[VIDEO] ~ Horrific reality of the "WAR ON DRUGS" exposed in SWAT raid video tape...

[PatekPhilippe]

Easy solution, don't do drugs.

Your comment is insanely idiotic I don't even know where to begin...

As a doped up freak who has to find solace in a bong or a crack pipe I can understand your complete lack of an intelligent response. Carry on.

 

[CurveLight]

Easy. read this statement from the advertisement and tell me what is missing....

"Each of the oral fluid device can test for six drugs in the human oral fluid. "




It only tells you if the drug is there. It does not give you a measurable amount which is what the courts would need. Give the world this test, just like the test for alcohol, and I would bet marijuana is almost instantly legalized. Until then I'll fight against it. And not only for police keeping the roads safe but for employers also. I can see someone working a press at some factory somewhere hurting themselves or someone else because of it. Even though eots thinks it does not affect body and mind functions. If it doesn't why do it?

So you try to tap dance. The "measurable amount" is irrelevant. Know why? It's fuxxing illegal in any amount. I knew you would dance and you've embarrassed yourself even more.

Dumbass, if they could test for a measurable amount then perhaps the law could be made to say you are impaired if this amount is in your bloodstream like with alcohol. I', not dancing you aren't thinking. You can't measure it you can't set a limit. Think for a change.

When I asked why do you think there are alcohol but not weed tests you responded by calling me an idiot and claiming that kind of a test doesn't exist. When it is proven they do exist for OTC you respond with:

(ollie post 134)
"This test wouldn't do much good on the side of the highway where a State Trooper is trying to decide if a driver is under the influence and should be taken off the roadway."

So I provide evidence of an instant oral test administered very much like the BAC test and you call me a dumbass and then claim it cannot give a measurable amount so it would do no good. Do you get that you arrogant fuck? When you are proven wrong you change your claim.

What's worse? Changing your argument doesn't help and it shows your ignorance. Again. If an oral test comes up positive it means the weed was smoked within a couple of hours. What does that mean? It would tell cops if the driver was under the influence of weed. I suggest you simply admit you fuxxed up when you claimed no test is available that could be used by cops.

 

[CurveLight]

Easy. read this statement from the advertisement and tell me what is missing....

"Each of the oral fluid device can test for six drugs in the human oral fluid. "




It only tells you if the drug is there. It does not give you a measurable amount which is what the courts would need. Give the world this test, just like the test for alcohol, and I would bet marijuana is almost instantly legalized. Until then I'll fight against it. And not only for police keeping the roads safe but for employers also. I can see someone working a press at some factory somewhere hurting themselves or someone else because of it. Even though eots thinks it does not affect body and mind functions. If it doesn't why do it?

I would put my driving skills to a test after smoking a bag a pot over anyone 70 years old, most of the cops I see breaking every rule of the road and talking on a cell phone or a 17 year old girl. Sorry, it just doesn't have that bad of an effect on motor skills. Take the cell phone users off the road if you are so concerned. And make cops follow the same rules we have to unless they are responding to an emergency with lights flashing and siren blaring. It's just a bit hypocritical to claim pot is a road hazard when so much other more dangerous shit is on the road. Allowing a 16 year old to drive a Corvette or anything else for that matter, especially with cell phones, makes a drunk seem safer.

I tend to agree with much of what you are saying, Doesn't make marijuana any less safe.

Now you really fuxxed up. If you are gauging what should be legal by the safety factor then alcohol should be illegal as it is much more dangerous than weed. You ever drink alcohol? If so, you're a pure hypocrite for judging pot smokers.

