digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Happy 420 day!

chycho.com — The most important thing to keep in mind is that those who consume cannabis are not criminals. They are your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and your children, and many have been sacrificed to further the agenda of certain individuals and organizations who feed off the profits from the criminalization of this simple plant.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • drafhk, on 04/20/2008, -58/+685A victimless crime is not a crime.
    • theredbanana, on 04/20/2008, -22/+164Like punching someone in the dark
      • Onyxblaze, on 04/20/2008, -47/+10Like punching yourself.
        • theredbanana, on 04/20/2008, -6/+32Ok...don't get the reference, thats fine.
        • sovietninja, on 04/21/2008, -1/+10No, him punching himself in the face would be EPIC JUSTICE.
      • rentmitchum, on 04/21/2008, -1/+11It made me laugh but I don't get the reference. It sounds like something coach McGurk would say. What's it from?
        • SonicBoyster, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5Nelson from the Simpsons, the episode where he befriends Bart.
          • rentmitchum, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Haha well Nelson and Coach McGurk are similar in um.. body type? lol

            Thanks, gonna download that episode, that sounds funny. I've watched far too few Simpsons since the advent of being able to download any show in existence. (except for Newhart and The Bob Newhart show, I can't find ***** torrents for it anywhere.. lol.. DAMN YOU Nick at Nite for showing me shows I can't download)
          • newnie, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2you can watch quite a few bob newhart episodes on fancast.com
          • JusticeFriend, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1to rentmitchum:
            Try eMule dude, there are plenty of episodes.
        • chinaman9, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2OMG!!! Hella dugg for the Home Movies reference!!!! I
      • Tikisam, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1dugg for simpsons reference
    • Alex2, on 04/20/2008, -56/+3Here's your 'Drugs are cool' vid: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fmN-An9eDpM
      • dillona, on 04/20/2008, -3/+49There's a difference between marijuana and meth.
        You can't just group everything together and say "Drugs are bad, m'kay?"
        • gravytrain73, on 04/20/2008, -34/+6They're both illegal.
          • AlgnPelotudo, on 04/20/2008, -3/+17anal sex is also illegal in some places. that doesn't turn it into a drug.
          • Akaji, on 04/21/2008, -1/+12Or even something bad!
          • BryanJK, on 04/21/2008, -0/+14women voting used to be illegal, does that mean it is wrong?
        • vtnerd, on 04/20/2008, -2/+13Except marijuana shouldn't be (gravytrain)
      • MaTT2011, on 04/20/2008, -4/+17EPIC fail.

        Jackass
      • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -1/+13And herein lies one of the the biggest obstacle to legalizing marijuana - brainwashed, just-say-no dimwits, like Alex2, who are unable to make the distinction between marijuana and its more dangerous bretheren.

        Here's a free lesson, just becuase marijuana = drug, and methamphetamine = drug, does not mean marijuana = methamphetamine.
        • Disease, on 04/21/2008, -0/+9Aspirin is a drug too. That must be bad too.
          • madeingermany, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1And don't even get started on Alcohol and Tobacco - both causing soo much more damage then pot.
            But I guess we need the tax income....
        • deMonkey, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7Wait, our government makes laws that aren't in the best interest of the citizens?!
        • ZiggyDaZigster, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1The government would never do anything to misplace our(society) trust or respect. Hints ridiculously true documentary's, such as, heck I don't know, "Loose Change" "Marshall Law 911" or my personal favorite, "Zeit Geist".
      • jaymzdean, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2The most dangerous drug is alcohol. And prohibition failed with that one. What's most dangerous is a for-profit prison system that becomes a force for the prohibition of peace-inducing drugs like cannabis.
    • icantdenythis, on 04/20/2008, -16/+4well played sir. Well played.
      • dfsjdkflasjk, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3"sir" going out of style can't come soon enough.
    • Ebeniz, on 04/20/2008, -6/+118made popular at 4:20 p.m. eastern time... funny
      • bizchris, on 04/20/2008, -1/+9Whoa, and I happened to click in at 4:20pm PST...
      • andburn1, on 04/21/2008, -0/+8yeah ***** i cant believe that. that must have been some sort of purposeful joke by someone at digg.
      • ligyron, on 04/21/2008, -4/+1What, the article or drafhk's post? If you're referring to the article, then I think you accidentally hit reply
      • accelleron, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I guess most diggers are from the east coast.
    • Memnochxx, on 04/20/2008, -32/+2What about society?
      • MaTT2011, on 04/20/2008, -1/+6Really?

        wow. :
      • karel747, on 04/20/2008, -0/+9What about it...? How is society affected if people light up in the privacy of their homes after work or to de-stress?
        • whyufail, on 04/20/2008, -19/+4Im your homes, do whatever the hell you want. Problem is the real goal is to be able to smoke up where ever the hell they are. The moment I have to walk through a cloud of some idiots pot smoke to get into a building though I'll ram that ***** down his throat.
          • brycelb, on 04/21/2008, -0/+11Settle down. I don't think it's even legal to smoke cigarettes outside anymore so I doubt you will EVER be walking through a cloud of pot smoke. Unless you like Phish or other hippy bands.
        • kayala, on 04/20/2008, -0/+6People have managed to deal with cigarette smoke outside buildings for years upon years... there's not really a difference there.
          • Devotia, on 04/20/2008, -0/+15Actually, one could argue the cig smoke is worse for you than the pot smoke...
          • brycelb, on 04/21/2008, -13/+2^^^ they would be wrong though.
          • andburn1, on 04/21/2008, -0/+10Sorry, no they wouldn't.
      • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5Why does society have the right, to dictate what is and isn't acceptable for an individual to do, TO THEMSELVES, in the privacy of their own home?

        Doesn't make any sense to me.
        • se1zure, on 04/21/2008, -5/+1then do it in the privacy of your own home? who is gonna stop you?

          • RobotBuddha, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7People with blue uniforms and guns? Ok, in most places nobody is going to break down your door because someone with a grudge against you made a phone call. It still could happen though in some places. More importantly, it will happen if there's reason to suspect you're growing your own rather than trusting in someone else to do it for you.
      • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4You mean the same society that freely drinks alcohol and smokes cigarettes. That society?
    • djordanmiller, on 04/20/2008, -5/+22Like a peeping tom?
      • Ymeg, on 04/20/2008, -13/+2.
      • Spudster, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Umm no... that crime is an offense against the person wanting their right of privacy to be respected.
    • YellowSnowDemon, on 04/20/2008, -20/+13Your brain is the victim. Whoooooooo
      • karel747, on 04/20/2008, -6/+16And when you get a piercing or tattoo, you're body's the victim! We should make those illegal too! To protect decent society!
        • gravytrain73, on 04/20/2008, -10/+1I think he was being sarcastic.
        • afterlife23, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5when gay people have sex their anus is the victum, should we make gay sex illegal?
    • evanct, on 04/20/2008, -2/+14i was a victim of bad schwag
    • SDL486, on 04/20/2008, -16/+8In theory so is consuming crystal meth and heroin.
      • StolenLamp, on 04/20/2008, -2/+12No, you can overdose on those.
        • fuze44, on 04/20/2008, -19/+5You can OD on weed, too. It just doesn't result in death. Instead it's lethargy/anxiety/paranoia/depression.
          • afterlife23, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1lol i smoke weed 6 times a day i never get paranoid or depressed, weed just brings out your innee feelings so if ure feelin depressed its cause u are
        • mateusap, on 04/20/2008, -1/+10Like anxiety/paranoia/letargy aren't sold to us on a daily basis by the news.
        • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -4/+5fuze, your not too bright are you... -_-
          Learn what ODing actually means...

          You cannot physically Over Dose on weed, it is impossible, plain and simple.

          Not even the legal drugs, can boast such a feature. Marijuana = safer than legal drugs, Thus it should be legal!
          • fuze44, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Hey, genius. When telling someone they aren't too bright, first make sure you spell all of your words correctly.

            Secondly, YOU should learn what OD means. Overdoes does not necessarily mean a fatal dose. It means you've gone OVER the recommended amount. So if you smoke too much weed, there are negative consequences. Thus, you've overdosed. Grab a dictionary.
        • slvrbullet87, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1but but but it is your body... oh wait
        • se1zure, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3if i wanna OD on meth, who is to say I can't, it's my body!
          /s
          • afterlife23, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1ok weed should be legal but meth is going to far becuase its way stronger then weed, youd probably do ***** that would disturb the peace and killing yourself effects everyone around you
      • CaptainCool53, on 04/21/2008, -4/+5In REALITY consuming crystal meth, heroin, and weed is a victimless and, therefor, not a crime.
        • Tikisam, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1a crime is not defined as whether or not an action is 'victimless' it's defined by legal sanction or lack thereof
    • Supurcell, on 04/20/2008, -7/+13Thanks for the tip. Hide the body real well next time. No victim, no crime.
      • clarionhaze, on 04/20/2008, -2/+11He didn't say no evidence no crime...
      • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -1/+8Regardless of what you hide... If you commit a real crime, you ARE harming a victim...
        Smoking pot has no victim, only consenting users. -_-
        • Tenoq, on 04/21/2008, -6/+1And those your schitzophrenia affects. :P
    • moush, on 04/21/2008, -25/+11Cause destroying your life doesn't make your family suffer at all.
      • Mike89, on 04/21/2008, -3/+13Care to show me someone whose life has been ruined by cannabis?
        The only way I can think that it would have been is because of the current laws, not because of the drug itself.
        • MyDiggIsBig, on 04/21/2008, -20/+4spoken like a true pot head. oblivious to the world around them.
          • Mike89, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4Actually, I don't smoke anything. (Or use it in any other way, before you decide I eat hash brownies instead, etc).
          • cupid311, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6Spoken like a true oblivious moron. Many great artists, athletes, musicians, professors have smoked weed. You name a profession and i can guarantee there are guys that smoke weed in it. and as for the one below mine. The only people that are ADDICTED to weed are people with addictive personalities, There is such a thing called a "mental addiction" such as overweight people with food. Marijuana isn't chemically addictive, at least not on the level of Caffeine, Nicotine, and Heroin. Plus these people that "ruin" their life and do nothing but smoke weed probably wouldn't have done anything in the first place. Its the person's choice. You don't smoke weed then all the sudden have a thought "Man i wanna waste my life away by sitting here on a couch watching bad Japanese Anime reruns". Just doesn't happen. so yeah, don't be stupid.
          • moush, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Who cares if they do? That doesn't mean they aren't hurting anyone. I can assure you plenty of men have affairs no matter the profession, but that's not a good thing.
        • se1zure, on 04/21/2008, -11/+4there are alot of people who become MJ addicts, or drop out of school to smoke all day.
          • xino, on 04/21/2008, -1/+8There are a number of people who would do the same for World of Warcraft. Should we make World of Warcraft illegal too just because they made a bad decision based on their addiction to the game?
          • SpaceRibs, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4Lets play a game:

            there are alot of people who become (noun) addicts, or drop out of school to (verb) all day.
        • jerichobp, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4no that happens in alot of movies. welcome to reality, please leave your pre-conceived notions at the door.
          • moush, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1So the fact that drugs are harmful is wrong? I guess I missed the memo. I thought escapism was bad too.
      • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -1/+11So you support making alcohol illegal then? If not, why?
        • Tenoq, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2Taxes. Just like tobacco. Taxes are the reason I have no problem with them being legal. Start selling pot with massive taxes too, and we'll probably all be happy. Except those who end up with schizophrenia. Oh, and most employers with employees who 'just can't be bother today'.
          • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4You mean those employees that call in sick because of a hangover from drinking? Those employees?

            Also, why mention schizophrenia (though I don't buy it) and not mention the wonders of a lifetime of drinking such as brain damage? http://alcoholism.about.com/od/brain/Brain_Damage_ ...
          • Tenoq, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1I'm well aware of the problems of alcohol - they're well documented. The problems with cannabis are not. And is your justification for legalisation as simple as: "Well we already have one destructive drug - why not have some more?" "Why don't we have more choice in damaging drugs?"
          • BlackCow, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Maybe there would be more information on it if it were not illegal?
          • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1"Well we already have one destructive drug - why not have some more?"

            Because, in a "free" society, it should be my choice, not yours or the government's, what I choose to do with regards to my health so long as I am not hurting anybody else. Also, you seem to imply that the level of destructive qualities of marijuana is on par with alcohol when they are not even close.
        • moush, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Yes, if drugs are illegal, it makes no sense that alcohol and tobacco is legal. All harmful substances should be illegal. But, if one is legal, they all should be legal, however regulated.
    • newbis, on 04/21/2008, -0/+23I'd agree with you, but there can be victims. Smoking pot and driving is irresponsible and should be illegal. Smoking pot and eating cool ranch doritos should totally be legal.
      • cupid311, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3This i actually agree with. You should never drive a vehicle under the influence of anything. But this is again the dumb asses choice that gets behind the wheel. Although I'd say you are a lot less likely to hit someone driving under the influence of weed then you are with alcohol. Again, Weed didn't make the person get behind the car and drive it. People just need to be responsible with it is all. Unfortunately there are dumb people out there to ruin it for everyone.
        • lotu, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I'm going to have to disagree with you. Accoring to http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459 driving while under the influence of weed is less dangrous then driving with a blood achole level of .05% which is well below the legal limit. So unless you want ban any amount of achole and driving it is unessacary to ban weed and driving. And if you are that risk advers you proablly shouldn't be driving anyways.
          Finally I would like to point out that I personally am less dangorus of a driver when high. I take meth to treat ADHD and I would never drive with out it. I'm seriouslly much less safe.
        • moush, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Is driving under the influence of weed better than being completely clean? Of course not.
      • fred13snow, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Holy ***** man, I know!
        I can't find those chips anymore.
      • Allender, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1our school still has them in crates in the back from when they were in circulation
      • freshgrease, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1The same with drinking, but alcohol is able to be bought. Oh the shame.
    • WhoPharted, on 04/21/2008, -10/+4you sir, are an idiot
    • se1zure, on 04/21/2008, -9/+3the argument that I can do what I want to my own body is pretty weak. Should little kids be allowed to try heroin, or drink alcohol? It is their own body, after all!
      • ZeroIce, on 04/21/2008, -4/+3If little kids want to try heroin and the parents are okay with it, then they should be allowed to. The government shouldn't have the power to overrule a parents decision.
        • se1zure, on 04/21/2008, -2/+5ecept when the kids get addicted to heroin and become alcholics, they ruin their lives, and become leeches on society, which raises taxes.

          it is terrible for the economy to not have regulation. Sure, it may not be the 100% liberal, but I would rather have some socialistic control than a ***** economy.
          • ZeroIce, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1How does them becoming leeches on society, cause a raise in taxes? If the government is not gonna forbid drug use, I doubt they will use the tax payer's money to help them. I would imagine it to be a very limited government society.

            If you start out with a little regulation, the government will always be gaining more and more power. Something goes bad, the people look toward the government for help. The government is happy to help, because they know it will give them more power. This goes for some years, and before long, you have a totalitarian government. Look at Nazi Germany. The economy was in crisis, so they looked to their leader to fix the problem. Bada bing, bada boom, Hitler is the dictator.

            The only way to maintain a free society is to make sure the economy has VERY LITTLE to none regulation.
        • Tenoq, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Do you think that's fair on the kid? They don't know any better and are just doing what their parents tell them. Are you saying underage sex should be the same? The government shouldn't interfere? WRONG. Some people need the protection of the community - which is essentially what the government is supposed to be (before corporate buy-out).
          • ZeroIce, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I was making the assumption that you guys would realize that 99.9% of parents wouldn't allow their kids to do drugs. I am saying that government should not interfere with the parent's right to raise their child, their way. That is not the role of the government. You're saying that the government is supposed to be the protectors of the community? That sounds awfully progressive. I can understand a police force, EMT, etc. The government is not there to oppress one people and protect another. There is no way that they can be 100% fair in that. Therefore, it is not viable for a free society.
      • cupid311, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2that is a weak argument in itself. Of course children shouldn't be able to. Just like children shouldn't take certain drugs until they reach a certain age. Or why the drinking age is 21.
        • Allender, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1the drinking age is 21 because the higher it is the more money states get not because of morals or anything if that sort
      • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -1/+10You know what else is weak? Comparing a responsible adult choosing to smoke marijuana to giving little kids heroin. Here, let's apply the same thinking to another situation just so you can see how completely stupid your example is -

        It should be illegal for an adult to drive a car because you can imagine how dangerous it would be to let a little kid fly a helicopter.
      • danarama, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1heroin and meth are exceedingly harmful to people...unlike weed of coarse. end topic.
    • DanceParty33, on 04/21/2008, -8/+1but the victim is you...
    • sealhands, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1like blasphemy?
      • Latentsage, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Which, by the way, isn't illegal.
    • se1zure, on 04/21/2008, -5/+1what about insider trading? Technically there is no victim if you use it to make money
      • letitbleed62, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5What about all the people trying to make money w/o inside information.
        • se1zure, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1then they are in the same boat they would be in if there was no insider trading?
    • planarian, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5I'd dig this, but it's currently at 420 diggs. I think it should be left as is.
    • cjflashman, on 04/21/2008, -13/+2Right. And if you were to kill someone, but they were brought back to life via defibrillator then your still innocent?
      You potheads disgust me. Bury me down and digg my grave. And for those hoping to get laid soon you do realize smoking pot is a turnoff, right?
      • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5Wow, that was pathetic! You prohibitionists just aren't trying anymore.
      • cupid311, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Only to you. You don't know what other people like and don't like. I know of a lot people male and female (mostly female) that actually get turned on after smoking weed, so that is another invalid argument pushed on to us by someone who has no clue. People like you disgust me because you are completely uninformed. You can't push that on everyone, that's just ignorant. Plus no one smoking weed is gonna kill someone unless they were planning to do it already. Weed doesn't put homicidal thoughts into your brain. So why don't u come up with a valid argument before spewing nonsense at people.
        • Latentsage, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I don't disagree with your statement, but saying no one could kill someone because of marijuana is like saying the same for alcohol. They might do things that they wouldn't have done sober. That is of course no excuse for making it illegal.
      • striker1211, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1Not to the chicks here... apparently they think weed heads are good parents. Wait nm, it's probably just the lack of condoms and father figures.
      • deMonkey, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3My last GF and I used to smoke together pretty often. I'd say she was an 8.5 out of 10 or maybe a 9... EXTREMELY bright, master's student, hard worker, etc etc...
    • m1ss1ontomars, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1Well...you don't see any of the victims. But you can end up a victim if you're not careful (limp noodle syndrome, anyone?). And I don't wanna know where cannabis is farmed and what working conditions are like there.
    • philberttheduck, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Tell that to UC santa cruz. ***** douchebags ruined my 420 by not allowing anyone come up.
      this is what i missed.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k767yqeFfsY&feature ...

      o well, this weekend is harold and kumar.
    • ..eD, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2You rethink that while you're over there getting my fries and Big Mac.
    • peliROJO, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2like farting in an elevator when you are the last one out the door.
    • MyDiggIsBig, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1nobody cares really. do what you want. if you have to use substances or alcohal or weed, or whatever then go right ahead. if you can't find beauty and joy in the world for what it really is then go ahead and have some of these stuff. some have to rely on other stuff to enjoy what others experience naturally.
    • volonix, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Eugh, im ***** sick of this. I, personally, do smoke weed, but do you know where the money goes? Not just to some dealer's retirement fund, during the IRA times their main source of revenue was dealing, and mainly weed. This bought guns, bombs, and undeniably killed people. No, weed isnt as bad as the media makes it out to be, but it sure as hell is not a victimless crime unless you grow it yourself.
    • zaini014, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0what about white collar crime? it is victimless..

      cheers!
      http://breathalyzers-machine.blogspot.com/
  • rexona, on 04/20/2008, -38/+80It's only a crime because it can't be taxed! Can be pretty taxing though...!
    • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -4/+86That's not really the whole picture... Only a fraction of it... There are many factors/reasons why Marijuana is criminally outlawed, None of them, however, are anything close to good reasons for justifying criminalization. Especially when that criminalization, causes WAY more problems to individuals and society, than the drug ever did on it's own.

      I suspect, if it was legalized, We'd see people buy it from commercial sources eventually, more than privately grown, Which would be quite easy to tax at that point.

      Rather, it's only still illegal, because of the old false stigmas which still cling on, and the ignorance of political issues, and the purposely ignorant moralists and prohibitionists against it. And because of how much money the prisons and law enforcement and DEA get from funding to fight this drug, and make from asset seizures.
      The public is learning the reality, that this drug doesn't deserve criminalization at all... But politicians are still basing their choices off false facts and outdated propaganda... It's time for Politicians to catch up to reality.
      • zephyr42, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4It's because the baby boomers are still in power. they were brainwashed by the propaganda machine from the war on drugs. once they leave we'll *hopefully* have slightly more rational politicians.
        • ru1dt, on 04/20/2008, -0/+7they were saying the exact same thing in the sixties and seventies... then they turned into the propaganda machine
        • HeyLew, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1its going to take a while, because the propoganda keeps passing down the generations, a friend of mine thought it was like tripping, and that you dont remember what its like "being on weed" .. i thought that was completely rediculous, though we did go to lutheran schools (were both 20 now in community college in northern Illinois) but after smoking and reading into the extent of the issues i really don't remember why i was opposed before. it must have been the fear generated! let logic prevail!
      • bennovw, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Q. Sen. Obama, do you believe marijuana should be legalized?
        The crowd eagerly leans forward...
    • vault, on 04/20/2008, -2/+33It absolutely could be taxed and one day it will when it's legal. Some would still grow their own just like some people (attempt to) make their own beer, but most would buy it from a liquor store/pharmacyy/coffee shop commercially.
    • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -4/+17What do you mean it can't be taxed?
      • zardoz73, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Marijuana can be grown relatively easily, unlike other "vices" like alcohol, tobacco, etc. There would certainly be *some* tax; isn't the medical marijuana in CA taxed? Companies will sell the stuff, people will buy it, but I think the underground economy as it exists now wouldn't go away if weed were legalized.
    • KloroFormd, on 04/20/2008, -0/+44Many states will allow you to pay taxes on your marijuana at a rate of $3.50 a gram. All you have to do is walk into the court house, have them weigh it, pay the taxes, and get handcuffed and jailed for possession.

      http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6668
    • smotpoker, on 04/20/2008, -2/+17The biggest hurdle I believe is politicians and other official have to publicly oppose marijuana early on in their careers, either under the assumption it is truly bad or that it is necessary to scale the career ladder.

      Because of this, they cannot openly support decrim later on because not only would they have to justify their prior stance to some degree, they would have to admit having been part of the problem that allowed millions to be unjustly persecuted and that those who were unjustly persecuted deserve some form of reparations, which would have to come from the government (and therefore their paychecks) and ruin their careers.

      Not only this, but it would cost prison-industrial complex a fair amount of money
      • sonstone, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3I think another big hurdle is the question of what to do once you admit you were wrong. They'd have to do it in such a way that people couldn't demand reparations for being falsely imprisoned. I know that logically one can argue that they weren't falsely imprisoned because that was the law at the time. However, it seems like one could also argue that the law was unconstitutional siting the fact that it has been revoked.
        • DemonCold9, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1That would only fly if the revocation itself cited a passage from the constitution as its warrant.
    • Mikejoneswho5, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2So if we legalize weed, we would tax it. If drug dealers still sold weed, would it be considered fraud instead of poss.?
      • TonyLocNE, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2No. Where would did you even come up with something as retarded as calling it fraud, is the pot fake or something? Obviously you don't even know the definition of the word. For people who sell it now, they are charged with distribution of a controlled substance and also can be charged with tax evasion if they don't have a tax stamp. If it were legal and people sold it, it would be called tax evasion and probably something along the lines of distribution without a license..
        • whxre, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1The dealer would in effect be defrauding the state of tax revenues, so in a way, yes it can be called fraud.
          • TonyLocNE, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1no it wouldn't be called fraud, it would be called tax evasion like I already stated.
        • TonyLocNE, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1fraud suggests that there was something owned by the state or fed that the drug dealers took from them through some sort of trickery. Tax evasion is the avoidance of having to pay taxes, which is what is done when you don't have a tax stamp.
      • Tenoq, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Distribution without a license, and possibly tax evasion, as pointed out above. Fines for distribution of liquor without a license extend to $20,000 per offence in one Australian state - I imagine the fines/laws would be similar in the US.
    • BevansDesign, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2It can definitely be taxed. If it were legalized, it wouldn't stay exclusive to private growers like it is now. The pot-producing infrastructure would grow to resemble the one that produces tobacco and alcohol products now, and we'd soon start seeing manufactured packs of joints in grocery stores, pharmacies, maybe even gas stations.

      I'm sure you'd still see private growers out there, just like you still see people selling vegetables at local farmer's markets. But the vast majority of pot production would be done by large companies like Phillip Morris, and their products could easily be taxed.
    • killaCam921, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1What the government should focus on, is growing weed that has specified effects. They already hand out lists at clinics in Cali that tell you what effects certain strains will have.

      If they could perfect side effects of certain strains - they would be able to keep those strains "in house" and then they would have the ability to tax you. There is no benefit to the government if they cant offer something that is attractive for consumers: because we wont purchase the exact same products that are more expensive, for no reason. Why buy government regulated weed, when I can buy the same weed from a friend of mine?

      If they could find a way to do it better - they could tax it. Until then its going to be the shops at every corner in Cali - and the drug dealers across America - raking in the cash that grows from plants all over the world.

      If your parents told you money doesnt grow on trees - they were telling the truth - it grows on plants. GO GREEN!
  • fitqueenb, on 04/20/2008, -17/+20That is my guess too, on the tax front. They can' control or tax it, so they don't want it. How much worse if at all is it over alcohol? As usual, the government has its nickers in a knot of over something they can't control, and not to mention, why not copy a strategy again from the US that clearly does not work.

    And, now jailing those with minimal possession, what does that cost the taxpayers? Harper needs meds to be come sane.
    • joeanon, on 04/20/2008, -3/+7They could easily control and tax it by decriminallizing and regulating it.

      The first step of controlling the drug problem is taking over supply.

      The government or private industry can easily produce safer and higher quality drugs that the ones people buy on the black market.

      The democracy needs to put it foot down on Corporate America and make drug screening illegal for most or all professions.

      Businesses should not be controlling the democracies life type choices. At this rate we'll be giving them our DNA so they can predict our total production value over out lifespan before they hire us.

      Regulating dangerous drugs through medical doctors is the way to go. Drugs like cannabis should likely just be entirely legal for people over 18-21 depending on the state.
      Better to give you kids access to pot than have them roaming around experimenting with drugs that are actually dangerous..

      Like the ones in your medicine cabinet.

      Mike Gravel had the plan you people didn't really vote for change in my opinion you voted with you lack of candidate education, BUT if it takes Obama to excite an barely educated public... so be it. He is an alright guy... no FDR though.

      The working man needs a leader. I don't know the Harvard graduate is entirely in tune with the people nor does his education really match out problems.

      Our justice system and political system is screwed, that's for sure. But the real problems are energy and medical costs. Things like the Iraq war come and go. Eroding our constitutional rights however is much harder to reverse than simply ending a war and paying the costs.

      Simple solution...

      Tax the top income brackets more. When the US had real fiscal responsiblity, we taxed the rich. They may not like it, but it's better than borrowing money from communists and devaluing the dollar in the process.

      The money to win WW 1, the great depression and WW 2 all came from increasing the tax rates on the rich.

      We did very well like that, adjusting the rate in times of fiscal need. One MAJOR benefit is that when you tax the rich for war... they think twice about starting wars.

      In this model, the rich are the least effected AND they tend to make the most money off the war. It's win win for them. Even the cost of gas is only a minor concern since it's not as is these costs are proportional.

      Then Reagan stepped in, threw a the largest tax cut for the wealthy ever into the mix, so large they had to immediately fix it because they had no idea what they were doing, and science and medicine and space travel have all went down hill since then.

      You may think, for instance, the space shuttle and ISS are some great programs, but they are more failures than anything.

      The Apollo, payload on a rocket, model was cheaper, safer and faster and it is still, which is why the space shuttle is being retired and replaced by the modern version of the Apollo program's approach to getting into orbit.

      We were told the space shuttle is reusable, but they have to do so much repair in between flights it's like rebuilding the thing every time. Plus it has many added dangers and TONS and TONS of added weight, for basically no advantage. Re-entry is many times more dangerous in the space shuttle as is lift off. It's a total scam and we should have immediately looked at cost of operation and seen it was failing. ISS. is just massively over budget and has a short projected lifespan.

      Mir for instance, in it's entire lifespan, cost about 3% of the ISS. Sure the ISS is MUCH larger and more advanced, but it's not really a necessary project. We get a lot more out of satellite's than we do space stations.

      A moon base is probably a lot more practical and the low gravity might make launching larger ships from the moon a possible use. Overall I doubt we need a moon base either.
      We should however be planning for an eventual Mar colony, the gravity there is more reasonable to sustain life and the PLANET has water and resources. Along with likely tons of scientific discoveries.

      Who, ever makes it there first may be the next super power. Not because there is some super element there, but because it will be a stunning achievement that kinds that drive imaginations and foreign investments.

      We should greatly reconsider our punishments for non violent prisoners at least. This idea of kids going to prison for 2 years AND getting raped while in prison, getting AIDS and basically being indirectly, but irresponsibly sentencing a pot smoker to a potential death sentence.

      The idea that we sanction mass sodomy through prison is disgusting. Even the GOP should be ashamed.

      We should spin it as propagating homosexuality and get them behind us.....

      badoomcha
    • dangeroussnakes, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5For a minute I thought, "What the hell is he talking about?"


      Then I realized you were probably stoned off your ass when you wrote this. Cheers!
  • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -25/+144Happy 4/20 everyone!

    Lets make this year, a big one for reforming Marijuana laws! Why is a drug, which is safer than alcohol, still illegal, which causes more problems than the drug itself?
    Ending prohibition is the better policy! Legalize it!
    • brutalsponge, on 04/20/2008, -31/+3Mental health issues and cancer? Yeah, that's probably why.
      • zephyr42, on 04/20/2008, -0/+26You're right alcohol does cause both, glad to see you're on the same page as everyone else in this thread.
      • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -1/+9Yeah, as Zephyr42 said, Alcohol is a larger contributor to those problems, than Pot is.

        But also, Marijuana has never been solidly proven to causing mental problems, the research for that is on very shaky ground.

        And Marijuana has never been linked to causing cancer either... Any claim of that, comes from people making the wrong guesses... When real studies have been done on this topic, they actually find Marijuana slows/stops cancer, sometimes even reverses it... But they've never found an actual causal link between pot use and cancer.

        People who smoke pot, have roughly the same risk for lung cancer as people who've never smoked anything.
        • 180andback, on 04/21/2008, -1/+7Cannabis can cause cancer if you smoke it, in just the same way that smoking tobacco, clove cigarettes, and tire rubber can. Or sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Or overexposure to sunlight. Or completely unavoidable natural causes.
        • HeyLew, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1there are carcinogens in the smoke but the THC seems to make them not harm you. ive done a couple speeches on this recently, and a bunch of "real" research.
      • solistus, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Aside from the fact that neither of those effects has been proven by a reputable study, your hidden assumption is that prohibition reduces use. Every study on the subject has been pretty clear that this is not the case. What prohibition does is cost huge amounts of money and ruin peoples' lives for engaging what is, at worst, a poor personal health choice, far less severe than choosing to smoke, become addicted to caffeine (tens of millions of Americans are, a couple cups of coffee a day can do it), poor diet, etc.
      • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Do any of you idiots who spout the "marijuana is bad for you" crap ever once stop to think about the hypocrisy of your statements? Are you really so blind to not see the fact that the very same arguement could be made against alcohol and cigarettes? The level of stupidity is absolutely mind-boggling.
        • aut665, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Who says they use alcohol or cigarettes? Maybe they oppose those as well but since we are not talking about them why should they be brought into the subject?
          • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1They should be brought into the discussion because they are much worse than marijuana yet are legal. It's a double standard. So unless these people want alcohol and cigarettes made illegal as well, there is no valid arguement that can be made in favor of marijuana prohibition.
        • HeyLew, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2the point is that they're legal, and theyre worse for you. if you oppose everything thats fine, but dont make that choice for everyone else
    • vagarach, on 04/20/2008, -20/+2It can actually trigger dormant psychotic tendencies, which alcohol does not. Reason enough, I think.
      • sinenomine, on 04/20/2008, -0/+13Alcohol triggers far more mental health issues, actually
        • Akaji, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3Such as spousal abuse. I've never seen someone beat someone up just because they were high...
      • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -0/+9Alcohol causes a LOT more... wow get your facts straight...

        And no, even if it did, that wouldn't be any reason to criminally outlaw it.... This is a health issue, not a criminal issue... And people are free to chose, if they want to do something which isn't that healthy for them.
      • 180andback, on 04/21/2008, -2/+7My own completely anecdotal and unverifiable evidence suggests that it may actually serve to suppress psychotic tendencies, particularly those brought on by a long, stressful day at work.
      • petereality, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4You are complete proof that anti-marijuana propaganda is working.
      • rentmitchum, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2God DAMMIT, you're the reason it's illegal! Wake up! Try to move past the lies they fed us in school! Figure some things out for yourself!
      • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Talk about turning a blind eye. Or would that drunken eye?
      • djlethal, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Would you mind backing this up with an article if possible? thanks
      • deMonkey, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Yes, please share us with some unbiased research on this... every pothead I know is about the most normal, sane person out there. Alcohol brings out fits or rage and anger and probably accounts for more abuse than *all other drugs combined* but I wouldn't spout that as fact without a source like you did. :D
    • CaptainCool53, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7So what if it's bad for you? I was under the impression that the government's job was to govern, and my parents' job is to parent, not vice versa.
    • moush, on 04/21/2008, -14/+1If you legalize it, it'll be one step towards legalizing all drugs, and it'll spell doom for the world.
      • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1You do realize that mankind has been doing drugs for thousands of years don't you? We've done just fine up until the point when the government decided it needed to get involved. You do understand that prohibition is what led to organized crime, right? Why is it that the so-called "potheads" regularly demonstrate a higher level of intelligence than you anti-marijuana sheep?
        • HeyLew, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2the answeris... THE DAILY DOUBLE. but seriously. i think logic classes need to be taught in gradeschool and highschool. it would fix alot of ***** in the US, even if a few more people knew how to reason well. all drugs dont need to be legalized for the world to spell doom. theres plenty of ***** up alcoholics.. and i dont see the entire world being ruined because of it. OVER INDULGENCE is the problem.. thats the problem with everything.
        • moush, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1When you post the same ***** every pothead posts that "drugs do nothing bad", it makes you look stupid. How would drugs make the world a better place? Who cares if drugs have been around forever? I don't think they've been legal. If you legalize pot, you're saying that drugs are ok, so you will have to legalize all drugs, which will be bad.
      • deMonkey, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1So is legalizing something like VIAGRA. Take a course in logic at college and pay attention to the fallacy called "slippery slope".
      • NikoKun, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1There has never been a drug free society in the history of Mankind, and you can never hope to achieve that either.

        Legalizing Marijuana, the softest of the soft drugs... Isn't going to cause the legalization of hard, more harmful drugs.
  • canewediggit, on 04/20/2008, -12/+72you see this? this is where i attempted to copy/paste an ascii dread w/ a joint in hand. didn't work out so well. happy 4/20!
    • ninerskeet, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1I'm here today because Im addicted... to marijuana.
  • diablo75, on 04/20/2008, -13/+259"They can't tax it." Well... they COULD tax it, if we legalized it.
    • DrainBamaged138, on 04/20/2008, -22/+6you cant tax something that any schmuck can grow in his or her closet
      • chrisaug18, on 04/20/2008, -2/+25For the same amount of money as a decent grow op you could set up a still or a tabaco "grow op" but its easier to just buy it from the store.
        • BIOHazard87, on 04/20/2008, -4/+2True, I always say the same thing to people
      • schnikies79, on 04/20/2008, -2/+5My grandfather grows his own tobacco. He sells and smokes it.
        • solistus, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1And just like with tobacco, there would be a handful of individuals growing it (although if the sell it, taxing them is no harder than taxing other small businesses; it's no easier to evade taxes on growing pot than on mowing lawns, doing housework or contract labour, etc. The majority of buying and selling would go through big commerce and would be taxed. For every person that's ever even smoked 'home grown' tobacco, there are a thousand who have only smoked commercial cigarettes. With pot the ratios may be different, but commercial products will still far outsell private grows.
        • Nitrodist88, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Wait, he sells it? How can he sell it to anyone if everyone is growing it!?
      • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -2/+7Really? Last I saw not everyone grows their own crops...not every grows their own tobacco...I have yet to make my own beer or liqour...Just b/c you can make something or grow something for cheaper doens't mean people do...most people choose to pay for someone else to do the work. (Anything sold a store can be taxed.)
        • Akaji, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure you need a license to make alcoholic beverages (at least to sell, maybe not for your own use). It's possible that there's the same restriction on tobacco.
          Still, your point is valid - even if people could grow their own, it's a lot more convenient to just buy it from a store.
          • schnikies79, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1There is no law (at least in Indiana) against growing your own tobacco.
      • solistus, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Any shmuck can grow cannabis, but it takes a lot of time, expertise and equipment to grow it well. Unless you're a hardcore pothead, it would be a lot easier to go to the store than to go through all that effort. The main reason small 'grow ops' are so popular is the artificially inflated prices and suppressed supply thanks to the war on drugs.
      • elDud3rino, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0I suppose I could melt down my own metal for my swords, but I don't, I go to a blacksmith.
      • shinkickedjim, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0ever heard of product specialization and marketing? they work
    • RadiatedAnt, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1ending the drug war on cannabis and taxing this wonderful leaf would make this recession end!
  • jcm267, on 04/20/2008, -117/+30Actually those who consume cannabis are criminals. Buried as inaccurate.
    • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -11/+35You and I agree on many things, but this is not one of them. You'd be shocked how many people you know already use it.
      • jcm267, on 04/20/2008, -26/+11You disagree? Would you like for me to show you the laws? When I got caught with pot while in college the cop was just being a dick and wasn't really letting me off easy with a warning? By consuming pot you are a criminal. And BTW I was an extremely heavy smoker in high school and would be a smoker today if it was legal.
        • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -5/+22Do you speed? I don't consider you a criminal. Cars are a hell of a lot more dangerous than Pot. I can show you statistics if you need me to.
          • jcm267, on 04/21/2008, -4/+5My 15 miles over the speed limit (the most I go over the limit) does not carry the same maximum penalty that carrying any usable amount of pot does (1 year in jail, $1000 fine) in my state. Getting caught a second time with any "usable amount" of pot is a felony, whereas with speeding you just get another ticket.
          • BassMastr, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3Most places it is a ticketable offense. I doubt many go to jail for having pot on them in your state. Max penalty and actual penalty are two different things. That's funny that you think you are the one who gets to decide which laws get broken to = criminal. That's too bad that you use level of punishment to decide severity of crime. I use consequences and I don't even think we have to look to see that more people die from people speeding then smoking Pot. But whatever...you're more likely to hurt someone than I am. (I don't typically drive very fast.) And I still don't consider you a criminal.
          • jcm267, on 04/21/2008, -8/+4I just want potheads to stop pretending that they aren't criminals and start realizing that there are serious consequences for what they are doing. Pretending that they aren't breaking the law isn't a smart way to go through life. Part of why I didn't smoke a lot of pot while I was in college was because I knew that if I got caught with it that I would lose my student loans.
          • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2@jcm267

            So what are the serious consequences of pot smoking that require it to be illegal in the first place?
          • Calcularius, on 04/21/2008, -2/+5wow, jcm267, not only are you a total douchbag, put a complete pussy as well.
            You didn't break the law because you are a chicken ***** bastard /points and laughs/
            Imagine all of the people in history that are "criminals" like us pot smokers, the people who thought slavery was bad and smuggled people out were "criminals" the people who threw the tea in boston harbor were "criminals" the people who went to bars during prohibition were "criminals" but it doesn't mean they were *WRONG* This is not about the "law" this is about what is right and what is wrong. If a law is WRONG then the law should be changed not the behavior of the people! That is exactly what is happening. The laws are becoming less harsh for pot and it needs to be and will be taken further.
          • BassMastr, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3If i did get high...what would the serious consequences be?
          • jcm267, on 04/21/2008, -5/+3@jeremy
            Shut up, troll. I don't think that pot should be illegal so you can stop building that straw man.

            @Calcularius
            I'm a total douchebag and a complete pussy because I'd rather not lose my student loans over pot? That Chappelle's Show "When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong" sketch comes to mind. Don't compare pot prohibition to slavery.
          • BassMastr, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5So your whole argument here is you want people to admit they are breaking a law? or you want them to admit they are criminals? (either way...how petty.) I think we can all agree that smoking pot is in fact breaking the law. After that you are just arguing semantics and what defines a criminal. (An unwinnable argument.) Yes by definition a criminal is someone who breaks the law, but at what point does breaking a law not equal to criminal? You say it's okay to speed, but that is breaking a law... I just don't understand why you feel you are the one who gets to define where the line of criminal and no criminal is drawn. If you don't think pot should be illegal then why stay around and argue semantics?
          • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2@jcm267

            You don't think pot should be illegal but you'll spend an entire evening arguing over the definition of "criminal" when it is abundantly clear what the submitter was getting at when he made the "those who consume cannabis are not criminals" comment? You seem to have a hidden agenda that requires you to belabor a minor point that is only important to you. I am not a troll but rather someone who is calling you out on your *****.

            So please, you first, STFU.
          • jcm267, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2BassMastr, you aren't getting it. I'm not saying that speeding isn't against the law. I did point out that the penalties are much harsher for marijuana possession. Need I get into sale or cultivation? Those are serious offenses.

            Jeremy, I didn't exactly spend the entire evening arguing here. Now please tell me what my "hidden agenda" is. I'll be waiting.
        • card51short, on 04/20/2008, -6/+16are you kidding me? JCM doesn't speed or jaywalk. He doesn't want to be a criminal.
          • jcm267, on 04/21/2008, -7/+4I don't want to go to jail, card. Maybe you should've tried harder in your life to stay out of it, felon.
          • Calcularius, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1When you're old and gray, jcm, you can say you lived your life within the boundaries defined by others. Congratulations.
        • ClevelandBrown, on 04/20/2008, -7/+12I'm willing to bet jcm probably has only tried marijuana once, and it must have been a bad experience for him. what you feel is a justified,absolute statement, is pure *****. The people who use marijuana in moderation and lead successful lives are no worse than people who get wasted on weekends from alcohol. buried for being both an ass-hat and a troll.
          • jcm267, on 04/20/2008, -10/+2I'm willing to bet that you were breastfed until you were 6 years old.
          • CaptainCool53, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6Dr. King wasn't a criminal when he practiced civil disobedience. Sure, he broke laws, but he was never a criminal. Criminality, as it's being used here, is an issue of morality, not legality.
      • gravytrain73, on 04/20/2008, -2/+12He' is right, technically. If you commit a crime, you are a criminal.
        • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -2/+6We can argue semantics all day. I don't consider those who commit misdemeanors criminals...but yes i guess you could make that argument as long as you are willing to include jaywalkers, speeders, any other ticketable offense which includes playing music too loud, even wearing your pants too saggy these days, speeding up to make a yellow light, smoking underage, walking your dog without a leash, fishing without a license. I guess we are a nation of criminals by your definition.
        • CaptainCool53, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2If I speak out against the government in China, am I a criminal? If I married an African-American woman in the 1940s, am I a criminal?
          • jcm267, on 04/21/2008, -4/+1Do you know what a criminal is? I don't think that you do.
          • BassMastr, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Your definition seems to change depending on the discussion. Please...enlighten us.
          • jcm267, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1My definition hasn't changed, Bass.
      • slvrbullet87, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1I know people who have stolen cars, does that mean that it is ok?
      • Tikisam, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1your -84 net diggs coupled with the widespread support of Obama on digg indicate how susceptible to word connotations diggers are. Rather than appreciate definitions and apply logic, we see day in and day out on digg a collective that allows emotions to dictate opinion rather than logic.
    • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -9/+15What's wrong with me smoking Cannabis? What's criminal about it?

