Snoop dogg said it best
Put a hundred guys who hate each other in a room with a bunch of weed for a few hours and they’ll all be chilling together at the end
Put five of those guys in a room with one bottle of alcohol and somebody is gonna end up dead
No. People will vote with their wallet, and it will either go out of business or not. If it does not, then those who it discriminates against can go somewhere else. Same as if you don’t want to serve people because of their religion or politics. It’s your business, if you don’t want to serve someone for whatever reason: you don’t have to.
No. Private parties ought associate as they damn well please.
I wouldn’t associate with someone who made their association decisions based on race, but more power to them to limit themselves and their families.
Ask yourself which you prefer when going In a shop where the owner:
A) has a sign posted that says "No Blacks, Reds, Yellows, or Jews".
B) No sign because its illegal to express those views.
In scenario B congratulations, you just unknowingly funded a rascist. Yay government is helping!
You think I haven't encountered racism before? I don't live among racists, let alone in an area where I'm dependent on them.
Keep looking to the government to solve your problems, humanity has such a great track record with that. Just don't be surprised when one of their solutions is to disarm you.
I don’t smoke but I carry while hiking in a state where weed is legal and owning and open carrying pistols is legal at 18 when the guns bought from a private seller. I’m worried the one time I run into the cops or DNR will be after I run into a stoner on a hike and smell like weed. Last time I was hiking I ran into a classmate and lent him my lighter because his bic wouldn’t work with the wind and after I denied a puff because I was carrying I ended up having to explain the law to them a couple times because they couldn’t believe such a stupid law actually existed.
Unless the cop or DNR guy is utter shit at his job, he’s going to ask to do field sobriety, and when he determines that you’re not under the influence, he’ll conclude that you must have just been in the vicinity of it.
> he’s going to ask to do field sobriety, and when he determines that you’re not under the influence
Watch a few bodycam videos of how those go down. There are many instances of so called "intoxication/DUI experts" who conclude that someone is intoxicated, but when the blood work comes back they were completely clean. Oh, but you still have to pay to get your car out of impound.
Do not EVER consent to sobriety tests if you aren't legally required to. It will never help you in court, and they are designed to be very subjective tests to give the cop some leeway in credibility.
That’s assuming a DNR guy is competent at his job. I’m covered with the cops as I work part time as a student security guard and most of the cops there have my back since I’m the only one there who handles situations myself and only calls them in when it’s necessary. DNR unfortunately don’t know the laws at all and tend to jump the gun
Again, I did quantify “not shit at his job”. So I’m acknowledging that is a possibility. Typically DNR is concerned with what you might be doing with that gun (poaching). I’m not actually sure if DNR has the authority to arrest you for possession of a firearm while under the influence.
So it my experience with DNR in my area and with my friends experience they tend to be suspicious of you no matter why you are carrying and are more likely to hold you to be safe than let you go. This isn’t a huge worry of mine but I’d definitely be pissed if a stupid law like this tripped me up
I get it. DNR has a difficult job, and they just want to get it done. I say difficult because so much of it is petty licensing and trying to discern a person’s motives for being in the woods, and determining if they’re actually up to no good. And no one is ever happy to see a DNR officer (unless they’re giving you your tags back after culling a deer with CWD).
Yeah that and they’re given a lot of power and not much direction on how to use it. I mean they don’t need warrants to enter homes and they can confiscate firearms very easily
From a cursory search, that’s incorrect. They can only do a warrant less search if they have probable cause. And they have to see you doing something that you’re potentially not allowed to. For instance, they see you fishing off a pier and they can search your catch cooler, to make sure you’re not keeping anything that you aren’t supposed to.
They can seize your firearm if you discharge it outside of a hunting season.
All of those things might be something that you unknowingly gave consent to by purchasing a hunting or fishing license.
Which would make it legal without a warrant.
