Drug busts!

[FJRider]

Well, what can ya say to THAT!

Try googling "Person" ... I did.

Person

n pl Persons
1. an individual human being
2. the body of a human being, sometimes including his or her clothing guns hidden on his person
3. (Linguistics / Grammar) a grammatical category into which pronouns and forms of verbs are subdivided depending on whether they refer to the speaker, the person addressed, or some other individual, thing, etc.
4. (Law) a human being or a corporation recognized in law as having certain rights and obligations
5. (Philosophy) Philosophy a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul
6. Archaic a character or role; guise


It says ... what I thought it WOULD say ... sounds fair to me.

[mashman]

NZ study links cannabis to memory loss

OMG that's what happened to my blisteringly high IQ and intellect. It ain't like people's IQ's drop or anyfink based on what they end up doing for a living and are constantly exposed to ... but I guess the study says that that's what happens. Odd given that I can remember feck loads more than my missus can about things... apart from special occassions that is

[ducatilover]

NZ study links cannabis to memory loss

OMG that's what happened to my blisteringly high IQ and intellect. It ain't like people's IQ's drop or anyfink based on what they end up doing for a living and are constantly exposed to ... but I guess the study says that that's what happens. Odd given that I can remember feck loads more than my missus can about things... apart from special occassions that is

It's true

I'm glad I don't smoke it, let alone be a heavy user then, because I have a shit memory (unless it's numbers or bikes, I'm good with numbers)

[avgas]

a PERSON is a LEGAL construct, it has nothing to do with a skeleton, organs or sentient consciousness.

Come on now, make it harder. Even you legal folk know "IS" is a statement of fact. As you below........ turns out there is more than one definition of a person. Even in law.

google or online-law-dictionary "capitus diminutio maxima".

Google where it came from and why. Name was on the basis of title and heritage. It was in capitals due to remove confusion. Note that however name is the same between the legal construct "JOHN SMITH" and the person John Smith. Unless you can show me that "JOHN SMITH" was penalized for something and John Smith was not charged?
Do remember that the Romans carried their titles with them as their identity.

Try googling "Person" ... I did.

Person

n pl Persons
1. an individual human being
2. the body of a human being, sometimes including his or her clothing guns hidden on his person
3. (Linguistics / Grammar) a grammatical category into which pronouns and forms of verbs are subdivided depending on whether they refer to the speaker, the person addressed, or some other individual, thing, etc.
4. (Law) a human being or a corporation recognized in law as having certain rights and obligations
5. (Philosophy) Philosophy a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul
6. Archaic a character or role; guise


It says ... what I thought it WOULD say ... sounds fair to me.

My thoughts exactly. There is more than one law in the world. And even the legal ones get thrown out of court on occasion due to common sense.

[Akzle]

...
4. (Law) a human being or a corporation recognized in law as having certain rights and obligations...

holy shit. for once you've managed not to be a complete retard

Google where it came from and why. Name was on the basis of title and heritage. It was in capitals due to remove confusion. Note that however name is the same between the legal construct "JOHN SMITH" and the person John Smith.
...Do remember that the Romans carried their titles with them as their identity.

...My thoughts exactly. There is more than one law in the world. And even the legal ones get thrown out of court on occasion due to common sense.<-

very little in court, or legislation is "common sense"
1) you may, or may not, accept JOINDER between the fiction and the man. the fiction was created by certification and registration at berth. (legally, "register" is to abandon" so your parents abandoned their natural authority over the PERSON., thus the state (to whom your person was abandoned) has the authority over the PERSON, or corporate entity, but not you as a human, unless you accept joinder, and take responsibility for the corporation (SMITH, JOHN Q.))

when did YOU as a knowing adult (legally interested party), sign up to take the rights and responsibilities of your corporate mirror?

2) what confusion is removed by having two entities with the same title? but different demarcations?
glad you're following down the roman path..cannon law etc. keep reading.
capitus diminutio was how they legally traded SLAVES. obviously noone has lawful right to do that to another human, but they're only trading in corporate certificates... if the humans accept the joinder to their corporate certificate well, that's their own dumb-legal-fault innit?

3) once upon a time a name was a powerful thing. it identified you with a profession, clan, or place. however there is a difference between what you are known as, and the legal construct.
the things you are told are "your identity" are: your slave name (cap. dim. max.); the "date of berth" (incorporation); your occupation; and lesser, your residence/address.
funny enough, these are usually the first three/four questions out of the mouths of those who enforce policy. innit?

now, in supplying those "details" you create joinder between you as you stand, (a free human) and a corporation, with rights and responsibilities assigned by legislation.
personally i reckon the rights god gave me, by my being born, are better than the rights the crown allows me, were i an incorporated fiction. so i choose to act under the former and renounce the latter.

4) there is not more than one "law" in the world. the "law" of the world binds every man, woman and child, race, color, creed, religion, belief, faith, occupation, territory, land area etc etc. drop an apple and it will fall, 10 times in 10, in russia as NZ as antarctica..
there are many different legislated jurisdictions in the world. thats why germanians can drive fast, but not badly, or they get fined. and new zealanders can drive badly, but not fast, or they get fined. there is no greater inherent risk, the laws of physics, gravity etc are equal in both places, but the little men with hats have made different choices for the masses.
that is why women can't drive in abjizzerstan (and innit the world a better place for THAT!?) but they can elsewhere. that's why stealing here, you get to waste police and court time, but little else, but stealing in arab-land, you loose appendages.

[FJRider]

holy shit. for once you've managed not to be a complete retard

There IS an ... OR .... did you miss that ... ???

[Akzle]

There IS an ... OR .... did you miss that ... ???

holy shit. for once you've managed not to be a complete retard

don't blow it now.

[FJRider]

don't blow it now.[/color]

What was I thinking ... A human being ... OR a Corporation.

You can't possibly be human.

[scumdog]

okay.
so you've probably heard about all these fabulous drug busts.
and how they've hauled some hundred thousand dollars in "crime money" and some tonnage of cannabis, and made a few hundred arrests in a ~6 month operation.

now, arbitrarily saying it takes 6 cops for 6 months per arrest, and using the 184 number that i read....and given that cops start at 50k/year. it starts to add up quick, just in man hours.

just how fucking economical is enforcing this anti-cannabis policy?

in terms of cost-benefit i'd say it's weighing fairly in the former and lacking in the latter.

but hey. drugs are bad, and cops are good. or something. right?

And THIS kiddies is where the crap started....and he hasn't stopped since.

[Virago]

I may be a little naive, but I always though a drug bust was a stash hidden in a woman's cleavage.

[oldrider]

I may be a little naive, but I always though a drug bust was a stash hidden in a woman's cleavage.

Yes - you are a little naive! . but it's not the end of the world.

[RDJ]

I may be a little naive, but I always though a drug bust was a stash hidden in a woman's cleavage.

If it is not, it definitely should be. We should always seek out simplification.