Yes, it is the slogan.

THOSE WITH POT MAY AVOID JAIL

AUSTIN -- If a police officer in Texas catches you with a few ounces of marijuana you're going to jail, right? Maybe not.

Beginning Sept. 1, police officers will have the discretion to issue citations similar to traffic tickets rather than hauling the offender to jail. House Bill 2391, which passed with virtually no opposition during the 2007 legislative session and was signed into law without fanfare by Gov. Rick Perry, does not change the penalty for pot possession.

But supporters say the discretion may only be used when the person is in possession of four ounces of marijuana or less and lives in the county where the stop was made, and only when the suspect is not considered a threat to public safety. Plus, they say, it will save a lot of time and paperwork for beat cops and it will help prevent local jails from being clogged with otherwise low-risk lawbreakers.

"From my perspective, it gives police officers another tool in their belt when dealing with nonviolent offenders," said Deputy Chief Dennis McKnight of the Bexar County Sheriff's Department. "Rather than spending three hours taking a guy downtown, booking him into jail, taking him before a magistrate and taking his paperwork up to the district attorney, I can write him a ticket compelling him to show up in court.

"And I can get back to my beat protecting my citizens from rapists and burglars," he added. "It's a no-brainer."

But the Fort Worth Police Department and the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office see it differently. Assistant District Attorney David Montague said his agency is advising local law enforcement agencies to continue taking into custody anyone who violates the law governing marijuana possession.

"It is our desire that they continue to handle these cases as they've been handled in the past," Montague said. "It would be a big hassle to implement the new policy, and there would be no guarantee that we would have the tools we need to make sure these folks made it back for their court appearance."

Lt. Robert Rangel, who heads the narcotics division for the Fort Worth Police, said the department will follow the DA's recommendation. He said most arrests involving small amounts of marijuana are made by patrol officers who find the stash in the course of making traffic stops or other routine business.

"Our unit is targeting the trafficking of more dangerous substances," Rangel said.

State Rep. Jerry Madden, a Richardson Republican who chairs the House Corrections Committee, said he introduced the legislation at the behest of law enforcement organizations who expressed concerns about local jail overcrowding and about whether police officers' time could be better spent rather than taking misdemeanor offenders into custody.

The measure passed 132-0 in the House and 29-1 in the Senate. Houston's Dan Patrick, a Republican, cast the sole dissenting vote.

"This is not about decriminalizing marijuana," Madden said. "There's nothing in the legislation about that." Under the new law, possessing less than two ounces of marijuana remains a Class B misdemeanor punishable by 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. Possession of two ounces to four ounces remains a Class A misdemeanor and is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.

Perry spokeswoman Krista Moody said the governor has no problem with local law enforcement agencies deciding to allow citations to be written in marijuana-possession cases as long as the suspects are held accountable.

Ana Yanez Correa, director of the Criminal Justice Coalition, said the new law makes sense for both law enforcement agencies and for those accused of possessing small amounts of marijuana.

"This says to the police officer, you have the experience and judgment to decide whether this person needs to be taken to jail immediately," she said. "And for the person accused, if he is given a citation, he doesn't risk losing his job because he misses work or risk losing his home because he lost his job. He still has to go to court, and he still faces punishment."

-- MAP Posted-by: Richard Lake


Pubdate: Fri, 24 Aug 2007
Source: Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (TX)
Copyright: 2007 Star-Telegram Operating, Ltd.
Contact: letters@star-telegram.com
Website: http://www.star-telegram.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/162
Author: John Moritz
Referenced: the bill
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB02391F.htm
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?246 (Policing - United States)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?247 (Crime Policy - United States)
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07.n992.a01.html

I am not speaking to the majority of you because the majority of you don't appreciate a good horror film when you see one.

So, I am going to list to you remakes that you should not see. I will also mention remakes that are worth viewing.

Remakes that you should not see:

1. When A Stranger Calls - What can be worse than making a remake of a not so good horror film? In this film, we get a stupid girl, no plot, no character creation, and pretty much no direction. Don't see this film. Don't even see the original.

2. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre - Terrible. If you've seen the original, you know what Tobey Hooper was going for. The remake only looks stylish, and doesn't deliver the jolts that the original gave us.

3. Night of the Living Dead - Not a terrible remake, but it should be looked past if you are a big fan of the original. Not only do we get a completely different ending, but we also lose the feel of impending doom.

4. The Hitcher - Hey, what do you get when you make a remake of this bad ass movie, and you forget to recast Rutger Hauer as the Hitcher? A complete piece of ****.

5. Halloween - Yes, this is a Rob Zombie film. Yes, we do get to dig a little deeper into Michael's childhood (perhaps the best part of the film). What we don't get is something original. Once again, we don't really rely on the story or the character creation. And it really doesn't help that we get cameos from a bunch of Rob's buddies. The production is nice, the mask is still as creepy as ever... but it's just not scary anymore. It's just like the original... though not played off as well, 30 minutes longer, and a bigger body count.

6. The Hills Have Eyes 2 - Boring. Did anyone actually ever see the original? I am almost possitive that a good majority of you did not. So, I'll break it down. In the original, we get a bus full of people that decide to go out into the desert. But wait! The bus stops, and they are trapped! Terror ensues. In the remake, we get a bunch of National Guard idiots who go into the desert and get slaughtered. No longer do we feel tense... and no longer do we really get to see these ****ers torture their victims. All we see is a quick glance of the killer, killing the person quickly. Sometimes, we don't even see the killer. It feels more like a sensless slasher. Plus, the original HHE 2 wasn't good either. Avoid both of them.

7. The Ring - A remake of the Japanese piece of **** "Ringu". The Ring helps us all understand just who know what a good horror movie is... and who doesn't. If you liked this movie, consider yourself a dolt.

8. Psycho - I wasn't a big fan of the original. I definately didn't like the sequels. The remake is boring. The casting is terrible. The awesome shower scene is no longer awesome. It wasn't done right.


Remakes worth seeing:

1. Dawn of the Dead - The one thing that made this movie fun and different was that it was different than the original. It was a different look. We also got zombies that could haul ass, and that were violent as all ****. The tension was good, the story was decent, the actors pulled it off, the gore was excellent, and the movie was just plain fun. Also to note, everyone dies at the end! Just how Romero intended it! Definately watch this one.

2. The Hills Have Eyes - Not bad. Not bad at all. This time around, we get more of a story than the original. We finally understand just what went on. This movie follows closely to the original, but not too close. We get a longer flick with some good horror. The gore is good, the casting was good, the story improved where there wasn't much of one before, and we are still left with the feeling that everyone truly is doomed. Not bad for a remake. I would still rather watch the original over this one any day.


If I missed any, oh well.
I am sure if I think of more, I'll post more.

I've been a long time fan of both Vampires and Zombies.
I wouldn't mind being either of them, although I do think I'd much rather be a vampire.

So, let's break down what makes vampires vampires and zombies zombies.

Vampires:

1. They are immortal.
2. They hate the sunlight.
3. They have intelligence.
4. They never grow old.
5. They have supernatural powers.
6. They can be seductive.
7. They drink blood.
8. They are nocturnal.
9. There are a lot of half-breeds and too few full bloods.

Zombies:
1. They are the undead.
2. Either you die and become a zombie or you get bitten and turned into one.
3. They can be killed easily by a shot in the head.
4. They attack night or day.
5. They only live for one purpose: to feed on flesh.
6. They tend to eventually rot away, so a long life span usually isn't a question.
7. They move slow.
8. They have little if no intelligence.
9. An army of zombies can't usually be stopped.
10. They will do almost anything to feed.

That is a decent yet vague description of vampires and zombies.

Vampires tend to not like to be around each other. They are usually recluses. They also tend to eventually hate their lives after a long period of time, and if they're smart... they walk out into the sun.

Zombies can't really think, so you will usually see them in large groups, wandering around aimlessly, looking for food. You can usually hear them coming.