 

[Gadawg73]

THC stays in the human body far longer than heroin, cocaine and many other drugs so the fail rate is drastically higher in drug tests.
The sad fact is that you can be stoned out of your mind on Depakote, Thosrzine, Clozerol and Prozac and the tests do not pick those up.
They are not designed to.
Folks, I have worked in the courts for 30 years and investigated over 5000 cases. The war on drugs is a fraud and all law enforcement know it.
Go rob a bank, pistol whip the teller to a bloody pulp and you get less time than a handfull of crack sold.
Drugs ARE A HEALTH PROBLEM, NOT A CRIME PROBLEM.
Snort up a can of Drano, pass out and drive and that is legal. You can not legislate folks BEING A DUMBASS.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So you try to tap dance. The "measurable amount" is irrelevant. Know why? It's fuxxing illegal in any amount. I knew you would dance and you've embarrassed yourself even more.

Dumbass, if they could test for a measurable amount then perhaps the law could be made to say you are impaired if this amount is in your bloodstream like with alcohol. I', not dancing you aren't thinking. You can't measure it you can't set a limit. Think for a change.

When I asked why do you think there are alcohol but not weed tests you responded by calling me an idiot and claiming that kind of a test doesn't exist. When it is proven they do exist for OTC you respond with:

(ollie post 134)
"This test wouldn't do much good on the side of the highway where a State Trooper is trying to decide if a driver is under the influence and should be taken off the roadway."

So I provide evidence of an instant oral test administered very much like the BAC test and you call me a dumbass and then claim it cannot give a measurable amount so it would do no good. Do you get that you arrogant fuck? When you are proven wrong you change your claim.

What's worse? Changing your argument doesn't help and it shows your ignorance. Again. If an oral test comes up positive it means the weed was smoked within a couple of hours. What does that mean? It would tell cops if the driver was under the influence of weed. I suggest you simply admit you fuxxed up when you claimed no test is available that could be used by cops.

My argument hasn't changed, There is still no test for drugs that can be used the same way as for alcohol. It's not difficult to understand this. Except maybe for you.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I would put my driving skills to a test after smoking a bag a pot over anyone 70 years old, most of the cops I see breaking every rule of the road and talking on a cell phone or a 17 year old girl. Sorry, it just doesn't have that bad of an effect on motor skills. Take the cell phone users off the road if you are so concerned. And make cops follow the same rules we have to unless they are responding to an emergency with lights flashing and siren blaring. It's just a bit hypocritical to claim pot is a road hazard when so much other more dangerous shit is on the road. Allowing a 16 year old to drive a Corvette or anything else for that matter, especially with cell phones, makes a drunk seem safer.

I tend to agree with much of what you are saying, Doesn't make marijuana any less safe.

Now you really fuxxed up. If you are gauging what should be legal by the safety factor then alcohol should be illegal as it is much more dangerous than weed. You ever drink alcohol? If so, you're a pure hypocrite for judging pot smokers.

And again, there is a test that the Highway patrol or Sheriff or locals can use to remove a drunk driver from the road.

 

[CurveLight]

Dumbass, if they could test for a measurable amount then perhaps the law could be made to say you are impaired if this amount is in your bloodstream like with alcohol. I', not dancing you aren't thinking. You can't measure it you can't set a limit. Think for a change.

When I asked why do you think there are alcohol but not weed tests you responded by calling me an idiot and claiming that kind of a test doesn't exist. When it is proven they do exist for OTC you respond with:

(ollie post 134)
"This test wouldn't do much good on the side of the highway where a State Trooper is trying to decide if a driver is under the influence and should be taken off the roadway."

So I provide evidence of an instant oral test administered very much like the BAC test and you call me a dumbass and then claim it cannot give a measurable amount so it would do no good. Do you get that you arrogant fuck? When you are proven wrong you change your claim.

What's worse? Changing your argument doesn't help and it shows your ignorance. Again. If an oral test comes up positive it means the weed was smoked within a couple of hours. What does that mean? It would tell cops if the driver was under the influence of weed. I suggest you simply admit you fuxxed up when you claimed no test is available that could be used by cops.

My argument hasn't changed, There is still no test for drugs that can be used the same way as for alcohol. It's not difficult to understand this. Except maybe for you.

Your claim about no test was for weed. Now you want to change it to drugs. That's the second change to your argument. Pick one please.

There are oral tests for weed that can determine if one is under influence. Aren't the alcohol tests also oral? You really want to embarrass yourself again and claim there are no tests for weed like the ones used for alcohol?

The problem is your ignorance. Again. Aside from being illegal, the oral weed test can determine if one is under the influence. Since you obviously don't know how it works let's ring the school bell and give you a desk and fresh box or crayons to take notes. If an oral weed test comes back positive it means the person is under the influence. That is because the chemicals stay in the saliva for a couple of hours then dissipate and do not diffuse from the blood stream back into saliva.

 

[SFC Ollie]

When I asked why do you think there are alcohol but not weed tests you responded by calling me an idiot and claiming that kind of a test doesn't exist. When it is proven they do exist for OTC you respond with:

(ollie post 134)
"This test wouldn't do much good on the side of the highway where a State Trooper is trying to decide if a driver is under the influence and should be taken off the roadway."

So I provide evidence of an instant oral test administered very much like the BAC test and you call me a dumbass and then claim it cannot give a measurable amount so it would do no good. Do you get that you arrogant fuck? When you are proven wrong you change your claim.

What's worse? Changing your argument doesn't help and it shows your ignorance. Again. If an oral test comes up positive it means the weed was smoked within a couple of hours. What does that mean? It would tell cops if the driver was under the influence of weed. I suggest you simply admit you fuxxed up when you claimed no test is available that could be used by cops.

My argument hasn't changed, There is still no test for drugs that can be used the same way as for alcohol. It's not difficult to understand this. Except maybe for you.

Your claim about no test was for weed. Now you want to change it to drugs. That's the second change to your argument. Pick one please.

There are oral tests for weed that can determine if one is under influence. Aren't the alcohol tests also oral? You really want to embarrass yourself again and claim there are no tests for weed like the ones used for alcohol?

The problem is your ignorance. Again. Aside from being illegal, the oral weed test can determine if one is under the influence. Since you obviously don't know how it works let's ring the school bell and give you a desk and fresh box or crayons to take notes. If an oral weed test comes back positive it means the person is under the influence. That is because the chemicals stay in the saliva for a couple of hours then dissipate and do not diffuse from the blood stream back into saliva.

Why must you try so hard to find something wrong?

It is very simple, there is a test which will tell an officer how much alcohol is in your system right now this second. The officer can then follow the law and remove you from the roads or let you go on your way depending upon that amount.

There is no such test for your precious fucking marijuana. Can you stupid fuckhead understand that now that I have fucking put it in your stupid fucking language?

 

[CurveLight]

I tend to agree with much of what you are saying, Doesn't make marijuana any less safe.

Now you really fuxxed up. If you are gauging what should be legal by the safety factor then alcohol should be illegal as it is much more dangerous than weed. You ever drink alcohol? If so, you're a pure hypocrite for judging pot smokers.

And again, there is a test that the Highway patrol or Sheriff or locals can use to remove a drunk driver from the road.

Your barometer was the safety factor. Common sense shows alcohol is much more dangerous than weed but for some reason you keep changing your position every time it's shown to be bullshit.

 

[CurveLight]

My argument hasn't changed, There is still no test for drugs that can be used the same way as for alcohol. It's not difficult to understand this. Except maybe for you.

Your claim about no test was for weed. Now you want to change it to drugs. That's the second change to your argument. Pick one please.

There are oral tests for weed that can determine if one is under influence. Aren't the alcohol tests also oral? You really want to embarrass yourself again and claim there are no tests for weed like the ones used for alcohol?

The problem is your ignorance. Again. Aside from being illegal, the oral weed test can determine if one is under the influence. Since you obviously don't know how it works let's ring the school bell and give you a desk and fresh box or crayons to take notes. If an oral weed test comes back positive it means the person is under the influence. That is because the chemicals stay in the saliva for a couple of hours then dissipate and do not diffuse from the blood stream back into saliva.

