ACLU Smokes Pot on Border

MW: "The left is a bunch of whiny infant cry-babies, whereas the right is made up of solid men and women who will bear any burden for their fellow countrymen."

Again, you generalize and, in so doing, veer off into fiction land.

I don't support what's going on with this... but your sloppy generalizing about "the left" completely distorts your credibility.

For once, I agree with Mark, although I wouldn't have put it as bluntly. The name calling does nothing to help your point, but rather detracts from it, Michael. Other than that the post is great.

It is unlikely that our liberal President will have any of his ACLU supporters jailed for pot smoking.

M&M: Please elaborate and explain how the left isn't a bunch of whiny cry-babies, since it isn't at all obvious to me. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but they certainly aren't high profile enough for me to call to mind.

RS: Huh?

MW: Some exceptions? Try the significant majority of "the Left"... a majority that you won't see in the news (the high-profile status you require as proof of their existence) because they don't do anything newsworthy.... like march in protests, smoke pot near the Mexican border, or appear on television trash-talking President Bush.

I happen to know many of these "ordinary" people who happen to be leftist. They have regular jobs, regular families, and many of whom are religious.

Just because you don't see news stories featuring these people doesn't mean they don't exist... or that they're so few and far between as to be just "some exceptions".

The problem, which you did a great job of highlighting, is that judge vast groups of people by the handful of events that receive national news attention.

Whether it's this event being used to judge the Left or the Rush Limbaugh drug addiction thing being used to judge the Right... the result is the same: the loss of truth and perspective.

And as I've said before... you always find what you look for. Want to find an unlawful Democrat or liberal? You'll find one. Want to find an estimable Republican or conservative? You'll find one. Want to find good people of either party or ideological association? You'll find them.

Oops... forgot to add a "we" in the first sentence.

I am wondering what religious or moral precedent there is for limiting weed use/consumption?

I'm not a smelly hippi, but we need to be realistic about marijuana and its effects. It is less harmful, less adicting, and much more misrepresented than alcohal. Alcohal is not a great evil when used responsibly, and there are many references to it in the Bible.

Just because someone is smoking weed does not mean they are incapable of doing good work, having a good moral compas, or contributing to society. Just keep that in mind.

Michael,

The constantly personally insulting nature of your comments with respect to people who don't share your views is the reason I decided to quit interacting with you, even though I still read your site.

Speaking as a volunteer ACLU legal observer myself, I find the idea that observers would be getting high while "working" pretty ludicrous. First of all, standard practice is to have a lawyer on the scene at all times. Whatever else, the lawyer knows that observers getting high would destroy the credibility of any testimony they gave. Second, these kids just sat there and smoked pot while some guy - from the South East Arizona Republican Club - snapped several pictures of them? I don't think so.

As for the pictures, it is possible that what the kids are smoking is pot. It's also possible they are hand-rolled cigarettes. In one picture, the girl in the middle and the guy on the right have one each. For any of you who have ever seen someone smoke a joint before, is it standard practice to light up two between two people? Or for two people to share one? Also, look at the way the girl is holding it. Does it look like someone smoking a joint or a cigarette to you?

Mithras: "Speaking as a volunteer ACLU legal observer myself..."

(1)You just blew any shred of objectivity with your opening statement. Ludicrous? ABSOLUTELY. And so is this:

Grey Deacon told Joseph Farah's nationally syndicated "WorldNetDaily RadioActive" audience Friday that ACLU monitors sent to the border to watch Minuteman activity and report civil-liberties abuses to authorities have begun flashing lights, sounding horns and warning off illegals and their "coyote" human smugglers from entering territory patrolled by the volunteers.

(2) "Whatever else, the lawyer knows that observers getting high would destroy the credibility of any testimony they gave"

What's your point? The whole reason the ACLU is there is because they're hoping that the Minutemen will make mistakes, thereby destroying the credibility of themselves.

Now you're upset because the ACLU observers were dumb enough to damage their own credibility first?

I find that Incredible.

Price, even the most ardent opponent of the ACLU has to realize the observers are there in order to gather evidence to be used in a lawsuit. This kind of observer action is difficult, tedious, and sometimes dangerous. Smoking pot on the "job" would instantly make it futile. Whatever else you think of ACLU lawyers, they ain't dumb and they don't like to waste their time as much as anyone else.

If you think ACLU legal observers or staff are in the habit of breaking the law while working, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Mithras: (1)"If you think ACLU legal observers or staff are in the habit of breaking the law while working, you simply don't know what you're talking about"

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, because I NEVER said that. Most newspapers and Internet news sites, however, have pictures, and credible eyewitness accounts of some of those ACLU folks down there breaking the law while they were supposed to be working.

