Retard Sends His Friend To Gaza To Look For Tupac In Promise Of An Xbox One

This is intense dude. Haha. Omg.


Sent from my iPod touch using Grasscity Forum

 

this tickles my reckless suicide deathwish bone something fierce...

 

  OMFG that first video was fucking hilarious. The guy driving the car sounds like he just popped a shit ton of unmentionables.

 

There's some people who just shouldn't be allowed on the internet. He is one of them.

 

slippery slope!
 
What's next? "Some people shouldn't be allowed on the planet?"

 

Yes, if it they endanger someone. It's called prison.
He's endangering himself because of the internet and his stupidity towards it. So he shouldn't get anywhere near something that is dangerous to him.

 

What if he grows drugs?
 
What if he says the wrong word?
 
What if his face contorts in an aesthetically displeasing manner?
 
What if his skin isn't the preferred hue?
 
What if he doesn't have the correct amount of hair in the right places?
 
What if...

 

I wasn't referring to prison as everyone in there is dangerous. I was saying people who are a threat to the public and themselves. should not be out in public.
 
You're acting like the law in general is biased, if they set a law. That means it's regulated. Even if you don't agree with it. It's still illegal.

 

I had a long reply typed out and gc crashed. Long story short I think it's fake

 

Who makes the laws? I'm pretty sure any law that doesn't embrace the fundamental concept of the universal right to human liberty, is indeed born from bias.
 
"Take no liberty which impinges that of another."
 
If a person's actions have not damaged/violated another person or their property, then there is no crime, and should be no law.
 
If you look at the profound quantity of absurd and rights-violating laws, you'd have to be biased in favor of authoritarianism, in order to falsely claim that the laws and those making them, are unbiased.

 

Yes some laws are a bit unorthodox. Everything has a history, And a reason.
I didn't study law too much. But most laws protect your rights, instead of violate them. Some law enforcement don't abide by the rights, and you contest that in court. I know many away to deal with authorities through the rights system, If you know what you're doing and know the laws. You would know that they are there to protect you, and you're actions effect how much protection you get.
What are you referring as biased. All laws are final. or change in regulation. Reform is the only thing active in government that has any substancial effect on society.
I'm not going to stop paying taxes, just to have actual criminals walking the street.
It's being unknowledgeable about the law that puts law against you.

 

 
What is it that i'm not aware of, that causes the federal government to believe i am a criminal for being involved with cannabis?
 
I already know their cannabis prohibition is actually illegal and invalid, but that doesn't stop them from sending men with assault rifles to raid people's homes, even though those people have not violated the liberty clause.

 

Un has a ban on Cannabis in it's psychotropic substance list. The federal government has it regulated as a schedule 1.I know the history, It first stemmed off rascism, because mexican immigrants were bringing it up, and growing it everywhere. California btw. Toppled the country into the prohibition. The federal government doesn't target anyone unless they're a big dog, trafficing, distribution. Why do you think they havn't done anything about states legalizing it? Because they don't care? The states get money for every citation court case or whatever else they hand out. So they get their payday.
Some cops are greedy and enjoy the bonus. It's happened to me before.
The federal government doesn't raid homes unless it's a security problem.
You have personal liberties, which never apply to substance laws, unless it violates you or your privacy.

 

 
lol... you're way off dude. Sorry.

 

<blockquote>"Within the last year we in California have been getting a large influx of Hindoos and they have in turn started quite a demand for cannabis indica; they are a very undesirable lot and the habit is growing in California very fast...the fear is now that they are initiating our whites into this habit... We were not aware of the extent of this vice at the time our legislature was in session and did not have our laws amended to cover this matter, and now have no legislative session for two years (January, 1913). This matter has been brought to my attention a great number of time in the last two months...it seems to be a real question that now confronts us: can we do anything in the Hague that might assist in curbing this matter?"</blockquote>
The "Hindoos," actually East Indian immigrant of Sikh religion and Punjabi origin, had become a popular target of anti-immigrant sentiment after several boatloads arrived in San Francisco in 1910. Their arrival sparked an uproar of protest from Asian exclusionists, who pronounced them to be even more unfit for American civilization than the Chinese. Their influx was promptly stanched by immigration authorities, leaving little more than 2,000 in the state, mostly in agricultural areas of the Central Valley. The Hindoos were widely denounced for their outlandish customs, dirty clothes, strange food, suspect morals, and especially their propensity to work for low wages. Aside from Finger, however, no one complained about their use of cannabis. To the contrary, their defenders portrayed them as hard-working and sober. "The taking of drugs as a habit scarcely exists among them," wrote one observer.
Nonetheless, Finger's concerns were sympathetically received by Wright, who replied, "You certainly should have your legislature do something in regard to Indian hemp." Wright's effort to include cannabis in federal drug legislation would later be foiled by the pharmaceutical industry, which objected to the inclusion of a seemingly innocuous patent medicine ingredient. However, the wheels for prohibition were set in motion in California, where legislation to ban "narcotic preparations of hemp" was introduced in the 1913 legislature.
By this time, another menace had appeared on the horizon: "marihuana" had begun to penetrate north of the border from Mexico, carried by immigrants and soldiers during the revolutionary disorders of 1910 - 1920. Though hardly known to the American public, marihuana or "loco-weed" was noticed by the pharmacy journals, which surmised that it was a relative of Indian hemp or perhaps jimsonweed. In Mexico its use was mainly associated with delinquents and soldiers, lending it a discreditable reputation for madness and violence. With this in mind, the Board duly added "loco-weed" to its 1913 legislation.
http://www.canorml.org/background/ca1913.html
 
Sorry no, i'm correct.
 
You smoke weed, but don't know any of the laws acted upon it, and their history?

 

Is that kid still alive? Did he ever realize that he is an idiot? I want to see a vid of him in a burning bombed building crying his eyes out saying "I wanna go home! I never should have done this!"

 

The first video sounds like they are acting, badly. Kinda funny though

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

I don't know how many actual fucks my brain can handle right now.