      Tell me sir, what's bad about Cannabis, what was the original reasons for outlawing this drug, which is safer than alcohol or tobacco, or many pharmaceuticals?

      Besides the fact that it's currently outlawed... There is no other excuse for calling us Criminals! We don't cause harm to others, from using it... It was our choice, and a choice which only pertains to our own bodies. Where's the victim to this so-called "crime"? If this IS in fact a crime, there needs to be a victim.

      As long as we act responsible, we aren't doing anything wrong... How come people can choose to be responsible with Alcohol, but we legally we can't, even with a safer drug?
      • jcm267, on 04/20/2008, -24/+14It is a crime to possess, cultivate, and sell pot. You, pothead, are a criminal whether you want to accept it or not. Now please stop with the pothead talking points, they are irrelevant. If you really aren't a criminal then by all means grow pot in your front yard, keep an ounce of weed in your pocket at all times, and casually ask the dining and drinking establishments that you frequent whether it's okay to light up a marijuana cigarette each time that you visit.
        • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -6/+13Not a bad idea... If all us "potheads" actually did do that... It might just force the end of Prohibition.

          Sorry for being blunt, but you must be ignorant... As shown by your willingness to ignore fact and reality, even logic.
          Marijuana prohibition laws are unfair, unbalanced, unjust, and counterproductive to the actual supposed goals of prohibition! It creates more problems than it solves, and it causes more harm to society and the individual, than the drug itself ever caused on it's own. Certainly the criminal record these laws place onto Cannabis users, causes a LOT more harm to them, over their whole life, than Smoking pot could ever do! Smoking pot wont ruin your life... But being arrested for it CERTAINLY WILL!

          None of my "talking points" can be considered false, most of them are common sense logic. They are only "irrelevant" to a closed minded ignorant fool.

          I am not a criminal, and I should not be treated like one! My actions harm no one, and as long as this prohibition remains in place, then I can never consider this a free country. What business is it of yours what I smoke in my own home?
          • jcm267, on 04/20/2008, -21/+7Stop with the straw man arguments, criminal. Please show me where I said that I am in favor of marijuana prohibition.
          • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -4/+11Then why call me a Criminal? It is the law that is wrong, not us.

            Would you call blacks criminals, for breaking segregation laws before the equal rights movement? Seems to me, they were placed on the level of heroes for that, not criminals. They fought back, disobeyed, committed civil disobedience (and sometimes not so civil), All to fight for their rights, and to change the unjust laws!... And for it, they are heroes, even the ones that didn't actually accomplish much for their time.

            If you disagree with Prohibition, how can you possibly call us criminals? I see little difference between their fight for rights, and our's... Our right not to be criminalized for personal choices over ourselves, our right to freedom over our own bodies... Our right to use a medication which in some cases allows us to live normal lives, when we'd be crippled with pain or muscular problems or unable to leave the bed otherwise. Our rights to fair justice and fair punishment... Our right to demonstrate our individual responsibility, by using pot with responsible guidelines...

            I've seen the often irreversible harm which Prohibition causes to people's lives, just because they chose to smoke a little pot... It's wrong, and we fight against it...
            We are not criminals, we are sure of that... It is the law, which is wrong, and should be called criminal!
          • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -8/+1 .
          • Beveridge89, on 04/20/2008, -5/+9NikoGun, you can't win this argument. By defintion, if you break the law, you are a criminal. Doesn't matter about the rights and wrongs, it's still illegal.
          • card51short, on 04/20/2008, -4/+19just like jews, homosexuals and gypsys broke the law in nazi germany
          • StoicHitman, on 04/20/2008, -12/+2If you think weed is so great, do you have any comment on how most people in jail for other crimes use it?
          • MajesticBeaver, on 04/20/2008, -3/+11"If you think weed is so great, do you have any comment on how most people in jail for other crimes use it?"

            hey idiot, most people in jail have drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes, and taken various other "legal" drugs so go ***** yourself....
          • StoicHitman, on 04/20/2008, -11/+4I am at a loss for how you can possibly compare a fight for civil rights to you and your friends wanting to casually smoke weed without facing the consequences. If think you are only hurting yourself you are incorrect, there is a long chain of people who you hurt when you smoke weed.
          • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -3/+6"There is a long chain of people who you hurt when you smoke weed..."

            My neighbor just got high...who got hurt?
          • StoicHitman, on 04/20/2008, -7/+2You are hurting people by supporting the trafficking of illegal drugs. You are encouraging people in low income situations to get involved and consider dropping out of school. Then, once they get busted for selling, people who didnt smoke weed and have good jobs get to carry the tax burden of it. The list goes on. You may not see it but your neighbor is hurting someone.
          • Qxzkjp, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4Really? I'd like to see the list, please.
          • card51short, on 04/20/2008, -1/+6"You are hurting people by supporting the trafficking of illegal drugs"

            Exactly...and making it legal will TOTALLY put an end to all that.
            All the people that smoke now will continue to smoke and those who don't won't.
          • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -0/+7Really? First of all...most weed is grown right here so not a lot of trafficking goes on there. Last I heard the American POT cartels have been pretty inactive as far as shooting up the place...no one hurt there.

            They encourage people in low income situations to get involved?!?!? What are you talking about???Nice generalization there..You obviously know nothing about drugs if you think low income households are more likely to sell or do drugs. (now they go to jail more and longer, but I think that may have to do with lawyers and the type you can afford.)
            "people who didn't smoke weed and have good jobs" You obviously live a sheltered ignorant life. You have no idea how many people have smoked pot and still have great jobs. Lawyers, doctors, judges, police officers, politicians, presidents, athletes...you name the profession someone in that profession has and still smokes pot while they do it...and many do it very well.
            I still don't see how smoking pot hurts other people, but if Pot were legalized every problem you mentioned would be solved.

            What scares me more than drugs and drug dealers are narrow minded judgemental people like you who judge things they obviously have no experience or insight. You are the people that exaserbate problems rather than solve them. Go back to your video game "hitman"
          • djbon2112, on 04/20/2008, -0/+6@StoicHitman: Now, take off your ignorance cap for a minute, and think: if cannabis were legalized, would smoking it have all those consequences? Keep it illegal because of the problems it causes BECAUSE it's illegal? You, sir, are a dolt. Circular logic is circular logic is...

          • AlgnPelotudo, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2"If you think weed is so great, do you have any comment on how most people in jail for other crimes use it?"

            do you drink water?
        • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -7/+2 .
        • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -3/+6I guess we are all to be considered criminals then, including yourself. I'm sure you break a law or two daily.
        • StoicHitman, on 04/20/2008, -17/+3I agree with you Jcm, smoking pot is a crime and I hope you all get caught. If it costs the government too much money I'll even volunteer at the prison just to keep stoners behind bars.
          • jeremy1967, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Hey StoicHitman, if they make ass-raping your pet dog illegal tomorrow, will you be a good law-abiding citizen and stop doing it? Just wondering.
        • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -1/+9StoicHitman, if you're worried about the costs of prohibition, you should be in favor of ending it... Arresting potheads for smoking in their homes, is a pointless waste of money.

          What are we doing wrong?
          • StoicHitman, on 04/20/2008, -11/+2smoking weed
          • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -2/+9And that's wrong how?

            It's no more wrong than drinking beer... Pot is actually less of a health risk for you, than Beer is... So makes no sense that Pot is the illegal one... -_-
          • StoicHitman, on 04/20/2008, -11/+4I'm not a scientist, so I dont know if whether what you are saying is accurate or not, but even if that were true smoking weed is still against the law. It is wrong because even though the effect of somking it on your body may be minimal, the effect it has on your mind is not, which is why you like it so much. If weed was legalized and people just wandered the streets stoned, who knows what kind of crazy stuff would happen? I listen to the crazy stories my friends tell about the stuff they do or think while stoned, and I say to myself "man, I'm glad they have to do this secretly, because if that kind of stuff were allowed to go on in public all hell would break loose".
          • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -1/+9"If weed was legalized and people just wandered the streets stoned, who knows what kind of crazy stuff would happen? I listen to the crazy stories my friends tell about the stuff they do or think while stoned, and I say to myself "man, I'm glad they have to do this secretly, because if that kind of stuff were allowed to go on in public all hell would break loose".

            You must live in a bubble b/c people are already wandering the streets high and there is not chaos and the stories you hear from you stoner friends pale in comparison to the stories from your drunk friends.
          • StoicHitman, on 04/20/2008, -10/+1I think you are in the bubble.
          • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3OK. Good answer! You high? Or not very creative in that bubble? You'd be amazed who smokes pot. I must be nice to still be young enough to be naive.
          • djbon2112, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5StoicHitman: Wait, you're in favour of keeping it illegal, because of the problems it causes BECAUSE it's illegal? Are you actually that stupid?

            Or are you just a troll?
          • muchachoburacho, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2i think he enjoys all the attention he just got.
          • xsquirrel378x, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1"You must live in a bubble b/c people are already wandering the streets high and there is not chaos and the stories you hear from you stoner friends pale in comparison to the stories from your drunk friends"

            BassMastr wins the thread because whatever you say about pot, alcohol is 10x worse and more dangerous in almost every single comparison.
      • Tikisam, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1crime |krīm|
        noun
        an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law : shoplifting was a serious crime.
        • illegal activities : the victims of crime.
        • an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong : they condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity | it's a crime to keep a creature like Willy in a tank.

        criminal |ˈkrimənl|
        noun
        a person who has committed a crime : these men are dangerous criminals.

        Yes anti-drug laws are frivolous and 100% impudent to liberty, but for you to make statements that are so brazenly incorrect is just sloppy.
        Marijuana users are criminals. No they should not be, but they're so dumb that they are unable to piece together enough logic to decriminalize their activities.
    • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -5/+6Also, how is this digg submission celebrating 4/20, inaccurate, based only on your opinion of us Users?
      Whether or not you think we are criminals, has no bearing on the accuracy of this article AT ALL.
      • jcm267, on 04/20/2008, -4/+3I buried it as inaccurate before I even clicked on it. The description was inaccurate as it said that potheads aren't crinimals. Please work on your reading comprehension skills.
        • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2It helps when you explain yourself ahead of time.
          We don't deserve to be labeled criminals.
          • jcm267, on 04/21/2008, -7/+2Sure you do. You are violating a law.
          • NikoKun, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Ok, enough trolling... Just because it's illegal, doesn't justify the law...
            We don't deserve to be criminalized by the law... Saying we are violating the law, doesn't change that.
          • jcm267, on 04/21/2008, -5/+2I'm trolling?? This all started because after I buried this submission as inaccurate you (among others) trolled along and built straw man arguments against me. And I was not trying to justify the law, Niko. I was simply stating the fact that you a criminal.
          • zekemorgan, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2JCM, I've spent the last 15-20 minutes reading all your comments and Basshunters, and NikoKuns. You keep saying they are building straw man arguments against you yet I haven't seen you comment on their responses and the responses of other people about other laws that were once illegal that history books now refer back to in favorable manners. Civil disobediance, nazi germany, and alcohol prohibition were just three points brought up. I think a lot of people are waiting for your response on illegal situations that became matters of right versus wrong.

            A couple of other good points were brought up:
            -Legalizing it would reduce overpopulated prisons
            -It would reduce costs of arrests, etc
            -Many successful people can control their intake just as alcohol intake can be controlled. Smoking recreationally and being addicted to the point of living on the streets because of the addiction are two different matters. Its the same for those who drink socially and alcoholics on the streets. In all situations there will be people who can't control too much of a good thing, but we shouldn't base our laws on them because they are the exception to the rule. Last semester I was at Brandeis University, rated number 40 (out of about 2500 colleges in America). I couldn't believe how many smokers were just on my floor as it was my first time being around smokers, and at the end of the semester they pulled off 4.0 gpas. The argument that it can be used recklessly or it damages the mind is a mute argument, as long term effects are minimal, especially for social smokers.

            Lastly, I'd like to point out that I have -never- smoked. I say this to exhibit that I don't have a bias because of my experiences. My bias is based on logic...and maybe even right versus wrong..
          • jcm267, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Zeke, comparing smoking pot to standing up to Nazi Germany or the civil disobedience that we saw for civil rights in the 50s and 60s is laughable. I thought that I addressed a comment that compared smoking pot to slavery.

            Now the prohibition of all drugs really does compare to alcohol prohibition, but that's not the argument.
        • CaptainCool53, on 04/21/2008, -3/+5Why are you so passionate in arguing semantics?
    • dakine42, on 04/21/2008, -4/+5Jcm is affirming the fact that those who smoke are criminals, and while in many countries this is true, all of you have buried him for speaking the truth rather than accepting that the current laws in most countries do make smoking Cannabis illegal. Next time you bury someone for stating a fact, rethink your actions, had he said, I think that those who consume Cannabis are criminals that would be different, that would be a moral power trip, all he did was state a fact.
      • CaptainCool53, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1jcm is using the word in a legal context. We're using it in a moral context. Nobody is really wrong here.
        • dakine42, on 04/23/2008, -0/+0What is really right or wrong anyways? Plus morality is fostered out of social and cultural norms. What may be morally right for one culture is not for another.
    • Chaos12, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Perfect citizen?
    • deMonkey, on 04/21/2008, -4/+4It's funny, invading Iraq and killing 35,000 civilians isn't criminal, but smoking pot is. Clearly our government has a real sense of MORALS. :)
  • onetimer, on 04/20/2008, -17/+211Legalize it - - > Tax it - - > overcrowded prison problem solved (which then can be used to house the heroin/meth/crack/dangerous drug dealers) + billions of dollars saved.
    • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -3/+33Not to mention that the money saved from not criminalizing Cannabis users, added to the money made from taxing Cannabis sales, would be enough to pay for a very significant chunk of a future American health care system.
      • sephiroth965, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4Can I get a citation?
        • furbyboy, on 04/20/2008, -9/+3*Waving hands in the air* CITATION!!!!!
          (I'm guessing a citation is a bit like an Amen)
      • stoanhart, on 04/20/2008, -2/+14It's called math. If 20% of the US population bought $20 of weed per month, and the government took 5%, it would generate $60 million per month in tax revenues ($720m per year).

        That's in addition to the fact that universal healthcare alone would cut the US government's medical expenses in half, from ~$6000 / person per year to ~$3000 / person per year.
        [Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/business/yourmon ...
        • Tenoq, on 04/21/2008, -0/+15% is a bit low. Excises/taxes similar to alcohol or tobacco would be appropriate. For example, Australian beer taxes are $30-37 per litre. Tobacco taxes are $0.23 per stick (or nearly $5 per pack). If you're going to tax it, at least tax it properly and extensively enough to cover the increase in associated medical problems due to widespread use.
          And yes, there ARE medical issues associated with weed. It's not as dangerous as many drugs (inc alcohol) but it's not harmless either. I'm sure even the most staunch supporter of legalisation can type "medical problems due to cannabis" into Google. :p
          • Tenoq, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I should clarify - it's $30-37 per litre of alcohol in beer - not per litre of beer. I'm sure some were going "WTF?! That's expensive beer dude!"
      • xerigen, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1There is no overcrowded prison problem in the grand scheme of things. In a lot of cases, privately owned prisons hold nonviolent drug offenders and the more they expand, the more money they make. Plus, they can then pay these prisoners pennies to do hard manual labor while they are held in captivity. It's a beautiful thing for corporate America.
    • platinumrod, on 04/20/2008, -3/+17Legalize ALL of it. It would cripple inner-city crime, gang violence, organized crime - not to mention rampant public corruption created by the vast amount of money the illegal drug trade generates in the US. Yes, it would create social upheaval, but it might be the only way to eliminate the negative feedback loop of poverty. People need to learn about drugs themselves, and that knowledge creates social and financial wealth.
    • Hananda, on 04/20/2008, -7/+15Wow, what an incredibly hypocritical post. Sure, legalize your drug of choice, but there's some sort of justification for keeping all the others illegal. Well done.

      There is absolutely no way to justify any sort of controlled substance policy from a moral or constitutional standpoint. It is a blatant infringement on the rights of the citizen. Somebody wants to kill themselves with meth, that's not the business of myself or of the government.
      • onetimer, on 04/20/2008, -9/+6I suppose you feel that DUI/DWI laws are bad too? Because technically, the mere act of driving while intoxiated doesn't harm anyone (it's the collision that does)

        I want the harder drugs (PCP, METH, CRACK) outlawed for the same reason that driving while intoxicated is dangerous. NOT because the act itself causes any harm (to anyone else, at least), but the drugs create an environment that leads to violent and dangerous acts.