I wasn't there personally, and I will assume for the sake of discussion that you were not there either. If that's the case, then both of us must draw on other available bodies of evidence; right now, the evidence points to ACLU observers smoking weed on the border.

Unless I'm wrong, I believe that constitutes breaking the law while working.

(2) "the ACLU has to realize the observers are there in order to gather evidence to be used in a lawsuit. This kind of observer action is difficult, tedious, and sometimes dangerous. Smoking pot on the "job" would instantly make it futile" - I agree with your assesment, but your opinion does nothing to change the fact that the ACLU workers down there have been observed breaking the law.

Perhaps the lawyers need to better research the observers they send out, keeping in mind that their workers, like it or not, are their ambassadors to the public.

"Thanks for putting words in my mouth"

If was an "if - then" statement. I didn't put words in your mouth. If you don't think that then you don't think it.

"Most newspapers and Internet news sites..."

Please, Price. So far we have WorldNetDaily. It's a very shaky news site.

"and credible eyewitness accounts"

You mean, the South East Arizona Republican Club? Oookay.

Why don't we wait for a response from Eleanor? I expect other pictures of the kids rolling their own cigarettes will emerge.

Mithras:

You seem to be trying very hard to convince us (or yourself, maybe) that two reports citing eyewitnesses, and photographs don't prove anything. You sound like the proverbial TV cop: "Move along, nothing to see here, nothing to see."

C'mon man! The last time I saw someone rolling a cigarette it was a homeless guy who couldn't afford ones ready to smoke. Abd thanks to my previous lifestyle, I have no illusions about the widespread use of weed; nor do I have any problem identifying a joint in a photograph.

Meanwhile, no one is refuting the accusations, and not even the ACLU itself will make a comment when given the opportunity. Why doesn't the ACLU, and it's observers come out and say it's not true?

Accusations + Eyewitnesses + Photographs + No comment by the ACLU = High probability that your esteemed ACLU observers blew it, big time.

You want to convince me otherwise? Then do better than trying to impune eyewitness accounts and photographs. How about a link to a news story or an ACLU statement refuting the accusations.

The so-called Minutemen are not reliable witnesses. They strongly dislike the ACLU, so strongly they have an incentive to lie. Yes or no?

I know several people who roll their own. It's cheaper. I don't smoke anymore, but a close friend of mine does, and she rolls her own. When I did smoke, I tried rolling for a while but didn't need the hassle. College kids trying to save a buck might roll their own. It's worse for you, of course, but people who smoke aren't thinking right anyway.

Anyway, it's interesting how this "news" got created by the right-wing sites. I'll withhold judgment until someone other than WorldNetDaily reports it.

Mithras: "The so-called Minutemen are not reliable witnesses" -That's nothing but an opinion. And it's not founded in fact. While I agree with you that they are probably not thrilled with the ACLU, there are many detailed reports on the behaviour of the Minutemen group during their tenure on the border, and they show their collective attitude and character to be exemplary.

There was one incident involving a volunteer that took a picture of an illegal with a humerous tee-shirt on; he gave him food, money, and then sent him on his way. The Minutemen sent that volunteer home, even though everyone agreed he did nothing wrong; that's how strong their commitment is to good behaviour down there.

If anything, the Minutemen have proven to be of excellent character, so if you're going to impune their credibility as witnesses, you should back that up with something of substance.

Haha, goddam you are a retard. Have you ever seen a "marijauna cigarette" before? Because those people aren't smoking joints. They're rolling their own cigarettes, something college aged hippies do to seperate themselves from the pack. Get it? Hahaha.

JG: I've written several posts about drug legalization that might address your question.

JT: *shrug* I write to entertain myself. As with most internet "personalities", I interact differently face-to-face than I do here. I can understand why you might not like my writing style, and that's up to you.

Mithras and Chi: I'm supposed to balk at the idea that some lefty college kids would do something stupid and counter-productive? Please. I've seen tons of people smoke joints, and incredibly few college kids who roll their own tobacco cigs. The math is easy.

Mithras.

Would you be so quick to condone and defend this activity if this picture would have been of two minutemen? Your basis to defend this argument is strongly related to your opinion. Should the ACLU form an opinion if it is truly to act in our best interests? The ACLU attempts to portray itself as an unbiased and holy upholder of all rights for all but you are clearly choosing sides. Your inability to admit that you could be wrong about a picture that you are evaluating renders your statements invalid. The ACLU is down there to specifically defend illegals rights while clearly disregarding the rights of legal citizens. The hipocracy lies much deeper then your insistance that they are merely "rolling their own". It doesn't matter if they are or they aren't. That is not the reality of the story.

you mean there are people that find it impossible to believe that some of the loons at the aclu do drugs?? smoking pot and watching star trek made them liberals!! man, let me take you by the hand and lead you in from the rain....