• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EXPLOSIVE VIDEO: Malia Obama CAUGHT On Camera Smoking ‘Pot’

Deuce said:
It appears to be a marijuana cigarette? Really? Looks like a regular cigarette to me.

No prosecutor in their right mind would bother filing charges on such shoddy evidence. "Reasonable doubt" clearly exists.
Click to expand...

Especially not considering the lack of severity of the crime. Prosecutors generally have better things to do than to throw the book at anyone -- "political elite" or no -- for taking a hit off a j.

Since Jenna Bush came up earlier in the thread, I'd like to point out that her arrest stemmed from possession of a fake ID.
 
Jetboogieman said:
You can't prove conclusively from the video she was smoking marijuana.

To the best of my knowledge there's no law against consumption.

And you can't prove she was in possession of any significant quantity or had intent to sell.

Good luck.

But I suppose when you accept fake bank documents as proof of payoffs from the Clinton foundation... as Proof, you'll pretty much go rabid on anything that

a) is against Obama

b) ends up with another black person in jail.
Click to expand...

A piss test would clear things bright up.

Yes, there's a law against consumption.

Nice race card you got there. Couldn't resist, huh?
 
apdst said:
A piss test would clear things bright up.

Yes, there's a law against consumption.

Nice race card you got there. Couldn't resist, huh?
Click to expand...

The law is against possession, I believe.
 
Deuce said:
It appears to be a marijuana cigarette? Really? Looks like a regular cigarette to me.

No prosecutor in their right mind would bother filing charges on such shoddy evidence. "Reasonable doubt" clearly exists.
Click to expand...

Erspecially against the president's daughter. Right?

It's appears you do want the political elite to be exempt from the law. That's all you have to say.
 
"Teen puffs pot" is explosive to some people? Where have they been living?
 
apdst said:
It's worked before...

Busted! Cops arrest teenager after she posted a picture of pot on Instagram | Computerworld
Click to expand...

I remember reading about that, actually, and I remember saying that seems like a colossal waste of the cops' time and money.

However, the teen in your link wasn't smoking a joint, she was actually (allegedly) in possession of a not-insignificant amount of marijuana.

Manc Skipper said:
"Teen puffs pot" is explosive to some people? Where have they been living?
Click to expand...

1953, apparently.
 
apdst said:
Erspecially against the president's daughter. Right?

It's appears you do want the political elite to be exempt from the law. That's all you have to say.
Click to expand...

Right. I suggest that nobody would be prosecuted on such feeble evidence, and your conclusion is this solely applies to the "elite." Sure, sure. Just make up whatever goddamned conversation you want.

apdst said:
You have to possess it to consume it.
Click to expand...

And now you're making up your own goddamned laws. Laughable. Definite finalist for mental gymnastics 2016.
 
Deuce said:
Right. I suggest that nobody would be prosecuted on such feeble evidence, and your conclusion is this solely applies to the "elite." Sure, sure. Just make up whatever goddamned conversation you want.



And now you're making up your own goddamned laws. Laughable. Definite finalist for mental gymnastics 2016.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
apdst said:
Link?
Click to expand...

The post I just quoted. Where you decided consumption was against the law because possession is against the law.

Let me spell it out for you, because apparently the law is confusing to you:

The laws against possession require proof that you are in possession of marijuana. You have a video of a girl smoking an unidentified substance, and nothing else. Therefore you cannot prove possession.

A blood test doesn't prove possession.
 
Deuce said:
The post I just quoted. Where you decided consumption was against the law because possession is against the law.

Let me spell it out for you, because apparently the law is confusing to you:

The laws against possession require proof that you are in possession of marijuana. You have a video of a girl smoking an unidentified substance, and nothing else. Therefore you cannot prove possession.

A blood test doesn't prove possession.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the political elite should be above the law? :lamo
 
Kobie said:
I remember reading about that, actually, and I remember saying that seems like a colossal waste of the cops' time and money.

However, the teen in your link wasn't smoking a joint, she was actually (allegedly) in possession of a not-insignificant amount of marijuana.



1953, apparently.
Click to expand...

Reefer madness redux!
 
Deuce said:
The post I just quoted. Where you decided consumption was against the law because possession is against the law.

Let me spell it out for you, because apparently the law is confusing to you:

The laws against possession require proof that you are in possession of marijuana. You have a video of a girl smoking an unidentified substance, and nothing else. Therefore you cannot prove possession.

A blood test doesn't prove possession.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're making up your own laws. I knew you couldn't provide evidence to support your claim.
 
apdst said:
Sounds like you're making up your own laws. I knew you couldn't provide evidence to support your claim.
Click to expand...

You're the one who linked to an article on possession laws. If you don't think possession laws exist, why are you here?
 
Deuce said:
You're the one who linked to an article on possession laws. If you don't think possession laws exist, why are you here?
Click to expand...

You're the one that claims there is only a law prohibiting possession and no law against using. Lets see a link.
 
apdst said:
You're the one that claims there is only a law prohibiting possession and no law against using. Lets see a link.
Click to expand...

Link to a law that doesn't exist?
 
apdst said:
You're the one that claims there is only a law prohibiting possession and no law against using. Lets see a link.
Click to expand...

You want me to prove non-existence of a law? How should I go about doing that? Paste a link to every law in the books?

Can you prove there isn't an invisible dragon on my front lawn?
 
Kobie said:
Link to a law that doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Surely I'd use is legal, there's is something, somewhere on the internet that proves that be so. Yes?
 
Deuce said:
You want me to prove non-existence of a law? How should I go about doing that? Paste a link to every law in the books?

Can you prove there isn't an invisible dragon on my front lawn?
Click to expand...

Ok, so the bottom line is, you can't prove your claim. That means I'm right.
 
apdst said:
Ok, so the bottom line is, you can't prove your claim. That means I'm right.
Click to expand...

:lamo

"Prove this negative or I win!"

Never stop never stoppin.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom