digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at hollywoodriot.com

BREAKING! Pot Vending Machine in L.A. Stolen by the Feds

hollywoodriot.com — That medicinal marijuana vending machine in L.A. has officially been stolen by the DEA. I live around the corner from the dispensary that features the famous vending machine, and spoke with the manager. The Feds destroyed a perfectly legal California business tonight.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • motivatedmama, on 04/26/2008, -78/+23Bastards! You know it wasn't just a bunch of pot heads either. How would they summon the energy?
    • BeeArePro, on 04/26/2008, -12/+25What the hell are you talking about.. it clearly says in the TITLE that it was take by the Feds... less pot man, less pot.
    • ClevelandBrown, on 04/26/2008, -5/+15wow, how about just skimming over the story so you don't look like an ass when you get the first comment?
      • Drahkar, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2Actually its worse than that seeing as the title itself says that the Feds took it not that they don't know who did.
    • synystar, on 04/27/2008, -0/+5Why all the drama? ...the first word of his comment was "Bastards!" He knew it was the Feds when he wrote the comment and then went on with a failed attempt at humor. He clearly knew what had happened.
    • Cydonia21, on 04/27/2008, -4/+4Failed attempt at humor? i think not i loled. Watching you pot head get pissed off about it was only a bonus.
      • Frejesal, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1I'm detecting high levels of win in the vicinity, captain.
        • Jennefah, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2I think you need to recalibrate your sensors, then.
    • GregFD3S, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Fail.
  • viciouspictures, on 04/26/2008, -14/+132My first suspicion was gang activity- the wanton destruction of property and theft made sense. If the DEA had reason to suspect the dispensary of illegal activity, they could have constructed a clean search of the premises without smashing all the glass.
    • tbom, on 04/26/2008, -17/+32I also question the claim that the DEA did it. Why would they smash a window with a fence behind it? (also see the picture in this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22910820/ )
      This smells like a fabrication.
    • NikoKun, on 04/26/2008, -30/+32Frankly, they did it for political reasons. They did it to send a message to us... Now we should send THEM a strong message, that we wont tolerate this ***** anymore. Something needs to be done, even if that means violent riots whenever the DEA raids a MEDICAL facility. Or at least more protests, on a larger and more national level.

      How was this place causing harm? How were they breaking any real laws? Why target them? Why go after MEDICAL PATIENTS who need it for their well being and health?

      We should, as a country, be outraged by this continued *****... This horribly counterproductive waste of our money and limitations of our personal freedoms...
      • isaactwito, on 04/26/2008, -1/+17While most of what NikoKun said was true, there's no way we can be successful in convincing people of this if we use violent tactics (except in self defense). Also it's important to remember that the government is not, as pretty much never has been, for the good of the people, it is for the good of the government and for the companies who buy into it.
      • snypa, on 04/26/2008, -12/+12riots? over a pot machine?
        • dondara, on 04/26/2008, -6/+15Is that what you think this is all about?
          • snypa, on 04/26/2008, -8/+5riots over weed is as ridiculous. yes, the dea was wrong but the nation has far worse and more important issues to deal with.
          • NikoKun, on 04/26/2008, -4/+9snypa, This IS an important issue... and until this is fixed, we have no business medaling in other issues. This is an issue which directly effects the freedoms of our own citizens... Prohibition is making things worse and worse, and we need to fix it. It would lower crime, violence, and harm... and bring in a huge boost to our economy and tax revenue.
          • Icyfenix, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2True dat.
            Basic freedoms need to be fought for and WON on ALL fronts- there are many freedoms we should have and ignoring some and giving up others is the wrong way to do it. Freedom to consume whatever we want, whenever we want it. There are more important things, like the basic welfare of all our citizens, but the freedom to buy alcohol on Sunday is just as important as the freedom to say what you want whenever/wherever you want. They are ALL freedoms we DESERVE as a people and each and every one of them is important because we need to send that message.
            These are MY freedoms, I will not let you take them from me because of what YOU think is right. As long as I am not encroaching on YOUR freedoms, I can do whatever I want.
          • Rikkochet, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Riots over weed isn't actually that bad an idea. If it could spur social change to legalize, that puts a few million Americans back into their jobs and out of prison - everyone wins except stuffy old people who think marijuana is more harmful than alcohol.
        • ZeroIce, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4It starts out as just pot, what will stop the government from doing this in the future, and not just to Medical Marijuana Facilities, but to other businesses as well? We need to stop this soft fascism, before it gets worse!
      • Schnelly, on 04/26/2008, -11/+3Why? Because there are better alternatives than marijuana for its prescribed ailments. I really hope you aren't stupid enough to believe that the Gov. would allow prescribed coke and "worse" but no marijuana if justified. That is the thing though, there isn't reason enough for it to be used medically.
        • akkibaba, on 04/26/2008, -0/+8It's not the government's business to tell adults what they can and cannot put in their bodies. As long as the pot smoker is not infringing on anyone else's rights, there's simply no reason to harass him. This applies for recreational as well as medical use.
        • wellyuk, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5...says someone who has never needed marijuana for medical use.
        • WilliamDavis, on 04/27/2008, -1/+5You aren't listening to doctors and patients on that issue... so who are you listening to?
        • NikoKun, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2The government isn't doing things, for our good... -_- You trust them too much.

