug scales, a box of bullets, a spent .40-caliber bullet casing, an unspent bullet, a McDonald’s bag appearing to contain marijuana, assorted pills, Manzella’s keys, a woman’s driver’s license, cash and a white powder taken from Barnes and an assault rifle.

Ware also said prosecutors can use statements the defendants gave to police after the shooting.




http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/86484117.html

 

[rodbender]

imported post

If you don't play with fire, you won't get burned.