LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. - Al Gore's son was arrested early Wednesday on suspicion of possessing marijuana and prescription drugs after deputies pulled him over for speeding, authorities said.
Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius about 100 mph on the San Diego Freeway when he was pulled over at about 2:15 a.m., Sheriff's Department spokesman Jim Amormino said.
The deputies said they smelled marijuana and searched the car, Amormino said. They found less than an ounce of marijuana along with Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall, which is used for attention deficit disorder, he said.
"He does not have a prescription for any of those drugs," Amormino said.
Gore was being held in the men's central jail in Santa Ana on $20,000 bail.
".....Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius about 100 mph on the San Diego Freeway....."
Hey, at least he was helping to save the environment. Posted by bdgee on :
I didn't know a Prius could do 100!!!!
I'm impressed.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
LOL... me neither. Personally, I want to own a hybrid, but I want to wait a few years to see how well they age. I do not trust the technology yet.
Posted by bdgee on :
I want to own a car running on pure hydrogen, produced with current from solar and wind power, and powered by a fuel cell.
Posted by Munchkin Man on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I didn't know a Prius could do 100!!!!
I'm impressed.
That's nothing!
The Munchkin Man once ran up his 1967 Volkswagon Bug to 105 miles per hour.
At least, that's what the state trooper said.
Munchkin Man
Posted by jordanreed on :
who?
Posted by glassman on :
heh, i've pegged the speedometer on a '90 500SL (over 160) several times and DIDN'T ever get caught
my 300ZX got unstable at 140-150 Posted by Ace of Spades on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I want to own a car running on pure hydrogen, produced with current from solar and wind power, and powered by a fuel cell.
I want one of those cars from "Back To The Future part TWO"
....They ran on Banna Peels and Garbage Posted by T e x on :
was showing 0 miles per hour when I topped Cinammon Pass, from Lake City (CO) to Silverton, in a 63 GMC short-bed, with three-on-the-tree...lol, pedal floored, in low gear. When I got home, I put a truck transmission in it...
Posted by turbokid on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
my 300ZX got unstable at 140-150
twin turbo?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
My top speed back in the day was 120. Car could done a little more but that was as far as I wanted to push it.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by turbokid:
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
my 300ZX got unstable at 140-150
twin turbo?
non-turbo, 5sp stick, intercooled injection... and i could pull 135 to 140 in 4th gear... it knocked bad on low octane.. it was not a 2+2....
Nissan advertised them (2+2's) at top speed of 137 but i think they "sand-bagged" the numbers for insurance..
the "quickest" street-stock car i ever had wasn't a car it was '90 F350 dually with a fuel injected 460cui and 4.11 rearend... i shocked more than a few people at the lights.... after 40 mph? it was done Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: My top speed back in the day was 120. Car could done a little more but that was as far as I wanted to push it.
American cars aren't/weren't made for top speeds...
the factory suspensions just aren't safe...
the Mercedes? you didn't even feel the road.... i think it woulda gone faster (if it could) and still be smooth...
Posted by rimasco on :
I used to own an Audi tt. One night my friend got that little thing up to 120. I of course was in the pasenger seat like a cat SHlTTING razor-blades
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by rimasco: I used to own an Audi tt. One night my friend got that little thing up to 120. I of course was in the pasenger seat like a cat SHlTTING razor-blades
i let my brother drive my wifes 450 SEL once ... that was a big mistake.... it was about 10 years old already and he made me pretty nervous too... i don't know how high he got it... fortunately? we were in So VA where the State troopers are pretty dilligent so he didn't keep it up for too long...
being a passenger isnt the same as being the driver...
Posted by rimasco on :
you got that right....we were curious what a 4 cylinder turbo could do. Funny thing is..... we coulda gone faster we just ran out of room
Posted by PCola77 on :
This should be it's own thread, not stuck in some Al Gore delinquent kid thread
I've gotten 16 speeding tickets in my life and my older brother is above 30.
I've slowed down since I started a family, but I used to be right up there with you, glassman.
Posted by glassman on :
i slowed down alot after i got a family too...
i never got a ticket for over 69 tho...
once they cut my speed from 74 to 69... in a 55, that was a real break.
i once had VA State Trooper give me a ticket for having a radar detector.. that pissed me of since i had the plug hanging down in plain sight, and that 's all he pulled me over for... he knew i wasn't using it..... and it was only five miles from the state line, i had just crossed it headed north.. he told me i was lucky he didn't make me drive over it.... sheesh, 300$ i was getting annoyed... prolly the only time i was ever close to being rude to a cop...
slow down for state lines, weigh stations, and flashing headlights... people don't flash headlights much anymore..
Posted by bdgee on :
"This should be it's own thread, not stuck in some Al Gore delinquent kid thread"
Actually, PCola77, there is about as much interest in Gore's sons problems as there is in a fat lady's contest.
He ain't particularly comely and isn't in the tabloids regularly, so, without some effort to keep it going, it'll be a back burner item at best.
Let the repubs decide Al is a really likely candidat and they will crank up the hate machine and it'll come to the front big time.
Posted by bdgee on :
"This is an opportunity for people to understand this is happening in your household," he said. "These are your kids. The drug dealers they're going to are their doctors, their parents and their friends."
why do they put people in jail for possessing marijuana?
Posted by T e x on :
driving DUI--with the kinda pot they got nowadays? not to mention the pills... If he had the strong stuff, lol... he shouldn't even be in a chair with rollers.
Posted by bdgee on :
"why do they put people in jail for possessing marijuana?"
Because it has been the agenda of both presidents Bush.
They've used it to capture the attention of the public while they strip the treasury and transfer those funds that are ours to friends and corporations that hide them in offshore accounts to avoid taxes (then make excessive and corrupt donations to republicans, with our money).
In addition to the directly pilfered funds, there are the amounts from treasury dolled out as incentives to various law enforcement agencies and FOPs, which is just a small part of the government funded advertisement campaign to make you believe that such a thing as a "War on Drugs" is feasible or practical.
(Always remember, dubya is a criminally convicted druggie.)
Posted by Munchkin Man on :
quote:Originally posted by Hannibull: why do they put people in jail for possessing marijuana?
Because they broke the law.
Munchkin Man
Posted by ruthie on :
Good answer Munch.....plain and simple..
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
But if you possess cigarettes or alcohol it's okay....Insane!!!!!
Posted by bdgee on :
If breaking the law is a reason for putting people in jail, why isn't Libby going to jail?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Hannibull: why do they put people in jail for possessing marijuana?
it's a good question.
the history of the laws that makes it illegal are fascinating...
in 1937 the Congress passed the marihuana tax act, which did not make it illegal because congress KNEW they didn't have the constitutional right to do so...
some argue that we signed international treaties which become federal law and therefore made it illegal The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is the international treaty against illicit manufacture and trafficking of narcotic drugs that forms the bedrock of the global drug control regime. Previous treaties had only controlled opium, coca, and derivatives such as morphine and heroin. The Single Convention, adopted in 1961, consolidated those treaties, broadening their scope to include cannabis and allow control of any drugs with similar effects to those specified in the treaty.
The US has signed UN treaties that have verbiage in them saying "Subject to its constitutional limitations, each Party shall"....
well? there is no constitutional right to make it illegal, just control it's trade...
November 29, 2004 (transcript). The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Stevens, was issued on June 6, 2005. It upheld the validity of Controlled Substances Act as an exercise of federal power because Congress "could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial." The majority did not address the substantive due process claims raised by the respondents.
The Commerce Clause was the main issue. Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce includes power to regulate:
* channels of interstate commerce. * instrumentalities of interstate commerce. * activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.
The last of the three was relevant to the issue at hand. The relevant precedents for it are Wickard v. Filburn (1942), United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000).
Stevens' opinion for the Court for the Raich decision said that Lopez and Morrison don't apply, since marijuana is a popular part of commerce, and that the Commerce Clause applies whether the commerce is legal or not. According to Stevens, Wickard was the correct precedent to go by. During the American Great Depression, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 imposed quotas on crops including wheat. The farmer Roscoe Filburn produced wheat in excess of the quota, but said the excess wheat was for his own personal consumption and therefore had no effect on interstate commerce. The Court ruled that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" is "commerce" because if he had not grown and consumed it, he would have had to buy it from someone. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat it would affect the interstate market in wheat. This case marked what may be the high water mark of the commerce power. For sixty years—until the Lopez decision—the Supreme Court struck down no law as exceeding the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Like Filburn, Raich and Monson said that their marijuana was only for personal use, and therefore not part of commerce. Stevens said that since the Wickard aggregation principle was valid, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution allowed federal law to override state law.
Congress' power under the Commerce Clause was used for many important pieces of legislation, including the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court had already reaffirmed some precedents and created others that limit the power of Congress over the states, and increased the power of the Court over Congress. With Raich, the Court declined to go further in that direction.
Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurrence that aimed to differentiate the decision from the more recent results of United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison. Although Scalia voted in favor of limits on the Commerce Clause in the Lopez and Morrison decisions, he said that his understanding of the Necessary and Proper Clause caused him to vote for the Commerce Clause with Raich for the following reason: “ Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.” Lopez
after all? they needed a constitutional ammendment to ban alcohol...
interestingly? the States have the right to ban it if they want.... but the Supreme Court overturned the medical legalization laws, and nobody is likely to get the Suprem Court to change it's mind soon...
putting people in jail for possessing it has never made sense...
anyway? the Cato institute says there is no constituional right for congress to make it illegal.. and so did the Congress itself before 1961... they just made a tax code so complicated that it was more or less impossible to trade in it...
the law is basically based in racist rantings... but its' still the law...
PS: this should make some Bushies nervous since Bush has broken a whole slew of treaties... and the foundation of the laws are based on international treaties, which are LAW...
Posted by glassman on :
this reminds me of a funny story:
i had a friend in Jr High that told his parent he saw his older sister smoking a joint. i forget why he told on her, but she got put on restriction for a long time...
anyway she got him back by feeding the dog ex-lax and locking it in his room all day Posted by T e x on :
Winky Groom, the oldest neon installer around, did sumpin similar with a Shetland pony in the Poly High School principal's office... mid to late 50s, for you history buffs
Posted by bdgee on :
Sounds a bit fanciful to me, Tex.
Posted by T e x on :
lol, sounds gross to me...
I been on the job with Wink--the only things fanciful I ever caught him in was 1) Sure, we got all the parts we need.... and 2) You'll get paid at the end of the job.
lol... that's him and a son that do those "iron man" thingees in town
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Tex,
Those words sure sound familiar. "You'll get paid at the end of the job" seems to be used a lot these day's.
When i was doing a little manufacturing and selling to builders, i would hear those words a few times. I did wise up a little, and started slapping a lien on the properties right away, then i had a lot more leverage.
I never did like doing that, but it seems it has become a pretty common practice in the last 20 + years.
Posted by jordanreed on :
the oil from the hemp seed can power cars...they used this in the early 1900's.but it was an expensive process ,,but still cheaper than crude. once crude became cheaper,that is what they used. it was more expensive to extract the hemp oil then it was to get oil out of the ground. so the oil barons were fine with hemp being legal.THEN... Once hemp oil became cheaper to extract , that was when they made hemp illegal. and the campaign began...one of the biggest travesties,imo,ever.
Hemp can power,clothe,feed,house..the world!!one acre of weed is 5 times more efficient than an acre of trees.it can be grown virtually anywhere,and be harvested 3 times a year.it would replenish the ozone , not to mention provide a surplus of money around the world.. mother nature is a wonder,,
this is the real reason behind it being illegal. all the rest is smoke and mirrors... Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Tex,
Those words sure sound familiar. "You'll get paid at the end of the job" seems to be used a lot these day's.
When i was doing a little manufacturing and selling to builders, i would hear those words a few times. I did wise up a little, and started slapping a lien on the properties right away, then i had a lot more leverage.
I never did like doing that, but it seems it has become a pretty common practice in the last 20 + years.
awww, Winkie's OK... a lil shady, but OK. Speaking of liens? The restaurant we just did will prolly be facing liens, pretty soon. Nowadays, you don't sign the waiver till everything's paid...
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, a lot can be done with hemp other than blowing it or eating it.
Many of those same usages can be done with cotton stalks, too. She is gone now, but Sara Mayfield, The Queen of Dauphin Island, who was both a close and intellectual friend, held patents for a great many of those uses, which were effectively dead because of the laws against maryijuana.
Posted by andrew on :
yea. why is Libby not in jail and ummmm.....that other guy that lied under oath..what was his name....oh Bill Clinton. He broke the law also.
Posted by glassman on :
Pardon Paris Hilton!! Posted by bdgee on :
Well, for one thing, andi, if you paid attention, Bill Clinton was never involved in any criminal proceeding wherin he lied to a grandjury, was never charged with a crime, was never taken before a criminal proceeding (since he was not in violation of any criminal act...certainly not an act amounting to treason, like Libby), was mever convicted by a jury (or the Senate).