          What they are doing is lying to you, misleading you, and over controlling you, in a country that should value freedom above all else.
      • FatherVic, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1Can you tell me how, exactly, a vending machine checks your written prescription?
        • NikoKun, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1It doesn't moron. You should seriously read the other articles out there, about these vending machines. They are locked in a super security room, with security guards and a front desk to check everyone trying to get in... You aren't even allowed near the front door without a valid prescription from a licensed doctor, let alone let into the room where the actual machines are.

          =P
          • FatherVic, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1you pot smokers are sure angry.
          • FatherVic, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1If you have a prescription - and I have had a few - You can get past the door. I get you.
            Lets take pot out of it and call it a vicodin machine, mmmkay?
            If I have a script for say 10 days worth of 500mg Vicodin at 3 pills per day is 30 pills...
            How does the vending machine know that? From the description you provided, there is a doorman that checks to see if I have a script and then it is up to me to fill it. On the honor system....
            right...?
            So my question again is...
            How, exactly, does a vending machine check your written prescription?
    • mCanada, on 04/26/2008, -6/+41Your suspicion was right. The gang wore "DEA" on their jackets.
    • danarama, on 04/26/2008, -4/+16The owner saw the DEA agents himself.
    • ByteGuerilla, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8I was expecting this to be an Onion story, but... damn.
      • Zera, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1The Onion should do a "Future News" segment where they try to predict the laughably absurd stories that could actually happen.
    • tech42er, on 04/26/2008, -3/+17"If the DEA had reason to suspect the dispensary of illegal activity, they could have constructed a clean search of the premises without smashing all the glass."
      Sure, but they're not going to. They're trying to send a message and showcase their power. Did they have to destroy the property? Of course not, but they can and they wanted to, because they're assholes. ***** 'em.
      • banmaster, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8Besides, smashing glass and causing property damage is much more fun than handing over a piece of paper and doing a creafgul search of the premises.
        • WilliamDavis, on 04/27/2008, -2/+1They didn't need to do a search. They can do that under the cover of darkness without notifying anyone. (unfortunately)

          They knew what was there.
        • AgentMull, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1creafgul
    • Pureeviljester, on 04/27/2008, -2/+9It's not the United States of America, it's the Federal State of America
    • origin, on 04/27/2008, -1/+23I think when a government organization's behavior starts to look like "Gang Activity" we have a serious problem with our government.
    • calicheese23, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Clean search? The DEA has been doing this stuff to California clubs like crazy.
  • allieg03, on 04/26/2008, -42/+94That's just plain wrong. Cannabis is not evil -- it's medicinal and a whole lot better for the people who use it than any pharmaceutical on the market. This is ridiculous. If I lived in LA, I'd be RIOTING.
    • brycelb, on 04/26/2008, -9/+76Rioting, really?
      • mattwalton56, on 04/26/2008, -25/+14....or raving, it's all the same when you're on pot.
        • narcofiche, on 04/26/2008, -6/+42Raving? Have you ever smoked pot before?
        • isaactwito, on 04/26/2008, -4/+29Agreed, raving is not what pot is for.
          • narcofiche, on 04/26/2008, -0/+35Unless you're raving about an extremely delicious pizza.
          • Lanlost, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1stuffed crust
      • jbcomeau, on 04/26/2008, -5/+3Hollywood RIOT is the blog that broke the news -- that's all. Nobody got my play on words. I wouldn't even know how to riot. I like puppies and daffodils and stuff.
      • sporg, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Apparently he is just spoiling for a reason to riot.
    • FadieZ, on 04/26/2008, -3/+94After undergoing chemo I can proudly say that when it came to nausea, cannabis was 1000x more efficient than all the drugs and needles they gave me combined. If every cancer patient was allowed medical marijuana the government would be saving millions in taxpayer's money that would otherwise go to unnecessarily expensive drugs.
      • Kyrgizion, on 04/26/2008, -4/+43"... that would otherwise go to unnecessarily expensive drugs."
        And that, my friend, is actually all there's to it. $$$ and more $$$
      • ZeroIce, on 04/26/2008, -0/+8Government would probably make money off the regulation and taxation of marijuana.
        • ThugThrasher, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1the government might. But that's not what matters. What matters is that the people who make the laws make more money from the lobbyists now than they would if they legalized it.
          Corruption FTW
      • tech42er, on 04/26/2008, -10/+7I'd be a bit reluctant to attribute that to the cannabis. It probably had more to do with how you took it. The needles and pills were all so processed that to take the cannabis (either through smoking or eating) probably felt more natural and better, a bit of the placebo effect. I'm not saying cannabis is a placebo, it certainly is a great mild drug, but you have to consider your mindset when taking the drugs.

        /Legalize it
        //for medical and recreational use
        ///NORML ftw!
        • FadieZ, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Nope, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a placebo effect. All the other drugs either forced me to fall asleep or made me even more nauseous. Cannabis actually made me hungry and removed the metal taste in my mouth. In fact I'd probably still be doing chemo if I hadn't been eating right.
        • solistus, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2Cannabis' anti-nausea properties are well-documented, and your tortured logic to justify an assumption that it was a placebo effect falls well short of coherent argumentation. Smoking pot feels more natural than taking a pill, so the debilitating symptoms of chemotherapy were resolved by this placebo? Seriously?
      • copypasta, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3John Q Taxpayer can grow and process/produce marijuana. Only huge corporations can process/produce unnecessary expensive drugs. Who do you think benefits?
    • chawkie, on 04/26/2008, -3/+80I'm guessing that would be the least violent, most confusing, riot of all time.
      • illegalcortex, on 04/26/2008, -0/+17Cheetos supplies would be decimated.
      • origin, on 04/27/2008, -1/+6Use of the word "Man" would explode to nearly mid-1970's levels. Man....
        • dlllb, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2....I feel lame now because every sentence I say ends with "Man"...
    • holygram, on 04/26/2008, -19/+44You'd be rioting over a pot machine?

      I think you need to get your priorities straight.
      • laserblazer, on 04/26/2008, -13/+11You'd just surrender to the Feds, eh?
        • thatsmyaibo, on 04/26/2008, -9/+4I started writing this long thought out response to you then just decided to digg you down. My guess is you're a 15 year old anarchist that hides pot from his mom in his underwear drawer and sits around getting baked every Friday after high school. I can safely say you would never stand up to a federal agent. But being tough on digg is still cool right?
        • ZeroIce, on 04/26/2008, -6/+1You shouldn't make assumptions. It's rude.
        • slezzzter, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3It was a joke based on the French flag on holygram's icon. It may be an old joke, but that's all it was. You are reading too much into it.
      • Todesengelvr6, on 04/27/2008, -1/+3I think you need to get your priorities crooked!
      • solistus, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1I think that government agents smashing into a private building, stealing private property and depriving sick people of medicine warrants a riot as much as anything else. Something is seriously wrong when a country declares war on its own people, which is essentially what the War on Drugs has become. This incident is not an isolated one; it is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour that should terrify everyone in this country.
    • Ajajadude, on 04/26/2008, -1/+36Just giving the feds more ammunition and the ability to say "Pot smokers aren't dangerous? They just rioted!"
      • WilliamDavis, on 04/27/2008, -1/+5Even the government history books tell the tale of how tea drinkers were dangerous. Right?
        • Ajajadude, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1I'd hardly equate taxation without representation (nothing to to with the United States government which hadn't even been formed at the time) with whether or not people should be allowed to legally smoke pot.
    • NikoKun, on 04/26/2008, -6/+16And a far safer drug than the legal ones, like alcohol or tobacco.
      • ozid, on 04/26/2008, -8/+7i'm no tobacco smoker, but that i wouldn't say its FAR safer. introducing smoke into your lungs is bad for you, period. doesn't matter if its hookah, cigarettes, or pot. cigarettes are the most dangerous, due to the strange chemicals. but other tobacco forms (like hookah shisha or pipe tobacco) are less dangerous and probably on the same level as pot.
        • smurfsahoy, on 04/26/2008, -1/+18Wonderful, except you can eat marijuana, or vaporize the THC in it, or make it into butter, etc. etc., none of which have any cancerous smoke effects.
          • ozid, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1I agree 100%. But most people don't do those things. I was just saying smoke is bad. And smoking marijuana in its purest form and tobacco in its purest form... the tobacco is probably only slightly worse.
        • tech42er, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Actually, I don't think tobacco is much more dangerous than cannabis. But cigarettes are terrible, al the ***** they put into it to make sure you get addicted. It's not just the nicotine.
        • patrflav, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4"Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection"
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

          http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20050710150925597
          http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html
          http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/marijuana-unlik ...
          http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-fi ...

          "Marijuana has both stalled the growth of and eliminated tumors in rats."
          http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1816.html
          • smurfsahoy, on 04/27/2008, -1/+3That's the THC doing all of that, not the plant in its entirety. The tar and other crap when you smoke it is all still carcinogenic. Perhaps the THC is powerful enough to counteract the effect, but that doesn't make smoking good for you, when there are non smoke options for delivering that same THC (and more efficiently, at that)
          • Textzilla, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1That's all minuscule details smurfsahoy, and cannabis is from a plant just like tomatoes are, it could be grown in amounts as large and sold solely for oral administration.
          • smurfsahoy, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1What? I said in my comment that it is THC, not the PLANT in its entirety (thus, I have indicated I know it comes from a plant), so I don't know what the tomato thing is about. And as for the carcinogens being a minor detail? 400,000 people a year die from tobacco-caused cancer, due mostly to carcinogens from burning plant matter that is in no way specific to tobacco.

            All of that same plant matter is in a marijuana cigarette. Just because it may happen to also have an anti-cancer agent in it doesn't make that an unimportant point. Let me put it into numbers for you:
            Let's say life expectancy is 100 years, and smoking a pack a day of tobacco will bring it down to 80. Smoking a pack a day of marijuana cigarettes will keep it at 100. But that's because the plant matter in the marijuana is bringing you down to 80, and then the THC is bumping you back up to 100.

            If you just vaporized or ingested the THC then your life expectancy would be maybe 120, perhaps. See what I mean? Vaporizing versus not can mean just as much of a difference in life expectancy as smoking tobacco or not, even if the above studies are ALL true.
      • Noah0504, on 04/26/2008, -11/+1Since when is tobacco a drug?
        • laserblazer, on 04/26/2008, -1/+11Since it alters consciousness, has withdrawal effects due to physiological addictions and is psychotropic.
          • FadieZ, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7It's called nicotine.
          • DarkShroud, on 04/26/2008, -7/+1Try a tobacco only cigarette, it drops the cancer levels/types dramatically.
          • patrflav, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6It's a misconception that "Indian tobacco" cigarettes are safer. The tar and carcinogens are mostly a product of combustion, it's not like there's a large vat of "FORMALDEHYDE" or "HYDROGEN CYANIDE" that's just dumped on the tobacco because the tobacco companies feel like it.
          • smurfsahoy, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2Nicotine itself is not very carcinogenic, if at all. It's the burning tobacco plant. Or burning marijuana plant. Or marigolds. You could smoke willow leaves and it would be carcinogenic. In general, plants + fire = cancer.
        • slowmo, on 04/26/2008, -3/+10Next you're probably going to tell me that alcohol is a drug. Notice how authorities always make the differentiation; for example "Are you under the influence of drugs or alcohol?", as if alcohol weren't a drug...
          • thatsmyaibo, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6Actually alcohol is classified as a drug in the US but it's separated so when that question is asked you can differentiate between what's legal and not. The US tried the whole outlawing alcohol thing and it didn't work.
          • vs93taras, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3ooo slowmo just got owned
        • tech42er, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Caffeine is a drug, too. According to wikipedia, a drug is any chemical substance that affects the body. A recreational drug is any substance that affects the central nervous system/brain.
          • copypasta, on 04/26/2008, -6/+1"according to wikipedia" < ahahahahahahaha
          • smurfsahoy, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1@copypasta, That particular criteria is actually from the WHO. Perfectly respectable.
    • lunarcanary, on 04/26/2008, -18/+1Above is an example of an especially useful digg comment that was dugg up. It added to the conversation and delivered true intellectual discourse to the matter at hand.

      I am hereby declaring the original poster of this comment a "Diggilectual". Until then, keep up the couch-bound BULLY mentality. BUSTER
      • isaactwito, on 04/26/2008, -1/+9That comment wasn't only stupid, but it was also lame and gay. FAIL.
        • KyleGoetz, on 04/27/2008, -0/+7Wow! Low IQ, disfigured leg, AND a homosexual?
    • danarama, on 04/26/2008, -2/+20ok anyone who calls for rioting over weed has no clue what the issue is about or is intentionally trying to incite a riot...don't even bother with that *****
      • jbcomeau, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2I was actually referring to the blog that posted the breaking news -- it's called Hollywood RIOT
    • hmunkey, on 04/26/2008, -0/+13I would not recommend rioting in LA.
      • JustinHopewell, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2The last one there made a pretty big impact. But, yeah, I don't really see stoners and marijuana patients going out into the streets with pitchforks and frankenstein rakes.
        • brycelb, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Too bad the impact was a negative one.
        • Typhoon2009, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2The last one there nearly got the National Guard involved...
    • ElumEnopee, on 04/26/2008, -4/+1That statement right there is exactly why pot will never be legal.
      • allieg03, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4I was referring to the blog that broke this news -- it's called Hollywood RIOT. Even if I meant actual rioting, which I didn't, that would not be the reason why pot will never be legal. Pharmaceutical companies, alcohol and tobacco companies have too much to lose to ever let the govt. legalize weed. UNLESS the people come together and make it known that we won't stand for this. Of course, not with riots, but peaceful protests.

