Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
orecoast007 wrote on Nov 15, 2009 2:39 PM:
Mellowgma wrote on Nov 13, 2009 3:50 PM:
CPM wrote on Nov 12, 2009 7:03 PM:
pril wrote on Nov 12, 2009 2:31 AM:
skywatcher wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:30 PM:
dan milburn wrote on Nov 10, 2009 9:15 AM:
NoGod wrote on Nov 9, 2009 4:12 PM:
geez wrote on Nov 9, 2009 2:46 PM:
These "decision-makers" also drink the fluoridated water, and lots of them take mind/body altering prescription drugs, and many more watch LOTS of brain altering TV. They don’t call it programming for nothing.
If you’re a law abiding American, and have no criminal record, then there is no way a group of people with discriminating ideas can absolve your right to bear arms. It’s illegal and unconstitutional.
Are these folks so pure in body and mind that they should be the ones to decide who can defend themselves with a gun or not? Absolutely not, that is why the Constitution and Bill of Rights were created in the first place!
amadeus wrote on Nov 9, 2009 10:54 AM:
Eastsider wrote on Nov 9, 2009 10:14 AM:
The article isn't about guns or pot, but a handful of publicity-seeking idiot sheriffs.
orecoast007 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:32 PM:
NoGod wrote on Nov 8, 2009 2:52 PM:
Marijuana deaths=0 Potheads don't go out and kill or hurt anyone. They do what I do they cook awesome food and listen to good music all while smiling and having a good time. Maybe a few of you should actually go out and smoke pot it could do you some good.
Marijuana is a plant it has been around and evolved with our species since before we walked upright.
dan milburn wrote on Nov 8, 2009 11:14 AM:
Actually you can lose a Pell grant for getting popped for drugs as well as Housing Assistance from HUD.
This whole thing has me wondering what the Sheriff's Association has been smoking to come up with this nonsense. If they have enough time and money to want to branch out their departments into a legislative branch then maybe they have too much of both on their hands! You could sit in a room full of well meaning educated people for ever and I'll venture a guess that you would never get them to agree whether Pot is a drug or not. If this was any other organization BUT the Sheriff's I would catch a glimpse and move on. Let's explore their AGENDA and figure out what they are REALLY up to.
orecoast007 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:59 PM:
Shallow Al wrote on Nov 7, 2009 10:12 AM:
Reminds me of home!
I really don't see the difference if I get stoned or drunk.
It's my right.
Isn't it?
Huh? wrote on Nov 6, 2009 1:04 PM:
Leigh wrote on Nov 6, 2009 11:07 AM:
The Brutal Truth wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:32 AM:
Oh, I get it, the pill-poppers are responsible enough to follow the warning sticker on their bottle of dope.
Thanks for clearing that up!
CB Lifer wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:17 AM:
coquillian wrote on Nov 6, 2009 8:45 AM:
Cmdr wrote on Nov 6, 2009 8:25 AM:
I think their general position is EVERYONE should have the right to carry a gun anyplace any time.
Any less is an unacceptable government intrusion on our rights as they interpret our constitution.
kikilongbean wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:59 AM:
The Brutal Truth wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:52 AM:
I'm afraid somebody will go crazy on THE POT and start shooting!!!!
mindtwisted wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:16 AM:
Secondly, what exactly is the sheriff's department trying to prevent? Are they afraid that pot heads might buy their gun a sandwich or invite their gun to a drum circle? Marijuana smokers are proven not to be violent, so what purpose does it serve to prevent them from owning guns? Should they not be allowed to protect themselves too?
Citizen2 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 11:26 PM:
dan milburn wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:44 PM:
This is so lame and stupid that if they ever call me for another donation to their "sheriff's association", that I'll remind them I'm not donating so they can persue these kind of issues with the money!
orecoast007 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:13 PM:
orecoast007 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 4:22 PM:
CB Lifer wrote on Nov 5, 2009 4:03 PM:
Steve Pickering wrote on Nov 5, 2009 3:19 PM:
OK, let’s see a show of hands. How many of those who think it is ok to have a CCW are also Pot Smokers or some other substance abuser.
How many of those posting here are also Pot Smokers or some other substance abuser.
I thought so.
rianza wrote on Nov 5, 2009 3:13 PM:
But jumping up and screaming "let me introduce you to my little friend" would have been as alien as...well... no Chips A'Hoy.
Just Me wrote on Nov 5, 2009 3:05 PM:
mouse17 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:04 PM:
rambo wrote on Nov 5, 2009 1:03 PM:
AND 2 IDIOTS.
Mr E wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:49 PM:
*note: the sarcasm is pretty thick*
Mr E wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:48 PM:
NoGod wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:25 PM:
"I don't think people who drink alcohol should be allowed to have a license" sounds pretty stupid huh?
Just An Observer wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:04 PM:
Now we have more taxpayer money going to lawyers and court time wasted over wrangling over federal-state legal gray areas thanks to these sheriffs. Just another bad cop-no donut story to go with all the others that have involved state of Oregon sheriffs. The sheriff is not charged with enforcing Federal law, his primary duty is to the state and the county. If the Feds are not going after medpot users, why should the sheriffs stick their nose into the situation? Their actions will cost taxpayer money better spent on real law enforcement problems and shows these guys are out to trample on constitutional freedoms that they swore to uphold!
Holly wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:02 PM:
The Brutal Truth wrote on Nov 5, 2009 11:54 AM:
Folks who have been prescribed pain killers by their doctors are still allowed to own firearms, why should it be any different for medical marijuana users?
And KIKI, your argument doesn't hold water for the same reason. By your reasoning, shouldn't folks who have been presribed pain killers by their doctors also lose their drivers license? After all, they could get all doped up on pills and get behind the wheel, right?
Steve Pickering wrote on Nov 5, 2009 11:51 AM:
The prohibition against allowing known drug users to carry is a good law. By getting a medical marijuana card you are admitting to drug use of a narcotic on the federal illegal list. I feel the same way about voting. The law is written to restrict drunks from voting (remember when bars were closed on election day?), because an intoxicated individual can not make competent decisions. The same laws prohibit drug users from voting for the same reason. In Oregon it may be illegal to send a ballot to a medical marijuana user and it is always illegal for a drug user to attempt to vote.
amadeus wrote on Nov 5, 2009 11:49 AM:
Yes, because we agree with the federal law and its sanctions, lets ignore the state laws and all on the local level, because after all you LUNATICS, the FEDERAL government knows best RIGHT? RIGHT?
kikilongbean wrote on Nov 5, 2009 11:41 AM:




The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines