What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
CNET Top Weekly Download for Free Anti-Virus view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
42 Comments
- ggfobster, on 11/11/2009, -2/+34reLegalize
- Frankyfan3, on 11/11/2009, -3/+31"Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night.
Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people,
does not suppress medical research,
does not peek in bedroom windows.
Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation
of the prohibitionists at face value,
marijuana prohibition has done far more harm
to far more people than marijuana ever could."
William F. Buckley Jr. - growvideos, on 11/11/2009, -2/+22Power to the people!
- staticfire, on 11/11/2009, -2/+20Free The Plant!
- GeneralObvious, on 11/11/2009, -2/+20How about we stop playing games PERIOD and just move to legalize all Marijuana?
***** this "Medical" movement. People don't realize that by doing this, they are limiting who can get it.
The whole point is to have it *all* legal, not just if you have cancer. I don't wanna have to go through some rigorous process of claiming, "I can't sleep" or whatever BS just so I can legally use it for recreational purposes.
Yeah, great, people with ailments get it, but we know WHY you're pushing the medical method, and it's most definitely not because of the patients ;) - alman783, on 11/11/2009, -2/+17I live in the ONE 75 year period where weed is illegal in 10,000 years of use.
That's my luck. - TrainOfThought6, on 11/11/2009, -2/+13All this trouble and controversy over a damned plant. It's completely ridiculous.
- kalvinb, on 11/11/2009, -0/+9If enough states band together to support medical marijuana the federal government is more inclined to change it's view. Obama has already put in an order to leave states alone on the issue. The feds will not go after people who are abiding by the state's laws regarding medical marijuana.
That's the first step to the federal government outright legalizing it for medical purposes.
Imagine cops not patrolling a long stretch of road so people start going whatever speed limit they want. As long as there is no increase in accidents the cops will continue to look the other way. The feds may not be looking at enforcing the law against individuals but they are definitely keeping an eye on the consequences as a whole. - ravedigger, on 11/11/2009, -2/+11I still can't believe that this ***** needs to be argued. Just ***** legalize it already. Shut the ***** up and let people choose for themselves what goes into their body.
Puff....
I'm sorry for yelling. But I'm serious! - jshhmr, on 11/11/2009, -2/+9The biggest thing our government conveniently forgets: FOR the people BY the people. WE are the ones in control.
- Frankyfan3, on 11/11/2009, -1/+7In other Cannabis news: The American Medical Association voted to reverse its long-held position that marijuana be retained as a Schedule I substance with no medical value.
Why hasn't THAT hit the FP yet? - duncan202, on 11/11/2009, -1/+7Agreed. The medical angle is a bogus target. The powers that be will fight this as long as plausible and then "come around" at some point and make medical marijuana legal.. and it will be treated just like oxycontin. Yay. Big victory for personal freedom and adults making their own decisions about what they can do with their own bodies.
- Frankyfan3, on 11/11/2009, -1/+7Basically, the State health officials wanted to makes sure those growing medical marijuana were only growing it for one patient, who they were cared for in additional capacities.
IE: nurse, family member, spouse who provided income, housing, medical care... etc in addition to growing & supplying cannabis to their patient.
The woman in the case cited was only supplying marijuana to her patients, she specialized in it, which if you're really interested in supplying high grade, non-contaminated & effective medicine is the ideal.
Many formerly illicit growers who have cultivated their knowledge and strains for decades are now paying taxes and providing marijuana to people in dire need.
Dabbling in horticulture while dealing with the other stresses of aiding an ill patient is not the most ideal scenario for medical marijuana potency & efficacy. Some people can do it, but to expect that to be the rule of thumb, that every Medical Marijuana patient's primary caregiver learn to grow their own is ridiculous... hence the judge's ruling.
Though, one of the main reasons the judge struck down the Board of Health ruling was mainly because they did not give enough notice to the public to voice their concerns on the issue. Not to mention that enforcing the new ordinance would effectively stop a supply of drugs to patients who are currently in pain & suffering without enough warning to make alternative arrangements.
It's one thing to try & regulate distributors... but without public discourse, and without the forethought of the implication of those currently in pain & being supplied by non-primary-care-givers to suddenly start learning to grow it themselves or go back to the black market, you might as well arrest patients.
There SHOULD be a state-wide system to ensure quality. I totally agree. I just don't think the action taken was effective, ethical or fully considered before implementation. Judge Larry Naves concurred, and I commend him for using his position to ensure lazy lawmaking will not suffice.
:) - Valyn, on 11/11/2009, -1/+5Sad thing is, what can 'we the people' do? Vote in people who actually do what they are supposed to do right? You show me when Ive had a descent choice for that? Almost every single election has 2 realistic candidates, neither of which are worth voting for most the time. Its always a lesser evil decision. Deciding who to vote for is not enough, we need a better way to figure out who actually gets to be a realistic candidate. That is where the root of our problems are. Relying on the media to make celebrities out of the 2 candidates that they like is obviously not working.
Treat the cause, not the symptoms. - AlanLivingston, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4Did anyone read the editorial? I don't know the background of the case, and the editorial just doesn't make sense, when read along with previous commenter's responses. Maybe I'm missing something.
The state was regulating growers. A state appeals court ruled against a woman who was cultivating marijuana for medical use. The appeals court said its opinion was that caregivers who supply marijuana to medical patients must have a direct and responsible relationship with them.
The state took this to mean it couldn't regulate distributors. Is this correct? The judge appears to say that the state has the responsibility to insure that the health and wellbeing of patients legally entitled to receive medical marijuana is maintained.
So there SHOULD be a state-wide system to insure that marijuana is properly grown, distributed and dispensed only to sanctioned patients.
I'm actually very surprised the state took the action it did. I'm also surprised to see the reaction of the first few Digg commenters. Of course, they may not have read nor understood the article. - bunghole59, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3http://digg.com/politics/Republican_Mom_Speaks_Out ...
- Gonthim, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3It isn't the local law enforcement's job to enforce federal law. That's been ruled in California multiple times if I remember correctly.
Here's the court decision for a case in California.
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/GardenGrove ...
Quoted from page 39.
"We appreciate these considerations and understand police officers at all
levels of government have an interest in the interdiction of illegal drugs. But it must be
remembered it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws as such." - altgeeky1, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3Your argument is pure fallacy. It reminds me of my Catholic confirmation class as a child, where the priests would lecture the class that if you ever masterbate, you are a homosexual because you are playing with the same sex. That's what fallacy is.
So why do you people always have to link or compare pot to heroin? You KNOW he wasn't suggesting that heroin be legalized. Even if he was saying that too, your NEXT argument would be "so they should let people sell heroin to children?". Am I correct?
Personally I believe that "science" should have a basis in drug laws... not hysteria or prejudice or industrial greed, which is what the laws are currently driven by now. If you really think POT is dangerous and should be outlawed on science and fact, where in your world does alcohol stand? Because pot both a LOT less impairing and a lot less damaging to the body.
The television ads (taxpayer funded BTW) all say pot is a gateway drug to heroin, etc. This is untrue... the REAL gateway drug leading "to" heroin is legalized, prescription medication.. but since big pharma sponsors our nightly news, we'll never see a commercial (or newsstory) exposing that fact. And that's the biggest crime of prohibition... subverting our news, because the end justifies the means... - Frankyfan3, on 11/11/2009, -1/+4Actually... there's been more than one period, some stretching for longer periods of time (but arguably, with equal or less effectiveness of enforcement).
Great read:
http://www.amazon.com/Cannabis-History-Martin-Boot ...
Understanding & educating our peers on society's historical relationship with drugs, and cannabis in particular is one of the only ways we'll ever construct effective policy. The most ridiculous part about our marijuana prohibition is there are TONS of records of other attempts to ban it throughout the world over the span of civilization... and even though evidence shows previous attempts at eradication to be total & abject failures, we keep trying.
Learn from history or you're doomed to repeat it, right? In regards to cannabis prohibition, this adage is far too accurate. - mediamaker, on 11/11/2009, -1/+3cannabis should be legal
- EntropyFan, on 11/11/2009, -4/+6>> It’s up to state officials and lawmakers, like it or not, to find a way
No, it is up to state officials and lawmakers to uphold the law.
At this point and time, Federal law has president over state laws. That is pretty plain and simple.
If people want marijuana legal, they will need to vote in candidates at the federal level to support it. Holding town hall meetings or shouting 'legalize it' on digg or complaining about state officials isn't going to do a thing.
It will need to be an issue in every Senate, House, and Presidential election. - infinitus64, on 11/11/2009, -1/+3Bud power!!
- lokimojo, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2Believe I've posted this link before but...
http://stopthedrugwar.org/home
"Raising awareness of the consequences of prohibition -- news and activism supporting sensible reform" - b8man99, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2The way it's been kept from being used medicinally is criminal. I don't know how it's taken so long to get the attention it deserves. But you're absolutely right - it's going to be rebranded as medicine and controlled accordingly, when it should be completely legal. Two steps forward, one step back.
- staticfire, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2heroin is an unnatural substance that is refined from opium a plant which grows out of the ground. heroin does not grow out of the ground. heroin is not natural or a plant.
however i do think heroin should be legalized as well. all drugs should. it would drastically reduce crime. - zadadka, on 11/11/2009, -1/+3Interesting snippet : in Britain, before the Industrial Revolution, hemp (of all strains) grew wild throughout the country like some kind of weed ... hence its current "street name").
Other facts of interest : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/163 ... - EntropyFan, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1Which means it is still illegal, and you might or might not get arrested and do hard time in the prison system, at the whim of the local officer.
Doesn't sound like a good option to me. - Tddupre, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1remember it takes digg a couple of days to find the news article, submit and get it on the fp
- Zomgondo, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1Freedom Rock sucks. Try Aphex Twin.
- gurudrew, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1Hemp still grows wild here in the US and the government spends a ridiculous amount of money trying to get rid of it.
- eh123, on 11/11/2009, -2/+2Hey man, is that Freedom Rock?
- pimpstarz, on 11/11/2009, -3/+3*****' WORD!!!
- wintrydaisy, on 11/14/2009, -0/+0its would be safer and less problems if it was just legalized period...!!!
- cyberclown, on 11/11/2009, -2/+1I agree marijauna should be legalized but as far as over a plant, Heroin comes from a plant should it be legalized?
- NoLibertarians, on 11/11/2009, -4/+2Just make it totally illegal and end all the games.
- Zomgondo, on 11/11/2009, -3/+1Far out, man.
- eh123, on 11/11/2009, -4/+2They were probably too stoned to read or comprehend it, is my guess.
- KaervekToo, on 11/11/2009, -3/+1How is medical marijuana going to keep me from playing games?
- ghengiskhan1, on 11/11/2009, -7/+4An article about ganja? Front page digg in 3...2....1.....
- rpgguy1o1, on 11/11/2009, -5/+2I honestly clicked on this, thinking it would be about playing videogames while stoned...
- ratava911, on 11/11/2009, -4/+1"quit playin games with my law"..
- jthhtj, on 11/11/2009, -6/+2What's wrong with playing checkers or doing a little hopscotch with the law?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is