        you guys took me way too seriously. I wouldn't know the first thing about a riot nor would I want to start one. I'm a 115 pound treehugger who's all about peace.
        • linuxpenguin, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3Why would any company lose anything from legalizing this? From what some people say, it does a lot of things that these companies are trying to do. I don't see why cigarette companies, etc. wouldn't be able to cash in on it. Cigarettes are what, like $5? $6? a pack? Why wouldn't these same companies want to sell you reefer?
          • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4The pharmaceutical companies stand to lose millions. And the alcohol companies wouldn't be the "only buzz in town" anymore. Not to mention the lumber industry (think paper, not wood). Plus there's the other chemical companies that would be competing with a natural oil for food additives paints/lacquers. Then there's the cotton farmers, since clothes wouldn't wear out as fast. Then the pesticide companies who sell the cotton pesticides (since hemp doesn't need any).

            There are lots of companies that stand to lose money through the legalization of hemp/marijuana. And they have lots of lobbyists.
          • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4And let's not forget the law enforcement money that would be lost! No more funding for new cars, new toys. Fewer confiscated goods to sell for the police fund. And then we have the for-profit prison industry, who with their internal work programs makes a LOT of money on docile, non-violent offenders. Pot smokers make great assembly line workers.

            Yeah, there would be a LOT of people losing money of this prohibition program would end.

            That's why it won't.
          • linuxpenguin, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1@bjornski: The pharmaceutical companies could sell it for its medicinal purposes, and/or use its extracts to get the same benefit
            the alcohol companies. . . well, drinking and smoking often goes hand-in-hand (hence the slang word crunk), not to mention they could possibly make some creative elixirs with its extracts
            for purposes that don't include ingesting the drug, hemp is legal, not to mention many clothes aren't made out of cotton (or at least not *only* cotton), and the reason clothes are made of cotton isn't because of how long they last - there are many other factors.
            Pesticides are a non-issue - you'd be surprised how many crops are genetically modified to be insect-resistant, and if they don't have it already it'll only be a matter of time before they produce cotton crops that are as insect-resistant as marijuana. Not to mention, with marijuana you have to worry about *people* stealing your crop - even if it is legal, people who can't afford it will try to take it for free, as will kids who aren't old enough to buy it. And you also have the fact that the only reason farmers are planting cotton is because they bought it - they could've bought another crop. They can plant something else next season (in fact they usually have to, because of how much cotton damages the soil).
            Law enforcement shouldn't be making a profit anyhow, but even so - there's still plenty of other drugs to worry about, not to mention people often go to jail for alcohol and tobacco-related crimes even though those are legal. Prisons would still be full, since I have no doubt most of the people who try to buy weed aren't old enough to buy cigarettes or beer either, and pot smokers would probably find that their B+ in basket-weaving isn't going to get them very far.

            Say what you want, but the fact of the matter is that there's a ton of money that could be made by legalizing marijuana.
          • ATLien74, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Why compete with inferior products? Why not integrate hemp into other products and improve your current product line? Like Budweiser could sell a "Green BUDweiser" hemp beer as well as their current line. It can be used to make ethanol which would reduce the use of corn for bio-fuels which is causing the current food shortage. There are 100's maybe 1000's of different uses for hemp. As corny as it sounds, hemp really could do a lot to save the world.
    • NoNamesLeft, on 04/26/2008, -10/+1Cannabis can be VERY strong, like having acid at its top strength. It certainly needs to be regulated heavily if made legal.
      • JustinHopewell, on 04/27/2008, -0/+5I've smoked a lot of cannibis, and a lot of different strengths, and none of them come close to acid. The worst that can happen with a heavy dose of THC is nausea or a bad headache.
      • origin, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3Agreed. Pot can be hallucinogenic, but never to the level of LSD. You might think you are going to die if you eat too many pot cookies, but you will have no illusions of contact with aliens, no greater understanding of the inner workings of the entire universe, no speaking with trees, etc.
      • ATLien74, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4You obviously don't know what the ***** you are talking about.
    • crazybrit, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2No you wouldn't.
    • FranksValli, on 04/27/2008, -0/+17"What's that one guy doing over there by himself, mommy?"
      "He's rioting, son"
      • ATLien74, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4LOL! That painted a hilarious picture in my head, thank you. :-)
    • ATLien74, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4Dude, potheads do NOT riot.
    • Nudar, on 04/27/2008, -2/+1Allie,

      Are you a pharmacist? A doctor? How do you know how marijuana compares with every other product on the market?
  • InfodivaMLIS, on 04/26/2008, -13/+4Dammit!!!!
  • skippyoh, on 04/26/2008, -64/+15actually, I stole it. Sorry i couldn't help myself I am addicted to weed and ya know I'll just do anything to get it. I was thinking of shooting my best friend for a dime sac when I remembered the story about the weed vending machine. So, I stole a car, drove 3 hours to L.A., shot the security officer and stole the vending machine. Weed is a dangerous drug. It will make you do anything for your next fix. Watch out kids one little puff and you're hooked for life!
    • skippyoh, on 04/26/2008, -19/+9/sarcasm
      for those who didn't catch that already
      • thatsmyaibo, on 04/26/2008, -2/+19I caught it and still buried you.
    • acetv, on 04/26/2008, -4/+22/boring
      for those who did.
    • tech42er, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6It's obviously sarcasm and I'm sure it sounded good in you head, but your comment really wasn't that funny. Sorry.
    • wrs123, on 04/26/2008, -2/+5either you're really great at being stupid, or really awful at being funny. either way, some type of major adjustment needs to be made in your life
  • DDDavinnn, on 04/26/2008, -10/+118"Say, man, you got a weed vending machine?"
    "...No, not on me, man."
    "It'd be a lot cooler if you did."
    • slowmo, on 04/26/2008, -2/+15"...No, not on me, man."

      Do weed vending machines have the "DO NOT TIP OVER" warning sticker on them with the picture of the human getting crushed?
    • ericthegreat, on 04/27/2008, -2/+6That's what I love about these high school girls, man. I get older, they stay the same age.
    • disraeligears54, on 04/27/2008, -2/+1ahhh i see what you did there
    • kickinwing, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4Dazed and Confused FTW. I got watched that movie today.
    • plaing, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4Behind every good man there is a woman, and that woman was Martha Washington, man, and everyday George would come home, she would have a big fat bowl waiting for him, man, when he come in the door, man, she was a hip, hip, hip lady, man.
    • tattertech, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1***** son, my grandmother's faster than that.
      • DrummerAndrew, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1My grandmother's quicker and tougher than you panzies.
      • crazycraka, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0My grandmother's dead.
  • Superperson, on 04/26/2008, -88/+20How is it a perfectly legal business? Pot is illegal, no matter how much you enjoy toking up.
    *Prepares to be dugg down*
    • allieg03, on 04/26/2008, -9/+133Actually, cannabis is perfectly legal with a prescription in California. This was a medicinal marijuana store.
      • boredrph, on 04/26/2008, -6/+24wouldn't federal law trump the state law here... so no matter how much California wants it to be legal... still not... Now, philisophically I completely support state rights to allow whatever they want to be legal actually be legal... to bad it doesn't work that way
        • homah, on 04/26/2008, -8/+9the problem that is the federal laws against marijuana are unconstitutional. 10th amendment applies, it should be decided by the individual states.
        • boredrph, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3like i said, I may philisophically agree with that, and wish I could apply it in MANY MANY ways (like why is the fed gov paying for education, roads, blackmailing states into drinking ages and speed limits, etc. etc. etc) but thats just not how it works in reality
          • homah, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2i hear ya, we are in agreement...i'm just venting. :)
          • tech42er, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4But you see, you can apply it in all these ways. The federal government is simply in the wrong, both philosophically and in reality. Obviously, we can't do anything about it, but they're still in the wrong and we should never forget that.
          • JustinHopewell, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Even so, I'm glad that there are states like California that have decriminalized it. Even if the Federal Government doesn't agree with it, the more states that hop on board, the clearer the message will be: there is a very significant portion of the U.S. population that supports the recreational and medicinal uses of marijuana!
          • WilliamDavis, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1If that's the reality you're willing to accept, may your chains rest lightly upon you.
        • danarama, on 04/26/2008, -4/+5it's completely unconstittional and illegal that's the fact of the matter. fact is the federal government are in the business of breaking the law, this isn't the only case
        • mike17032, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Exactly. CA should be damn happy they get away with what they do. Sooner or later, the federal hammer is going to come down.
      • Mothrog, on 04/26/2008, -9/+8It's called federalism, idiot. Federal law trumps state law, and by federal law marijuana is illegal.
        • codyodell, on 04/26/2008, -5/+4Exactly, it's only legal in L.A. if L.A. is outside of the U.S. It's more of a protest law than anything. State laws might persuade the federal laws if enough states vote for legalization (which many have already).
          • WilliamDavis, on 04/27/2008, -2/+3They called them "states" for a reason. america has certainly perverted that term in the last few hundred years.
        • Pureeviljester, on 04/27/2008, -2/+1that's only cause you let them trump you, bitch
      • thatsmyaibo, on 04/26/2008, -6/+7I can't believe you got dugg up on this misinformation. As stated by others, California law takes a back seat to Federal law...plain and simple.
        • WilliamDavis, on 04/27/2008, -4/+3Then why bother having state laws at all? Do we really need constant political ***** on every local level if that's the best way to do it?
    • iceman0113, on 04/26/2008, -6/+44"Remember, this is a state certified business. It is _legally entitled_ to operate in every way under California law and was doing absolutely nothing wrong." Prop 215 in California.
      • thcobbs, on 04/26/2008, -7/+13Too bad that FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW supersedes STATE LAW.
        • Icyfenix, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6Prop 215 is an EXEMPTION. States are free to write exemptions to federal laws as long as the federal laws do not specify that there are no exemptions(rape, murder, etc)
      • mike17032, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4As much as you want that to be true, its not.