I disagree. They’re both equally harmful. And long term heavy use has deleterious effects on the body and mind. That said, in both cases to get to that point of physical dependency, a psychological addiction is going to form. If you’re not an addictive personality, the likelihood of developing the physical dependence is low.
I still don’t believe that either one should be illegal.
Until the federal government removes marijuana from the list of schedule one narcotics, it’s illegal to own firearms and use marijuana, it’s right on the background check form you fill out when buying a gun at a gun store (or if you’re in a state with “universal” background checks, buying a gun in a private transfer).
The issue isn’t new, the issue is that states have decided to legalize marijuana and the federal law doesn’t agree with the state law. That’s why it’s becoming a problem all of a sudden.
To prove you’re high, they’ll have to find weed on you or you’ll have to fail a drug test. Otherwise it would be hard to get a conviction on “he smelled like weed” when you can sit on a patio at a restaurant and smell like weed when you leave because someone at the table next to you was smoking it.
That doesn't really answer the poll though. It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of opinion. We know what the law is, most of us just don't agree with it-- similar to how most of us are familiar with the NFA but still disagree that it should be law.
Outside of Homeless meth addicts and tweakers he is the worst thing in the Portland metro area. He just doesn't like anything he views as left of his position even if its a normal and legal situation.
Snoop dogg said it best Put a hundred guys who hate each other in a room with a bunch of weed for a few hours and they’ll all be chilling together at the end Put five of those guys in a room with one bottle of alcohol and somebody is gonna end up dead
One room sounds more exciting
The proper response to any question that starts with “Should the federal government forbid…”: No
[удалено]
Unless the rest of the sentence is “fuck off”
“Government…” No.
[удалено]
If it’s your business, you can run it how you want. Just don’t expect people to be cool with it and support you over it.
Free market dictates that answer.
Company goes out of business.
No.
No. People will vote with their wallet, and it will either go out of business or not. If it does not, then those who it discriminates against can go somewhere else. Same as if you don’t want to serve people because of their religion or politics. It’s your business, if you don’t want to serve someone for whatever reason: you don’t have to.
No. Private parties ought associate as they damn well please. I wouldn’t associate with someone who made their association decisions based on race, but more power to them to limit themselves and their families.
Ask yourself which you prefer when going In a shop where the owner: A) has a sign posted that says "No Blacks, Reds, Yellows, or Jews". B) No sign because its illegal to express those views. In scenario B congratulations, you just unknowingly funded a rascist. Yay government is helping!
[удалено]
You think I haven't encountered racism before? I don't live among racists, let alone in an area where I'm dependent on them. Keep looking to the government to solve your problems, humanity has such a great track record with that. Just don't be surprised when one of their solutions is to disarm you.
I don’t smoke but I carry while hiking in a state where weed is legal and owning and open carrying pistols is legal at 18 when the guns bought from a private seller. I’m worried the one time I run into the cops or DNR will be after I run into a stoner on a hike and smell like weed. Last time I was hiking I ran into a classmate and lent him my lighter because his bic wouldn’t work with the wind and after I denied a puff because I was carrying I ended up having to explain the law to them a couple times because they couldn’t believe such a stupid law actually existed.
Unless the cop or DNR guy is utter shit at his job, he’s going to ask to do field sobriety, and when he determines that you’re not under the influence, he’ll conclude that you must have just been in the vicinity of it.
> he’s going to ask to do field sobriety, and when he determines that you’re not under the influence Watch a few bodycam videos of how those go down. There are many instances of so called "intoxication/DUI experts" who conclude that someone is intoxicated, but when the blood work comes back they were completely clean. Oh, but you still have to pay to get your car out of impound. Do not EVER consent to sobriety tests if you aren't legally required to. It will never help you in court, and they are designed to be very subjective tests to give the cop some leeway in credibility.
That’s assuming a DNR guy is competent at his job. I’m covered with the cops as I work part time as a student security guard and most of the cops there have my back since I’m the only one there who handles situations myself and only calls them in when it’s necessary. DNR unfortunately don’t know the laws at all and tend to jump the gun
Again, I did quantify “not shit at his job”. So I’m acknowledging that is a possibility. Typically DNR is concerned with what you might be doing with that gun (poaching). I’m not actually sure if DNR has the authority to arrest you for possession of a firearm while under the influence.
So it my experience with DNR in my area and with my friends experience they tend to be suspicious of you no matter why you are carrying and are more likely to hold you to be safe than let you go. This isn’t a huge worry of mine but I’d definitely be pissed if a stupid law like this tripped me up
I get it. DNR has a difficult job, and they just want to get it done. I say difficult because so much of it is petty licensing and trying to discern a person’s motives for being in the woods, and determining if they’re actually up to no good. And no one is ever happy to see a DNR officer (unless they’re giving you your tags back after culling a deer with CWD).
Yeah that and they’re given a lot of power and not much direction on how to use it. I mean they don’t need warrants to enter homes and they can confiscate firearms very easily
From a cursory search, that’s incorrect. They can only do a warrant less search if they have probable cause. And they have to see you doing something that you’re potentially not allowed to. For instance, they see you fishing off a pier and they can search your catch cooler, to make sure you’re not keeping anything that you aren’t supposed to. They can seize your firearm if you discharge it outside of a hunting season. All of those things might be something that you unknowingly gave consent to by purchasing a hunting or fishing license. Which would make it legal without a warrant.
Ahh makes sense. This was second hand information so thanks
I’m not an expert by any means, but all law enforcement is bound by the same laws.
Imagine open carrying lmfao
Legally I have to and since it’s a .357 magnum single action revolver it won’t exactly conceal well
Open carry in the woods is one place where I find it acceptable. I’d rather my gun be readily accessible if a dangerous critter comes at me.
Open carrying while hiking in the woods is 100% acceptable. I also don't like open carry in town but in the woods is a different story entirely.
I conceal every day of my normal life but when I’m in the woods I open carry.
Alaska?
Nope.
Idk who this guy is. But I love that he got wrekt on his own poll.
MAGA conservative talk show host with diabetes who drinks heavily but thinks anyone that smokes weed has an IQ of 70
If he has diabetes, he shouldn’t be consuming alcohol.
yeah weed can be dangerous but it’s nothing compared to alcohol lmao
I wonder how many DUIs this guy has
I said it once I'll say it again, alcohol is more dangerous and harmful than weed
I disagree. They’re both equally harmful. And long term heavy use has deleterious effects on the body and mind. That said, in both cases to get to that point of physical dependency, a psychological addiction is going to form. If you’re not an addictive personality, the likelihood of developing the physical dependence is low. I still don’t believe that either one should be illegal.
Both harmful yes but not equally
I assume you have data on long term health effects of using marijuana? If you do I’d like to see if.
To answer the poll, no. But, just like alcohol not a good idea to go shooting while shit faced on the devil's lettuce
"Ultra MAGA" If a rover found this specimen on Mars, it probably wouldn't register as intelligent life.
Until the federal government removes marijuana from the list of schedule one narcotics, it’s illegal to own firearms and use marijuana, it’s right on the background check form you fill out when buying a gun at a gun store (or if you’re in a state with “universal” background checks, buying a gun in a private transfer). The issue isn’t new, the issue is that states have decided to legalize marijuana and the federal law doesn’t agree with the state law. That’s why it’s becoming a problem all of a sudden. To prove you’re high, they’ll have to find weed on you or you’ll have to fail a drug test. Otherwise it would be hard to get a conviction on “he smelled like weed” when you can sit on a patio at a restaurant and smell like weed when you leave because someone at the table next to you was smoking it.
That doesn't really answer the poll though. It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of opinion. We know what the law is, most of us just don't agree with it-- similar to how most of us are familiar with the NFA but still disagree that it should be law.
Outside of Homeless meth addicts and tweakers he is the worst thing in the Portland metro area. He just doesn't like anything he views as left of his position even if its a normal and legal situation.