        Pot does not.
        • Hananda, on 04/20/2008, -2/+4You can't legislate responsibility into people. That being said, it can be argued that since the roads are public property, the government has the right to pass any laws regarding the use of said roads it feels like.

          By your logic, pot should be outlawed as it lowers productivity. Suppose that lowered productivity raises food prices, causing the extremely poor to starve. Indirect violence and all that.

          I'd rather have the occasional crackhead going berserk and potentially dragging a couple people down with him, than allow the systematic gang violence which results in thousands of deaths and destroys the economic viability of most large cities in the US to continue. Lesser of two evils.
          • onetimer, on 04/20/2008, -2/+3Your argument failts. I'll get a DUI just as easily if i'm driving down a road that I OWN (such as my driveway).

            Pot makes people less productive? Talk about stereotyping. Do you actually have studies that back this up? Regardless, the difference is that the intake of pot doesn't directly harm anybody else or make you alot more likely to cause harm.

            The harder drugs, on the other hand, have a Direct physiological effect on the brain that makes you MUCH more likely to cause harm to somebody.


          • CaptainCool53, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1That's ***** and you know it. By your logic (and I'm really getting tired of that phrase) drinking alcohol should be illegal as well. Drinking in and of itself does no harm, but alcohol tends to lower inhibitions and impair judgment, causing many to believe they can drive safely. This leads to drunk-driving accidents that DO harm others.
            But we both know that isn't right. You can't legislate based upon what might happen, or what you think a person will do. You're not as stupid as the rest of the Prohibitionists. Take a few minutes to work this out.
          • onetimer, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2Give me a ***** break. You can't support laws for DUI/DWI while simultaneously support the complete legalization of all hard drugs.

            I don't need some ***** kid trying to tell me that the effects of alcohol are the same as those of drugs like PCP or METH. I had to spend a long time in college studying the EXACT pharmacological and physiological effects of various drugs. There's a big ***** difference.

            And you're naive if you think this country doesn't pass legislation to prevent actions.
          • TonyLocNE, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3@onetimer:
            you talk about stereotyping and then you stereotype against people who use hard drugs... You nullify any argument you could have had by being biased against other drugs. I know many people (myself included, 3 years ago) who did hard drugs all the time and never harmed anyone. Quit being such a hypocrite.
          • onetimer, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1Those aren't stereotypes. I'm talking about hard data involving the altering of chemicals in the brain that increase the likelihood of activity.

            Just because you didn't have a problem doesn't mean nobody else does. YOU'RE the one being ignorant.
          • AKBryant54, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1I'm sorry, but there's a difference between someone killing themselves with their drug of choice in their own home, while not violating the rights of others, and operating deadly machinery under the influence of said drug.

            Supporting DUI laws is not logically inconsistent with supporting legalization of all hard drugs. This is especially the case when you factor in the argument that such a profitable black market creates more social problems than drugs themselves.
        • TonyLocNE, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1well obviously you've never lived in a small town where someone has been shot and killed over a ***** measly 1/4 lb. You can't sit there and say that pot does not lead to violence because it can and does.
          • onetimer, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2I was talking about physiological influences that cause an increase in the likelihood of violence (which pot does not). External violence would be eliminated if it was legalized.
          • TonyLocNE, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1haha yeah right and we can all sing and dance under rainbows cast against blue skies while we celebrate 200 consecutive years of peace.. yep that'll be the day.
          • onetimer, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2External violence related to the purchase and sale of POT. Did you really need for me to spell it out for you?

            But DO explain how I'm wrong, instead of making deranged ramblings.
        • ganjadude4391, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2ummm yes i can support DUI DWI laws, I dont want someone messed up on any substance driving on the street with me


          on the other hand if hes in his own house, i dont care what he puts in his body
        • muchachoburacho, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I mean i like the idea of all drugs being legalized and the government not controlling us, but really pot is not a problem, it doesnt create problems, heroine and meth are insanely addictive, and can cause severe social ills, which affect the rights of more people than are restricted by it's outlaw. That being said, the criminal justice system should focus on rehabilitating people addicted to hard drugs, and not incarcerating them. But making hard drugs legal would cause more problems than it would solve in my opinion.
      • Pritchard, on 04/20/2008, -1/+6I don't believe the federal government should ban any drugs. States could, sure. However, I think banning consumption during certain activities is the only reasonable action to take against abuse. Even drugs which can be harmful are legal until their use becomes popular, then they're outlawed, no matter how many other uses they have.

        Drugs can be used for much more than consumption. Please don't think banning a substance altogether is good. It's harmful.
    • zephyr42, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5Texas has a *huge* problem with overcrowded prisons and jails. A bill came by not too long ago that would slightly decriminalize small amounts aka < 2oz so police officers could simply write a citation instead of insta-jail. It was shot down along with the proposal to build a new jail or renovate the old one. All while our jail is more than full with violent and non-violent offenders and we have to lease space for them at other jails/prisons. It's crazy what propaganda can really do to people.
      • savethehobos, on 04/20/2008, -0/+0I believe that law is in effect. Used to live in Dallas and most of the people that I knew that were busted with less that 2 oz were either made to dump they're pot out on the street[... :'(...] or were given a ticket for it...usually the ticket ran up close to 700 bucks. Never knew anyone while i was there that actually was jailed for less than 2oz.
    • evan2024, on 04/20/2008, -6/+4No, don't tax it. Allowing the govt. to tax pot in exchange for legalization is cowardly. It needs to be legalized with no strings attached.
      • LetsGoHokies, on 04/21/2008, -1/+9You must be smoking some really good *****.
      • Issius, on 04/21/2008, -4/+2You sir, are retarded.
      • CaptainCool53, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2I'll agree. It's not a matter of weighing the pros and cons. The government cannot punish me for consuming any substance. They do not have that right. Period.
        • BevansDesign, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2There are taxes on cigarettes, booze, soft drinks, snack foods, and so on. Whether or not they have the right is a whole can of worms that I don't feel like opening, but they already have precedence on their side. It would be foolish to think that they wouldn't tax it.
          • CaptainCool53, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I'd be happy to open it. But I'd rather implement a national retail sales tax on all retail goods. Weed would still be taxed and would still bring plenty of revenue, but the individual would probably pay less than what he would currently.
    • shablog, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2That wouldn't work....it makes too much sense.
    • diggingaround, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Do you understand that would mean huge loss of business? ... legalizing pot would single handedly screw up the whole government run, money making scheme!
  • Ajajadude, on 04/20/2008, -36/+189We're celebrating Hitler's birthday?
    • NikoKun, on 04/20/2008, -19/+93So lets say Hitler was born on Christmas... Should we stop celebrating Christmas because of that?

      Why stop celebrating the good in one thing, Just because something else may have taken place on that same day?
      • sinizuh, on 04/20/2008, -21/+9You're comparing a large religious holiday, of when Christ was born.... to a time when high school students would get high at?
        • fr3ddie, on 04/20/2008, -3/+12*cough* douchebag *cough*
        • bagelmaster, on 04/20/2008, -3/+12Christ wasn't born on Christmas
        • djbon2112, on 04/20/2008, -3/+6^^^ Truth. It's based on the Pagan winter solstice celebrations. ALL the Christian "Holy Days" are based on some pagan festival.
        • fuze44, on 04/20/2008, -2/+3Not based on -- timed around. They would place the Christian holidays on the calendar by the pagan holidays to detract from their celebration.
        • HeyLew, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1nonononono. when christianity was outlawed in the early days, they practiced their holidays on the pagan days so that the military would think they were celebrating pagan stuff. but whatev. christianity is a big extrapolation and perrversion of astrotheology. god isnt going to greet you in heaven, and there is no hell. read some articles on religioustolerance.org to see how the myth of a "devil" was slowly created.
      • YellowSnowDemon, on 04/20/2008, -11/+6Well, for one, this holiday is fake. Several organizations(I'm not going to call them religions) celebrate Dec 25.
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1You must be a blast at parties.
      • Ajajadude, on 04/20/2008, -1/+16It was a slight joke (can't be too funny when it comes to Hitler). I suggest another round of bong hits for you and the rest of the uptight douches here.
      • slvrbullet87, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1then why was 4/20 chosen instead of say 7/17
    • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -3/+61I bet there is something bad that has happened on just about every day of the year.
      • slightlygifted, on 04/20/2008, -4/+3its hitler's birthday!
        • djbon2112, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2How does that make it worse than any other day? Evil ***** has happened on EVERY day at some point in history.
      • Pritchard, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Gasp. We seem to have too few holidays!
    • BigBrother87,