        This isnt a new concept, Federal Law > State Law. States can make the laws more restrictive if they so desire, but they cannot loosen them.
        • PhineasPoe, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Which is the problem. Your state government is much more representative of the people in your community than the federal government, and county and city governments are more in line with their citizens' wishes still. This is the problem with the federal government usurping power from the states that the founding fathers never intended it to have.
        • JustinHopewell, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2Exactly. Otherwise, what's the point of having the country divided into states?
          • JustinHopewell, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1That was in response to PhineasPoe, fyi.
    • niemassacre, on 04/26/2008, -3/+16Marijuana exists in a legal deadzone in California - it's legal for medical use by Califronia law, but it's still illegal by federal law. So the DEA, a Federal agency, would still see this as an illegal business.
    • milkmage, on 04/26/2008, -2/+5Protections Afforded by Proposition 215

      Proposition 215 added Section 11362.5 to the California Health and Safety Code, which:

      Exempts patients and defined caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medical treatment recommended by a physician from criminal laws which otherwise prohibit possession or cultivation of marijuana.

      Provides physicians who recommend use of marijuana for medical treatment shall not be punished or denied any right or privilege.

      Declares that the measure is not be construed to supersede prohibitions of conduct endangering others or to condone diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes.
    • Pureeviljester, on 04/27/2008, -6/+4it's illegal to have sex with someone underage, but the age of consent varies by state.
      so should the legality of certain drugs.
      Reminds me of the quote from the Patriot,
      'Why should I trade 1 tyrant 1000 miles away for 1000 tyrants 1 mile away?'

      Kick ass movie btw
    • xXAustyrXx, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2I'll take my chances smoking up. You can go and consume some alcohol while watching beer commercials right after an Above The Influence one airs. Oh but don't mind the legality of Prop 215. Just pay attention to the number of alcoholics and alcohol related incidents and call it socially accepted.
    • jackalsclaw, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2the federal government can over ride state law (McCulloch v. Maryland) if it's within the scope of congresses power. the determiner of the scope of their power is the supreme court which has ruled 5-4 in favor of the federal government on the issue of medical cannabis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
    • waynetheman, on 04/27/2008, -3/+2"Pot is illegal", therefore blah blah blah.

      What a drone.

      "Slave-aiding is illegal." Ergo, we needed to arrest all members of the Underground Railroad in the 1800's.

      "Alcohol is illegal." So we should have just continued letting Al Capone and Co. profit from it, and kept allowing everyone who drank or enforced the ban to be corrupted by it, in the early 20th century.

      "Helping Jews is illegal" - hey, maybe you would have made a fine WW2 German!

      Aren't you old enough to stop taking your cues on morality from your government?
      • AKStewie, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Way to take laws that are more than 10 generations ago and trying to apply them to this situation, and another from a different country.

        Genocide and Slavery !=Prohibition of substances.

        Even though I'm all for states rights, as long as the Federal Government has their right to enforce their laws; you should take some sort of precaution if you're breaking them[while still staying legal in your state], you should respond to these tactics with useful debate instead of useless "***** THE DEA" spam. Write to your congressmen, and to the Justices of the supreme court. Keep at it.
  • lpxxfaintxx2, on 04/26/2008, -22/+310***** the D.E.A.
    • KMartSheriff, on 04/26/2008, -2/+39IM IN UR SUBURBS
      STEALIN UR DOOBIES
    • mbonzo531, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5The federal government regulating what contraban is, is unconstitutional.
      10. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
      Says pretty clear there that the federal government needs an ammendment to take action on a state law or even a business like this one. Last time I checked there is no ammendment to ban pot.
      • ParanoydAndroid, on 04/27/2008, -0/+6Xth amendment is basically non-existent at this point. The federal government, backed up by decisions from the Supreme Court, has construed the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, section 8 I think) to be so broad that the sphere of influence in which the federal government can be supreme is all-encompassing. Give it another 100 years of this, and we won't have a federalist system at all anymore.
        • Muffinhunter, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Not entirely true. US v. Lopez started the trend of restricting congress' power under the commerce clause, followed by by US v. Morrison (the Violence against women act). Within the past 20 years or so, the supremes have really started to keep congress' commerce clause power in check.