There is a serious question as to whether of not Clinton broke the law or that any law was properly instituted that would make the question he answered even legal to ask. He chose to accept a questionable decision by a judge that had already violated the law in allowing a secret criminal investigation to intercede in a civil matter. Such decisions are made by thousands, othert than Clinton, every day, when it becomes obvious that proving your position is going to be financially exhausting.
Libby was charged as a criminal, tried, and convicted!
Posted by Hannibull on :
quote:Originally posted by Munchkin Man:
quote:Originally posted by Hannibull: why do they put people in jail for possessing marijuana?
Because they broke the law.
Munchkin Man
What is the essence of putting someone behind bars? because they're a danger to society right? So how are pot smokers a danger to society? Pot smokers can barely do ANYthing while high
Also, interesting read Glassman
Posted by Hannibull on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: But if you possess cigarettes or alcohol it's okay....Insane!!!!!
Pot makes people giggle like school girls, alcohol makes husbands beat up their wives, the latter is DEFINITELY more acceptable than the former Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by andrew: yea. why is Libby not in jail and ummmm.....that other guy that lied under oath..what was his name....oh Bill Clinton. He broke the law also.
check this chit out Andrew, i still say the Clintons and the Bushes are really in the same political party no matter what they call themselves: (note the date carefully)
GOP lawyer: Facts 'misconstrued' in Rich case Lewis Libby Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff
March 2, 2001 Web posted at: 3:15 a.m. EST (0815 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff testified Thursday he believes prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges.
The testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who represented Rich dating back to 1985 but stopped working for him in the spring of 2000, came during a contentious, hours-long House committee hearing into former President Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour pardons.
Earlier in the day, three former White House advisers all said they recommended that the Rich pardon be denied, but that they supported Clinton's decision-making process.
Facing intense questioning from Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pennsylvania, Libby hedged on whether he thought Clinton's pardon was justified, infuriating the congressman.
"Did you represent a crook who stole money from the United States government, was a fugitive and should never have been given or granted a pardon by the facts that you know?" snapped Kanjorski.
"No, sir," Libby responded. "There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client based on the tax returns."
Libby then said prosecutors from the Southern District of New York "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they prosecuted Rich.
"(Rich) had not violated the tax laws," said Libby.
At a later point, Libby said he thought Rich was a traitor for his company engaging in trades with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. "I did not condone it, I didn't advise it, I don't admire it," he said.
House panel opens new hearings into Clinton pardons
March 1, 2001 Web posted at: 12:32 p.m. EST (1732 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A House panel has opened a new round of hearings this afternoon into former President Bill Clinton's controversial late-term pardons, a day after reaching an agreement with Clinton's lawyer on viewing a list of donors to Clinton's library foundation. The committee subpoenaed the three aides in its widening investigation of possible influence peddling or links between campaign donations and the pardon of Rich and others on Clinton's last day in office. Marc Rich's ex-wife Denise gave more than $1 million to Democratic causes and $450,000 to the Clinton librar
i think this controversey will be going on for quite awhile...
even more interesting ??? Giulianni was the prosecutor after Rich...
we have all the same players arguing all the time.. it's time for change... past time ...
Posted by andrew on :
nice find.
Posted by glassman on :
Bush critisized Clinton and then went on to say:
Bush criticizes Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier
January 29, 2001 Web posted at: 6:34 p.m. EST (2334 GMT)
"I am troubled by the decision the president made," Bush told reporters during a brief question-and-answer session in the Oval Office. "I would not have made that decision, but nevertheless he was the president. He had the right to do so, to make that decision, and he did."
At the same time, Bush stressed Clinton had the constitutional authority to issue the pardon, and he suggested he would not approve of any changes to that executive privilege.
quote:Originally posted by Hannibull: why do they put people in jail for possessing marijuana?
Because they broke the law.
Munchkin Man
What is the essence of putting someone behind bars? because they're a danger to society right? So how are pot smokers a danger to society? Pot smokers can barely do ANYthing while high
Also, interesting read Glassman
ya...is why I said what I did about the stronger pot they got nowadays and driving... I used to enjoy a lil buzz myself, but you could do stuff and *really* get into it, lol... But these hydro ruderales strains that have been developed...jeez, that chit body slams you into the couch...or whatever's nearby...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)