bisonh8er Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 So are you a drug and alcohol rehab expert? I have seen some good people ruined by the simple non-gateway drug. How do you figure? How can you just assume that marijuana caused them to become ruined? edit: and no I'm not a rehab expert but if you watch the video a Harvard Medical Professor agrees with my statement. Is he qualified enough? 1 Quote
almostheavenin2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 While I concede that some people can't handle their liquor and therefore should not drink, the fact of the matter is that it is legal to enjoy an adult beverage if you are old enough. If you smoke pot you're breaking the law no matter how old you are. You may not like like the law but you must still obey it. If you intentionally show a lack of respect for the law and disobey it you are no better than any other common criminal. Like making copies of copyrighted materials and trading them? 1 Quote
bisonh8er Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 While I concede that some people can't handle their liquor and therefore should not drink, the fact of the matter is that it is legal to enjoy an adult beverage if you are old enough. If you smoke pot you're breaking the law no matter how old you are. You may not like like the law but you must still obey it. If you intentionally show a lack of respect for the law and disobey it you are no better than any other common criminal. “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” -Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, 16 April 1963 2 Quote
MrEdway Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 While I concede that some people can't handle their liquor and therefore should not drink, the fact of the matter is that it is legal to enjoy an adult beverage if you are old enough. If you smoke pot you're breaking the law no matter how old you are. You may not like like the law but you must still obey it. If you intentionally show a lack of respect for the law and disobey it you are no better than any other common criminal. In 10 years or less it will be legal. And here in Colorado you will pay far more for a speeding ticket than you will for possession of marijuana. Which makes sense. Speeding is far more dangerous.There are well over 100,000 perfectly legal medical users in the state. It's just a weed albeit a very useful and helpful weed. 2 Quote
mikejm Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 ...they're still so stupid it takes every bit of restraint to keep from punching them in the face... That's a pretty serious statement, Dave. You ought to be "seeing" someone to help you with these feelings of rage. Like making copies of copyrighted materials and trading them? Pwned!!!!!! 2 Quote
Popular Post almostheavenin2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Popular Post Posted November 17, 2011 "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reasoning is like administering medicine to the dead." ~Thomas Paine ..and with that I am now done wasting my time with you. You have proven yourself to be one of the most illogical and irrational people on this board. You called people common criminals and I pointed out that it was you who is a common criminal for copying and trading copyrighted material, which by the way is a much more serious crime with larger penalties that a little pot possesion charge and also is a federal offense, and you are calling me illogical and irrational? You have more temper tantrums than anyone here. Please explain how you are not a serious criminal offender? 5 Quote
lakessioux Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reasoning is like administering medicine to the dead." ~Thomas Paine ..and with that I am now done wasting my time with you. You have proven yourself to be one of the most illogical and irrational people on this board. Give my condolences to your family. 1 Quote
UNDColorado Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reasoning is like administering medicine to the dead." ~Thomas Paine ..and with that I am now done wasting my time with you. You have proven yourself to be one of the most illogical and irrational people on this board. You sir are an idiot; you can't be serious about questioning someone elses credibility while you spew this dribble? Fortunately for us people like you will never be making laws! 2 Quote
ScottM Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reasoning is like administering medicine to the dead." ~Thomas Paine ..and with that I am now done wasting my time with you. You have proven yourself to be one of the most illogical and irrational people on this board. The. Irony. Is. Priceless. 4 Quote
almostheavenin2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 So are you a drug and alcohol rehab expert? I have seen some good people ruined by the simple non-gateway drug. How? Quote
Cratter Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 You called people common criminals and I pointed out that it was you who is a common criminal for copying and trading copyrighted material. I was under the impression that was legal? He's recording tv shows/sports events. If I tape Days of Our Lives and I trade it for a Sioux hockey game tape with my mom, we are breaking the law? Quote
ScottM Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 I was under the impression that was legal? He's recording tv shows/sports events. If I tape Days of Our Lives and I trade it for a Sioux hockey game tape with my mom, we are breaking the law? Arguably, yes. If you look at the file-sharing sites like Napster and Pirate Bay, they were subject to civil action even though no money changed hands between the parties. Without delving into the DVD trades organized on this site, wholesale exchanges of copyrighted material are more likely to raise scrutiny from copyright holders than one-off trades between friends, etc. And yes, Title 17 of the US Code does have some serious criminal elements built into it. And why are you watching "Days"? Quote
almostheavenin2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Arguably, yes. If you look at the file-sharing sites like Napster and Pirate Bay, they were subject to civil action even though no money changed hands between the parties. Without delving into the DVD trades organized on this site, wholesale exchanges of copyrighted material are more likely to raise scrutiny from copyright holders than one-off trades between friends, etc. And yes, Title 17 of the US Code does have some serious criminal elements built into it. And why are you watching "Days"? Which makes DaveK nothing but a common criminal. Quote
Cratter Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 And why are you watching "Days"? I thought ya all would like that. She use to religiously record "Knots Landing" back in the day. She is getting the complete first season on DVD....ssshhh. Don't tell her. Quote
almostheavenin2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 I thought ya all would like that. She use to religiously record "Knots Landing" back in the day. She is getting the complete first season on DVD....ssshhh. Don't tell her. Dallas was better. Quote
almostheavenin2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 ^Blasphemy! Knots Landing rocked! No way could anyone beat JR. Wasn't Knots Landing suppose to be on TV first and not as a spin-off sort of from Dallas? Quote
Hayduke Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 No way could anyone beat JR. Wasn't Knots Landing suppose to be on TV first and not as a spin-off sort of from Dallas? Yes it was. And you are right. Dallas with JR Ewing was much better. Quote
almostheavenin2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 If you weren't so irrational I would tell you to hand somebody a DVD-R of a football game recorded off TV in front of the police station and then hand somebody a bag of marijuana in front of the police station and see which act gets you arrested and which one doesn't, but being as irrational as you are I won't waste my time making that argument. You're obviously uninformed about both "fair use" and "The Betamax Case". Come back and try to make your argument when you are better educated as to what you're talking about. They would be selectively chosing which law to enforce. The funny thing is your crime carries a higher penalty the the pot one does. To you have the express written consent to tape and trade the game? Quote
ScottM Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 You're obviously uninformed about both "fair use" and "The Betamax Case". Come back and try to make your argument when you are better educated as to what you're talking about. As a practical matter, I doubt you've read the elements of "fair use" enumerated in Title 17, or have even perused Sony. The Napster and Grokster cases which followed Sony are more on point, and the various file sharing cases brought against individuals by the media companies are even more on point with respect to wholesale sharing of intellectual property. The copyright warning that pops up during telecasts of games is there for a reason. If you ignore it you can held liable for willful infringement, which allows for enhanced civil penalties and possible criminal prosecution under Section 503. Quote
almostheavenin2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 If you weren't so irrational I would tell you to hand somebody a DVD-R of a football game recorded off TV in front of the police station and then hand somebody a bag of marijuana in front of the police station and see which act gets you arrested and which one doesn't, but being as irrational as you are I won't waste my time making that argument. You're obviously uninformed about both "fair use" and "The Betamax Case". Come back and try to make your argument when you are better educated as to what you're talking about. What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#infringement Quote
The Sicatoka Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Dallas was better. ^Blasphemy! Knots Landing rocked! The "eye candy" was way better on Dynasty. Quote
almostheavenin2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 The "eye candy" was way better on Dynasty. Twin Peaks had the best eye candy. Quote
mikejm Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. http://www.copyright...ml#infringement Did you miss this? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.