Why must you try so hard to find something wrong?

It is very simple, there is a test which will tell an officer how much alcohol is in your system right now this second. The officer can then follow the law and remove you from the roads or let you go on your way depending upon that amount.

There is no such test for your precious fucking marijuana. Can you stupid fuckhead understand that now that I have fucking put it in your stupid fucking language?

There is an oral test for weed to determine if one is under the influence. Ignore that fact again ****.

 

[kyzr]

Common sense shows that impairment is not permitted, period. Wonder why the left whines about tobacco and not about smoking weed? Don't both cause cancer among other serious diseases?

 

[CurveLight]

Common sense shows that impairment is not permitted, period. Wonder why the left whines about tobacco and not about smoking weed? Don't both cause cancer among other serious diseases?

Good grief.

"Study Shows No Increased Risk for Even the Heaviest Marijuana Smokers"
Http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

 

[CurveLight]

The quickest way to kill a thread is to post facts.

 

[sweetie]

...you'd think ending this tremendously expen$ive and utterly failed 'drug war' would be a no-brainer..

..you'd think even these half-wit republicrat 'tea-baggers' would be screaming bloody murder about the financial ruin associated with this stinking motherfucking 'drug war'..

...but hardly a peep from any of these goddamned fool republicrats..

...methinks another major factor at play here are the 'legal buzz' drug dealers incorporated..

..without pot prohibition the price of pot absolutely plummets.....reducing beer, wine, whisky, tobacco sales (and government tax revenues) as more people opt for MUCH cheaper and MUCH MORE EASILY PRODUCED (and therefore nearly impossible to 'tax') pot to satisfy 'the human desire for the buzz'

...add these 'legal buzz' corporations to the large drug pig constituency and decent freedom lovers have a huge obstacle to overcome..

...hear ye..you republicrats who continue to countenance this motherfucking drug war abomination, FUCK YOU....

...the rest of you, have a good day!..

 

[Shogun]

Well, it's pretty fucking clear that Ollie is one ignorant motherfucker whose scope of marijuana extends to the tip of his walking cane.

 

[CurveLight]

Well, it's pretty fucking clear that Ollie is one ignorant motherfucker whose scope of marijuana extends to the tip of his walking cane.

When it's proven the instant tests exist he suddenly stops posting. He was so frustrated he wanted to give me a neg rep but accidentally gave a pos rep....then calls me stupid. Lol.....

 

[manifold]

Please everybody, remember SFC Ollie's position on this the next time he uses the nanny-state, "you need the government to take care of you," argument against a liberal.

And justly call him a hypocrite.

 

[CurveLight]

Please everybody, remember SFC Ollie's position on this the next time he uses the nanny-state, "you need the government to take care of you," argument against a liberal.

And justly call him a hypocrite.

I figure one more post by me calling him out for the coward he has proven to be will get his blood pressure up enough to remind us he served in the military for 22 years. He's talked about it so damn much it almost seems like we've studied his 201 File. Somehow his career is supposed to trump his fuck ups on a message board.

 

[Gadawg73]

Common sense shows that impairment is not permitted, period. Wonder why the left whines about tobacco and not about smoking weed? Don't both cause cancer among other serious diseases?

Who on the "left" argues for allowing smoking weed in public places?
Tobacco kills 400,000 Americans a year and adds $1500 to the health costs of every family in America. 20% of all health care costs in America are to treat tobacco illnesses and cancer.

 

[sitarro]

Common sense shows that impairment is not permitted, period. Wonder why the left whines about tobacco and not about smoking weed? Don't both cause cancer among other serious diseases?

Impairment such as cell phone use while driving? I see cops on the phone all of the time while speeding at twice the rate everyone else is driving....... no emergency lights or sirens. I followed on the other night, he stopped at Whataburger.