A vampire doesn't cause a big threat, that is if you take the vampires you've read from the books or seen in some films. In some films, vampires are incredibly dangerous, and they will tear you apart.
The vampires from the books are usually stuck up, panzies, and enjoy having sex with the same sex.

Zombies cause a large threat, no matter if you read about them in books or see them in movies.
Some zombies move really fast, others really slow. And the biggest problem with zombies is that they travel in large groups.
Even five people can't stop a group of 20 zombies. Five people can easily stop one vampire.
Hell, one person can. Don't believe me? Watch "Salems Lot."

There are very rare occasions when a small group of people actually can take down an army of the undead.

As a matter of fact, the last time I checked, no group of vampires destroyed entire countries, or the world.
Only zombies are powerful enough to do that.

I believe this about wraps up this informative yet short blog.

I think zombies are the true winners.

What do you think?

I was never really into Charmed.
I am more of a Buffy fan.

Your best bet is to hire a lawyer that knows about the 1700's really well so you can both tell people about the amazing history of those who once called their home Florence, Montana before the great fall of the Governor which happened in 1734 but not on the month of october because the people there feared the change of season.

Christmas reminds me of the time back in 1843 when people were just beginning to realize that maybe we shouldn't have pissed off indians but not before they decided to move back to Oregon after the incredible raid of Fort Hammons that ended up killing thirty seven villagers while eating some pizza that was delivered by the very first dominoes that served not only pizza but ale and wine as well.

In the box, around the hole, up through the cedar tree while triumphantly turning into a dinosaur from the beginning of the prehistoric era that soon turned into ice after a bunch of people decided that nobody could ever imagine the pure intensity of it's annual earnings when compared to the dark ages.

I'll keep this as simple as possible.

Looking for individuals between the ages of 21-24.
Doesn't matter if you are male or female.
Simply seeking more of a social network to possibly hang out with downtown or just chill out.

No need to explain myself since I have a profile to look at.

So yes, if you're in Austin, say hi.
And if you don't, well... I am afraid I am just going to have to hunt you down.

Peace!

-Russ

Sounds muy muy bueno.

Spider Man did exactly what X-Men did:
Make a medicore third installment.
I like Spider Man 3 for some things.
I didn't like that they didn't explain the black suit, even though they were told they couldn't. The movie started really good and then went on the decline when the black suit came into the picture. The movie was too rushed. If it would have been made into three parts, and if they would have added more story, it could have been good.

This movie is pretty much like this: Let's see how much we can fit into a short time period.

I loved the first two. The second one is one of my all time favorites. I am dissapointed to see the end of the trilogy as it is. I am also very dissapointed with Sam Raimi. I once had so much respect for him....

That's pretty funny. I could imagine myself trying to do a spell for that. I'd probably end up laughing in the middle of it.

If you don't fit the criteria, here's some magic for you:
Make your profile so you do fit the criteria!

My work is done.

Awesome. I like this.

Tim Burton is a cool director. I just don't want to see it because of Depp. I know I should, but I think I'll regret it.

Yes, all of that can be obtained naturally. I have no problem finding it naturally.
However, I like weed.

Faith No More - From Out of Nowhere

I completely agree with you. I just feel the law has taken some things too far. But as you said, it's all about the money.

Weed acts different for a lot of people.

One person may be lazy when being sober and still lazy when high.
Another person may be able to get things done faster when they are high.

It's different for a lot of people.
And then again, it's all in our mind.

Since the actor thing came up, I don't like his stuff.
Not just because he may have said the stuff above but because he's not that great. I am tired of hearing about him.
People give him too much praise.
Now, I did like him in Sleepy Hollow, and it was great when Freddy killed him in Nightmare on Elm Street and then smacked him with a frying pan on Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.
But that's it.

You can watch Johnny all you want.
I am going to watch The Godfather.

Not my material.
I'd heard this a long time ago and just not cared.

To be honest, I simply post this out of spite when I heard a bunch of teenies talking about Sweeney Todd.

So, i'm not trying to make a point or some statement. It was out of spite, and I feel that some of you are taking this... too far?