Garfunkel arrested!

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2004-01-21 11:53pm

For Marijuana possession. Just head it on the radio, and the Radio never lies.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-21 11:53pm

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2004-01-21 11:54pm

Who?~Jason

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-01-21 11:56pm

Holy Shit...no wait, I'm not surprised...

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-22 12:09am

Soontir C'boath wrote:Who?~Jason

Garfunkle from Simon and Garfunkle, I assume.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-01-22 12:16am

Another victory in the war on drugs!

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-22 12:18am

Well, it is that. Or am I missing something?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-01-22 12:19am

Rogue 9 wrote:Well, it is that. Or am I missing something?

Sarcasm, chief. You'd be missing the sarcasm.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-22 12:19am

Yeah, that happens on forums. Can't get tone of voice.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-01-22 01:35am

RedImperator wrote:Another victory in the war on drugs!

Wait a second, when did Congress issue a declaration of war?!?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-01-22 01:45am

Xenophobe3691 wrote:
RedImperator wrote:Another victory in the war on drugs!
Wait a second, when did Congress issue a declaration of war?!?

1937, with the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-01-22 02:29am

I thought these old timer music guys were allowed to do this?

Will they ever raid Keith Richards' house?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-01-22 03:56am

That's fucked. Garfunkel's been arrested for possessing some bad, evil drugs.

Yay! Score one for the good guys!

I wonder which cretin is going to claim this as a victory in the War on Drugs?

(Rogue 9, that's how you do sarcasm.

)

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-01-22 03:58am

(stupid lack of an edit button...)

I meant which public speaking floozy will get up and claim this as a victory in the so-called war on drugs. Not you, RedImperator.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-01-22 09:33am

RedImperator wrote: 1937, with the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act.

LOL, I'm sorry, that was sarcasm too. But hey, technically, Marijuana's still legal, the act just makes it nigh impossible to get the stamp to own it...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-22 10:50am

Here is a link to confirm.
I can dress my links, Mrs. Robinson

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-01-22 01:38pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:
RedImperator wrote: 1937, with the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act.
LOL, I'm sorry, that was sarcasm too. But hey, technically, Marijuana's still legal, the act just makes it nigh impossible to get the stamp to own it...

Well, you also have to take various state laws into account, plus later narcotics laws. I'm not sure what the exact status is at this point, but I'm pretty sure the Feeral government has always used the taxation power, rather than the power to regulate interstate commerce, to outlaw marijuana. The states, I believe, don't have to bother with such formalities--it's within their power to simply ban it, and most marijuana enforcement is at the state level.

This makes for a confusing mishmash of laws--for example, in New York, simple possession gets you a citation, like jaywalking, but if you cross the George Washington Bridge into New Jersey, simple possession is a misdemeanor that carries a 6 month prison term and a $1000 fine. And that's for a mere 50 grams. More than 50 grams is a felony worth 18 months and a $25,000 fine. The most leniant state, I believe, is Alaska, where a loophole in their constitution makes it completely legal to cultivate and possess small amounts of marijuana for personal use in the home, while the strictest is probably Arkansas, which has a one year sentence for possession of less than an ounce and draws no distinction between possession or sale for more than an ounce--if you're caught with more than an ounce on you, you're charged with possession with intent to distribute and face at least four years in prison, even if it's a first offense.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-01-22 01:40pm

And I'm still waiting for someone to come in here and say it's a good thing Art Garfunkel was arrested for possession and actually mean it. C'mon, people, I've been in a bad mood all week and I'm itching for a fight.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-22 01:43pm

RedImperator wrote:And I'm still waiting for someone to come in here and say it's a good thing Art Garfunkel was arrested for possession and actually mean it. C'mon, people, I've been in a bad mood all week and I'm itching for a fight.

drugs are bad. m'kay?

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-01-22 02:14pm

So he broke the law and got arrested!

If you don't like the law work to get it changed, but untill it's changed don't whine when you get arrested for breaking it.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-22 02:19pm

Cannabis is being downgraded to a Class C drug in the UK now, but a big push campaign to say it is still illegal has been launched as well.

You can't argue with the law until you change it, if this guy broke a state law then he must do time. Maybe one day it will change and cannabis will be legal.

And maybe I'll shit solid gold bricks.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-01-22 02:19pm

Wasn't Tommy Chong charged and arrested for selling bongs on the Internet a while back?

He should have shoplifted thousands of dollars of merchandise, or posessed child pronography instead. Then, after a few court cases, it would be like it never happened. It worked for Winona Ryder and R. Kelly.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-22 02:26pm

RedImperator wrote:And I'm still waiting for someone to come in here and say it's a good thing Art Garfunkel was arrested for possession and actually mean it. C'mon, people, I've been in a bad mood all week and I'm itching for a fight.

Okay, I implied it, but I'll say it. Drugs = bad. Drugs = illegal. Getting away with breaking the law = bad. Getting arrested for running/possessing drugs = good (for society in general AS WELL AS the arrested person, though they usually don't realize it). Art Garfunkel getting arrested if he actually broke the law = good. Clear enough?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-22 02:28pm

*Braces for impact.*

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-22 02:29pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
RedImperator wrote:And I'm still waiting for someone to come in here and say it's a good thing Art Garfunkel was arrested for possession and actually mean it. C'mon, people, I've been in a bad mood all week and I'm itching for a fight.
Okay, I implied it, but I'll say it. Drugs = bad. Drugs = illegal. Getting away with breaking the law = bad. Getting arrested for running/possessing drugs = good (for society in general AS WELL AS the arrested person, though they usually don't realize it). Art Garfunkel getting arrested if he actually broke the law = good. Clear enough?

Drugs = bad(!)

There's a problem with that statement, it typically refers to illegal narcotics, but that statement makes it sound like all drugs are bad. Technically all drugs are, within certain doses, but we need drugs for medicine for instance, something cannabis can actually help with, I might add.

It's too bad the US gov't can't see it that way, they may never acquiesce to the "Legalise It" crowd.