You heretic! How dare you sully White Castle’s haute cuisine in such a dastardly fashion!
Besides, that’s simply not true as long as you order your Crave Case with a supersized side of Alka-Seltzer.
Heaven!
You know, for a while there, the local While Castle was offering a sack of 10 White Castles for $4.20. 
It was the big announcement on their huge lit sign.
I was so disappointed when inflation pushed it to $4.35 (or whatever - it’s not nearly so memorable now.)
I wouldn’t be surprised if CA did something like that at some point. Or, I suppose counties might be able to as well. Santa Cruz County comes to mind. And Humboldt, of course! Oh wait, we already do!!
Even so, White Castle’s full complicity in Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle is pretty much a de facto nod to the pot-smoking community and a deliberate proclamation that they’re trying to appeal to the stoner demographic.
Burger King’s weird commercials with the King character are basically the same deal. More and more, mainstream companies are saying through their advertising, “we know that you’re high right now while you’re watching this commercial! We’re down with you, man!”
Didn’t Jack In the Box have a commercial where some obviously stoned dude pulls into the drive-thru and when they ask how many he wants, a little Jack tells him “30”?
I saw their definitions, I just don’t agree with them. A traffic ticket does not land you a 30-day suspended jail sentence and a criminal record. And, pardon my ignorance, but does this mean that 38 states will put you in jail for possessing ANY amount of marijuana?
Ok, sorry to interrupt the debate, but that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that and that’s fucking hilarious.
“That’s what I was thinking!”
Cite?
I’ve always wanted to do that!
Exactly right. And I don’t think one needs to be stoned to notice that.
It’s not about pot and its alleged ill effects, it’s about keeping it illegal so that the profit-margins remain astronomical. Feeds a ruling class of its own…with a few untouchables included.
Indeed. Great capture, great pitch. Which only begets a meta-debate.
A stoner’s feeding Nirvana. White Castle or Jack In The Box? :dubious:
Okay, okay. Oedipus loved his mother.
It doesn’t always mean that they will put you in jail, but that they can. For example in St. Louis County in 2007, a person in possession of less than one gram of marijuana was charged under SLCRO 716.170. The penalty, defined in 716.180, was up to a year in jail and/or up to $1000 fine. In this particular case, the individual pled guilty and was fined $350 plus court costs.
The bill under discussion wouldn’t change this.
But this could be the gateway bill that could lead to who knows what!
Taco Bell
We can only hope.
Well, even North Carolina can. According to the NORML website the sentence is only “most likely” suspended. So, even by their own wacky definition of decriminalized, pot is not decriminalized in North Carolina :smack:.
IANAStoner but a lot of my friends are and I’ve heard a few of the more intelligent ones say they’d Support NORML if they thought they were doing any good, but they’re just a bunch of idiots.
Get real.
Going Soft on Corporate Crime
Justice Department Increasingly Avoiding Corporate Prosecutions
Crime doesn’t pay — unless you’re incorporated
We can pretend that justice is fair and impartial but the reality is that any justice system is going to prosecute some crimes and not prosecute others. Even if there’s no political agenda, there’s only a limited amount of resources and decisions will be made on what the priorities are.
That’s exactly my point, Nemo. The poster was advocating the DoJ selectively prosecute only certain crimes. So, don’t bitch when they do that just because you don’t like their selection criteria.
Why not? Are you saying that if the DoJ were to lay off prosecutions of pedophiles and rapists that feminists shouldn’t complain because the Justice Department ALSO lays off corporate criminals? How does that work?
If the issue is limited resources, of COURSE the DoJ must choose which crimes to vigorously enforce and shich crimes to let slide. And which crimes they choose to enforce and which they don’t say a lot about them. It’s perfectly all right to bitch about the DoJ’s enforcement criteria under these circumstances. For example, there’s ample evidence that the DoJ was instructed to selectively prosecute Democratic candidates, and not prosecute Republican candidates, during the Bush Admin. Are we not allowed to complain about that, either? :dubious: