Should is not the same word as has.
should imperative Used as an auxiliary verb, to express a conditional or contingent act or state, or as a supposition of an actual fact; also, to express moral obligation (see shall); e. g.: they should have come last week; if I should go; I should think you could go.
has verb Third-person singular simple present indicative form of have.
Your comment doesn't actually address what the inital comment said at all.
'Should' != 'Has'
Ironic comment
Isn't this almost never enforced? You'd have to be caught by federal law enforcement with both on you, which seems incredibly unlikely.
IIRC this is mainly used as a foot in the door to get people on more serious charges, like Al Capone w/ tax evasion.
Not defending it, as #1 the federal government doesn't have the power to criminalize or regulate marijuana in the first place, and #2 it's a gross violation of your rights.
... I couldn't disagree more. A free, excused day off is as good as it can get.
I guess it's steganography, but the message is stored within the same format as the message itself?
Why doesn't ~~Hamas or~~ Israel just meet at a predetrmined place and time and just have out or kill the crap out of each other? Instead of involving civs who don't have anything to do with war?
I think it's an attempt at an anti-truth what-aboutism, which Mike Johnson failed to come up with and accidentally agreed.
So your point is that Johnson only agrees that he's unwell, but not unhinged? Also, your example isn't even close to the same flow of conversation. He didn't reply with a deflection, he literally said "And some people on your side are too". Whether he intended to agree or not is debatable, but his statement is absolutely agreeing because he used the word "too" AND didn't mention anything completely unrelated like in your example.
I politely disagree, saying "too" is as blatant of an agreement as he could've said. He tried to deflect, but failed and agreed.
LMAO, reading the submissions on that website are hilarious. Three quarters of the posts on there are super level-headed, saying they don't believe he should have died but they can't mourn or feel sympathy for someone so horrible; IMO, Charlie Kirk absolutely deserved to die. Wanting fascists dead shouldn't be a hot take, it should be the norm.
That point isn't conveyed through what you said