What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
315 Comments
- JonForTheWin, on 01/17/2009, -6/+224Why does San Diego county hate America?
- JenniferInMO, on 01/17/2009, -6/+205If you live in San Diego County, give 'em hell! Call, write and protest. Help those who are finding relief for their pain and illnesses and who can't fight for themselves.
- ConcernedCanuck, on 01/17/2009, -10/+195Nothing like banning a cheap, effective and natural medicine!
... It's a great way for a politician to line their pockets with gold from the Tobacco, Alcohol and Big Pharma lobbyists.
I will LOL at you if you just let this happen. - redstorm986, on 01/17/2009, -3/+178"Go ***** yourself, San Diego!"
- dreicher, on 01/17/2009, -1/+111Because we're an overwhelmingly large group of pretentious douchebags who only believe in personal freedoms and choice to the point they fit into our worldview. We are old and wealthy and have nothing but time on our hands to worry about what our neighbors across the street are doing and we're pissed because our homes have lost 40% of their value in the last year.
Seriously, anyone who still thinks SoCal is "chill" does not live here. People are uptight and self-centered (most, not all). In the past year, we've banned alcohol on beaches, San Diego County was instrumental in passing Prop 8, and just in my neighborhood the 3 old farts on the HOA board tried sneaking in language to ban skateboards and razor scooters (because apparently they never want to be able to sell their houses - ever).
We don't like kids, dogs, gays, other drivers, drinkers, smokers, pot-heads or Mexicans. If you don't like it you can GTFO.
With Love,
San Diego County - KMye, on 01/17/2009, -5/+88What a nonsensical argument. If a federal law contradicts a state law (and the state law doesn't violate the constitution), it doesn't mean the state has any responsibility to change its law to conform to the federal one. If the federal government wants to enforce their ridiculous prohibition of marijuana, let them do it on their time and their own dollar, and suffer the political consequences.
- ourhearts137, on 01/17/2009, -3/+82Awesome, I love seeing cancer patients and AIDS patients wallowing in pain and misery all because they smoke a little herb. Instead, they will now become CRIMINALS and go to JAIL because they are trying to ease their suffering. In the words of the great Ron Burgundy, "Go ***** Yourself, San Diego."
- inactive, on 01/17/2009, -4/+65Nope, you can't reason with me. I can't think of a single reason for my dying mother to not be able to smoke a little pot, if it helps with her appetite, that she lost with the chemo. Now that she can eat, she gained weight, adding at least a couple months to her life. Even her doctor is impressed with how the marijuana helps her, but you listened in intently in 3rd grade when the DARE officer told you pot was evil, so you know more than my dying mother or her doctors.
Seriously, though I don't believe in hell, I wish it were real, so you could burn in it forever. Who the ***** are you to decide what anyone else can ingest, you self-righteous piece of *****? - whcooke, on 01/17/2009, -3/+63Simply because the Federal government passes a law to make something illegal doesn't mean that a state has to do the same. The DEA and FBI can still enforce their law. If anything there should be a suit against the Federal government for enforcing their marijuana laws as they lack the constitutional authority to do so.
- Ne007, on 01/17/2009, -2/+58This has already been settled in the Supreme Court:
http://digg.com/arts_culture/Supreme_Court_State_M ...
Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Trump Federal
safeaccessnow.org — U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today. "It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," - depro9, on 01/17/2009, -0/+51" buy our overpriced drugs or suffer"
- Elsewhere42, on 01/17/2009, -3/+54Wow! How could anyone reject such a well reasoned argument?
- adderx99, on 01/17/2009, -3/+49what ever happened to the US being a nation of sovereign states?
- whiteyx, on 01/17/2009, -2/+46you are misinformed and an idiot.
Number one, you are about as likely to become addicted to marijuana as you are showering.
Number two, the only reason San Diego County is fighting this law is because of the loss of revenue from prosecuting marijuana users.
Number three, people should have the right to do what they want as long as they don't put others at risk.
Number four - shut the ***** up!! - Frankyfan3, on 01/17/2009, -3/+46“The greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add a useful plant to its culture." -Thomas Jefferson
- Demonmonger, on 01/17/2009, -1/+43Amendment X of the U.S. Consitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Feds can go screw themselves. - Ne007, on 01/17/2009, -0/+38wrong.
This has already been settled in the Supreme Court:
http://digg.com/arts_culture/Supreme_Court_State_M ...
Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Trump Federal
safeaccessnow.org — U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today. "It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," - docod44, on 01/17/2009, -2/+39Hey *****,
do us a favor and pull the pole out of your ass. Marijuana is the only thing keeping my father alive because of his bone disease, all of his doctors have told us that they can't do anymore and that they recommend pot. That's five doctors who told us that and it has been working for the past two years, he doesn't suffer like he used to when using non-"natural" medicine. So please, shut the ***** up and go sit down. - aflaks, on 01/17/2009, -0/+37California has been doing a lot of stupid ***** recently
- odigity, on 01/17/2009, -1/+34Remind me again why we tolerate these criminal ***** gangs who steal our money, destroy our freedom, and call themselves a government?
- inactive, on 01/17/2009, -2/+33In other words, you think pot should be illegal but you can't come up with a good reason why.
- WinZiggy, on 01/17/2009, -3/+33The cops need to have something to do; not as though they need to be preventing rapes, robberies, terrorism, con men, drunk drivers, crackheads, gangs, assaults, murders, vandalism, bank robbers or anything like that. That's all been taken care of, right?
- inactive, on 01/17/2009, -0/+29Frankly, I'm still a little confused on as to the constitutionality of federal marijuana laws. Sure, I can see purchasing or selling being a crime, that could fit under the commerce clause, but possession and use? How does the federal government have the power to limit what I can grow and consume in my own home?
- jayesanctus, on 01/17/2009, -2/+29...in other news, San Diego is a giant buzz-kill.
- deviantsteve, on 01/17/2009, -0/+26This legislative bill is brought to you by pfizer.
- Taiyoryu, on 01/17/2009, -2/+27Doesn't California state law to allow medical use of marijuana supersede San Diego County's desire to butt into the private (medical) affairs of California citizens? Just sayin'
- Mujokan, on 01/17/2009, -0/+24It's because when you buy, grow, or even receive as a gift weed legally in California, that reduces the illegal interstate drug traffic. I'm not joking. That is literally why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Feds overruling California state law. You have an adverse affect on illegal drug trafficking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich "The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption."
- DarthDubbya, on 01/17/2009, -1/+24Stay classy San Diego!
- wakananda, on 01/17/2009, -7/+30We fought a civil war over it. The United States lost, and an American Federal Empire took over, indirectly, by an accretion of unconstitutional legislation. Now your hearth and home is an open playground for Feds, your every communication is monitored, and if you want to petition your government for a redress of greivances, you have to huddle in a remote "free speech zone" under the menacing glare of heavily armed storm troopers, getting your picture taken for their records. The old illusions and myths are maintained for the hoi polloi, to forestall insurrection.
- Rapter09, on 01/17/2009, -0/+22Doesn't saying "Federal Law Supercedes State Law" basically throw away part of the system that the US was formed around? That states are more or less aloud to set their own rules? At least, that's how I've always seen it as a Canadian.
Why is everybody so eager to throw away their personal rights? - apothekari, on 01/17/2009, -1/+22No kidding.
It's a PLANT.
Not Arsenic.
Not Plutonium.
If you had ever smoked any you'd know.
I was at one time a hardcore straight-edge person until in my late 20's I started getting headaches NOTHING I tried would help without massive side effects.Then I tried weed.
It worked and had NO harmful side effects other than some know it all ***** with pseudo-science dictating ***** at me and wanting me to go back to the "medication" that made my life hell.
Hows that for reasoning?!
Dumbass. - Demonmonger, on 01/17/2009, -0/+21Amendment X of the U.S. Consitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Where does it say Marijuana is prohibited in the Constitution? At least Congress followed the Constitution when it prohibited Alcohol with the 16th Amendment.
State Law > Federal Law, as long as it follows the U.S. Constitution. - xptweakerntn, on 01/17/2009, -2/+23When we became a Federalist nation?
- inactive, on 01/17/2009, -0/+21Um ... the states haven't been sovereign since our Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as our government, in 1788.
No lie, look it up. - comptonstomp, on 01/17/2009, -4/+25I already have.
As a San Diegan let me say that this place is not in line with the rest of california's loose thoguhts on weed, the military lifestyle of san diego ruins the free spirit of us hippies.
I just want to smoke a bowl - goffy59, on 01/17/2009, -0/+20The states should have more power. If you don't agree with your state, then leave; I have no sympathy for people who lack tolerance. Federal government = failure.
- wakananda, on 01/17/2009, -1/+21Don't forget MS patients. MJ allows some of them to WALK. Anti-druggers would kick Jesus in the nuts if he tried to preach the sermon on the mount in San Diego.
- inactive, on 01/17/2009, -1/+20The supreme court should force the federal government to remove marijuana from the schedual 1 narcotics because IT DOES HAVE A MEDICAL USE. It has a lot of medical uses.
- wakananda, on 01/17/2009, -3/+21Gupta is an inept media whore. Obama is proving to be a bigger disappointment by the hour...
- arplayer2k, on 01/17/2009, -0/+18Orange County is getting to be like this too. Too many wealthy people with ample free time on their hands, but no productive hobbies.
- zeblith, on 01/17/2009, -6/+24But Libertarians can't organize their way out of a paper bag, whether or not they're too busy getting stoned.
Okay philosophy, terrible application. - Otto, on 01/17/2009, -0/+17And that is assuming that the federal law is constitutional anyway. In the case of marijuana prohibition, that's debatable at best.
- URnotheonly1, on 01/17/2009, -7/+24That's a Republican area
- vuke69, on 01/17/2009, -0/+17I resent the fact a cannuks understanding of the US constitution is far superior to my elected officials understanding of the same.
- mehan, on 01/17/2009, -0/+16North San Diego county should just become South Orange county.
- inactive, on 01/17/2009, -0/+16Wow, I find that ironic, because I'm pretty sure that argument only makes sense if you're high.
- Demonmonger, on 01/17/2009, -0/+15Then why didn't the feds just pass a law to outlaw Alcohol instead of the 18th Amendment?
You should really read the 10th Amendment. We live in a constitutional republic and Federal law does not trump State law. State Laws must comply with the ground works of the U.S. Constitution, in which case in this example they do. - ourhearts137, on 01/17/2009, -0/+15bill.horn@sdcounty.ca.gov
email him and be sure to inform him that he's making innocent people suffer - bjornski, on 01/17/2009, -1/+15No kidding.
Sanjay Gupta? May has well have picked Dr. Phil. - maz2331, on 01/17/2009, -0/+14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn was the case that expanded Federal power under "commerce" to basically mean they can ban anything they want to. In that case, a farmer who grew wheat for his own consumption was still fined under the theory that his consumption reduced demand for wheat and thus undercut Congressional attempts to shore up the price by regulating production.
In other words, anything that could possibly affect any interstate commerce, even if restricted completely to your own home, can still be regulated.
Gotta love the Court under FDR. -
Show 51 - 100 of 324 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is