It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Malia Obama Closes Out Her Wild Summer With A Bong!

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: imsoconfused

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: imsoconfused

The President does not 'keep' it at Schedule I. Is this really a current event?



Its currently trending now. So yeah. I guess if a mod wants to move it they will. Who cares where its posted?


Coulda just left it at "who cares?" in my opinion.

The conservative hard on for Obama knows no bounds!


Lol. Like you wouldn't arrest everyone in the room.




posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: slapjacks

In what state do you live paraphernalia is legal, but pot still isn't?


I didn't say it was legal. but I've been to the local head shop a few times and saying "bong" has never been an issue. You can also get stopped with a "bong" and be fine, as long as you have no resin in it you're fine.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: slapjacks

In what state do you live paraphernalia is legal, but pot still isn't?


Pretty much them all except Maryland.....excluding the legal states.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: imsoconfused
Says the guy who still hasn't read the source I provided to the thread yet continues to demand information from me.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: slapjacks

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: slapjacks

In what state do you live paraphernalia is legal, but pot still isn't?


I didn't say it was legal. but I've been to the local head shop a few times and saying "bong" has never been an issue. You can also get stopped with a "bong" and be fine, as long as you have no resin in it you're fine.

That's what I was talking about before. The resin makes it paraphernalia. If you have resin then you will be arrested/fined. It is legal to own a water pipe that you smoke tobacco out of, and until you actually smoke pot out of it, you can claim it is for smoking tobacco. I made all this clear very early in the thread.
edit on 6-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



I bet 'going skiing' also referred to a wonderful trip to the mountains.



mmm Peruvian Slopes .... the good 'ol days



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
mmm Peruvian Slopes .... the good 'ol days


Is that near Mount Escobar?



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: slapjacks

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: slapjacks

In what state do you live paraphernalia is legal, but pot still isn't?


I didn't say it was legal. but I've been to the local head shop a few times and saying "bong" has never been an issue. You can also get stopped with a "bong" and be fine, as long as you have no resin in it you're fine.

That's what I was talking about before. The resin makes it paraphernalia. If you have resin then you will be arrested/fined. It is legal to own a water pipe that smoke tobacco out of, and until you actually smoke pot out of it, you can claim it is for smoking tobacco. I made all this clear very early in the thread.


Exactly.

And you can't tell whether that is pot resin, tobacco resin, oregano resin, or birch tree bark resin.

Hence there is no legality issue in that photo.

ParisHilton .Com is the one who called it a "bong". That has nothing to do with it be legal or illegal.

As it stands, it is totally legal to own a tobacco smoking aparatus that filters the smoke through water.......i.e. a bong. Until that bong can be tested that bong is legal.

Hence my first post.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
She was smoking pot.
We all know it.
No we can't prove it.


The real issue is why she was dumb enough to be filmed doing it again.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: FaunaOrFlora

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: slapjacks

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: slapjacks

In what state do you live paraphernalia is legal, but pot still isn't?


I didn't say it was legal. but I've been to the local head shop a few times and saying "bong" has never been an issue. You can also get stopped with a "bong" and be fine, as long as you have no resin in it you're fine.

That's what I was talking about before. The resin makes it paraphernalia. If you have resin then you will be arrested/fined. It is legal to own a water pipe that smoke tobacco out of, and until you actually smoke pot out of it, you can claim it is for smoking tobacco. I made all this clear very early in the thread.


Exactly.

And you can't tell whether that is pot resin, tobacco resin, oregano resin, or birch tree bark resin.

Hence there is no legality issue in that photo.

ParisHilton .Com is the one who called it a "bong". That has nothing to do with it be legal or illegal.

As it stands, it is totally legal to own a tobacco smoking aparatus that filters the smoke through water.......i.e. a bong. Until that bong can be tested that bong is legal.

Hence my first post.


You have no point. we all know its pot in the bong. Because we are not stupid.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
She was smoking pot.
We all know it.
No we can't prove it.


The real issue is why she was dumb enough to be filmed doing it again.

I pointed out earlier that we should be MORE concerned with the fact she is drinking underage, but that post was promptly ignored.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: FaunaOrFlora
And you can't tell whether that is pot resin, tobacco resin, oregano resin, or birch tree bark resin.


Tobacco doesn't do that like pot does. Besides tobacco is the un-cool thing nowadays, especially in liberal circles.

This is sounding an awful lot like how as long as Hillary isn't convicted of a crime then nothing that could ever happen before that point could ever possibly sway public opinion.
edit on 6-9-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I have been to hundreds of get togethers and had plenty myself. At probably 75% of these a bong was present and being used.

Guess how many time they were smoking tobacco out of it.




yep 0. zilch. none, not once.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I don't think there are any double standards. Malia apparently is just lucky that tax-payers ensure that she has a secret service guard. A couple of stories online say that the secret service whisked her out of the party minutes before police arrived. Neighbors had called in a noise complaint.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The DEA is a law enforcement agency under the US Dept. of Justice, which is an executive department that Obama, the "CEO" of the US, is absolutely the boss of. Obama could tell them to reschedule MJ and they would have to do it right? Your article says rescheduling it wouldn't make a difference, and that's true if it just got bumped down to Sch.2-5, but unscheduling it (legalizing) would mean the government would have to find a new income stream. I didn't realize even schedule 5 drugs are still illegal to sell without approval.

Drugs are manufactured, plants just grow. Who the F gave government the right to restrict what citizens consume without a constitutional amendment in the first place? Nixon and his "war on drugs", that's who.

I love this little bit from Wiki:

In 1985 MDMA and its analogues were under review by the American government as a drug for potential of abuse. During this time, several public hearings on the new drug were held by the DEA. Based on all of the evidence and facts presented at the time, the DEA's administrative law judge did not see MDMA and its analogues as being of large concern and recommended that they be placed in Schedule III. The DEA administrator, expressing concern for abuse potential, overruled the recommendation and ruled that MDMA be put in Schedule I, the Controlled Substances Act's most restrictive category


Why did anybody let an administrator overrule a law judge with evidence and facts behind him? Doesn't the government rely on facts and evidence to make decisions, or is it just a bunch of BS politics?



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22
Looks to me like the picture taker did so inconspicuously, so it isn't as if she willingly decided to be captured in a photo at that point.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: thov420

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 (passed a mere 3 years after the end of Prohibition) allowed Congress to circumvent that pesky "Bill of Rights" in restricting freedoms by tying the ownership of the plant to a special stamp that you have to purchase the plant. Then you just restrict access (read: make in unavailable. Period) and you have defacto made it illegal. You have Harry J. Anslinger to thank for that piece of freedom erosion.
edit on 6-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: imsoconfused

I guess you are not aware how the presidency works and the checks and balances in place. Yes he could issue an EO, but the EO can, and would, be challanged.
And the of course everyone would call him king obama for doing it, like with his other EO's that our congress has gone as far as talking about impeaching for it.
You are creating this simplistic idea and then ignoring the facts of the matter.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: imsoconfused

I guess you are not aware how the presidency works and the checks and balances in place. Yes he could issue an EO, but the EO can, and would, be challanged.
And the of course everyone would call him king obama for doing it, like with his other EO's that our congress has gone as far as talking about impeaching for it.
You are creating this simplistic idea and then ignoring the facts of the matter.


So he could issue an EO? Why should he care if its challenged?

Its not about what congress or the DEA wants. Its about what the people want. A real president of the people would do just that.
edit on 6-9-2016 by imsoconfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: imsoconfused

Well I'm not sure he even could issue the EO when it comes to this, that was just for sake of argument. But if he could he would still have to worry about the legality if it. Are you under the impression he would not?

I'm not sure the majority of people want him to do it in a way where it wouldn't be solid. I think the majority of the people want our gov as a whole to see this ridiculous prohibition is uneccesary and should be ended.
edit on thTue, 06 Sep 2016 15:13:21 -0500America/Chicago920162180 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join