          That being said, the more recent case of Gonzales v. Raich is not entirely consistent with the trend. That case said that congress CAN ban the growth and use of medicinal marijuana, even though it is never sold or transported across state lines. This case is an aberration, however, and was probably only decided this way because it was a drug case.

          Even after Raich, however, it still seems like the court is cracking down on the commerce power.
        • jackalsclaw, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1the descending opinion in Gonzales v. Raich is really interesting. http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD.pdf
        • lawstud, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Gonzales v. Raich stated that weed is fungible and it will easily cross into the black market and thus into the interstate commerce. It also stated that the law was neutral and of general applicability, basically a need for national consensus on the issue. This is contrary to states as laboratories to experiment with social change.

          So if the state was not regulated it would undercut the DEA. Intrastate has always been able to be reached by Congress when the court wants it.Katzenbach v. Mcclung for example to regulate public accommodations so blacks could be served.
      • sylvok, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2fascism at its finest
  • gsimon, on 04/26/2008, -23/+9D.E.A - Drunk Every Afternoon
    ATF - Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms...who's got the chips? - we know who has our vending machine...
  • h0ser, on 04/26/2008, -22/+7i go by my own set of laws. The ones put forth by the government are a joke.
    • brycelb, on 04/26/2008, -1/+12That sounds intelligent?
      • eviljolly, on 04/26/2008, -5/+3Maybe not, but more intelligent than some of the laws in place now...

        *cough* Patriot Act *cough*
    • Myztry, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2Good luck policing those laws...
    • logan074, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Seems like you will be meeting a taser soon.
  • theNazz, on 04/26/2008, -18/+297The DEA is a shining example of government sponsored theft.
    • rinote, on 04/26/2008, -4/+62Don't steal. The government hates competition.
      • ZeroIce, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7There is a sign that says that on Ron Paul's desk. Don't ask me why I know that, but I think that is where you may of got it.
        • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6If you think that started with Ron Paul, you're sadly mistaken.

          That's an OLD OLD OLD saying.
      • armoreddillo, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1it's a bumper sticker
    • Lynxplus, on 04/26/2008, -3/+9We need a way to attack them.
      • paker, on 04/26/2008, -7/+2We have it. Vote the bastards out of office.
        • Tyrghast, on 04/26/2008, -0/+12lol democratic process... when in the last 40 years has our right to vote mattered or made a difference? Every politician has been bought and paid for.
      • waynetheman, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Public exposure of the hypocrisy of every drug warrior, and of the corrupt entanglements of every politician and LEO profiting from drug prohibition, is the first step.

        We have the internet now. And it seems like the perfect venue for making the populace finally begin to question the legitimacy of the War on Drug Users.
    • zephyr42, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8Umm.... ever heard of the IRS?
    • SpectreFire, on 04/26/2008, -2/+11The DEA are essentially just the government's druglords. All the money from drug seizures goes straight to lining their pockets.

      If something bad happens to a DEA agent, then it's only karma.
    • TimeLincoln, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7And a shining example of a waste of tax money.
    • aclockwork3, on 04/27/2008, -0/+5I am getting real tired of hearing about the government robbing people.
  • scy1192, on 04/26/2008, -12/+30haha, breaking. I see what you did there.
  • Falldog, on 04/26/2008, -27/+4How about the whole story? I doubt the DEA would just show up and smash everything for no good reason.
    • iceman0113, on 04/26/2008, -2/+31Watch Super High Me, apparently they can do so and in one instance they showed up with a warrant that was _not_ signed by a judge and proceeded to take down a business.
      • cjshamrock, on 04/26/2008, -0/+8I loved Super High Me, but I don't think it helps our cause in any way, aside from the incredibly dangerous 'bust' that was shown. These assholes, why don't you go after some real criminals
    • twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7How about read up on the DEA before asking a stupid question like that?
      They've been doing this like this for a very long time.
      • twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2*doing things like this
      • issachar, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4Stupid question?

        The DEA may well be run by thugs, but a complete story would include reporting some form of statement from the DEA describing their version of the event and their justification. (No matter how stupid it might be).

        Therefore it is manifestly obvious that the "whole story" is not given in the article.
        • Myonosken, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2He got buried? He raises a valid point that there is no actual proof or other side of the argument.
          • twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2What other side of the story?
            That the DEA raided a "dangerous drug lord den"?
            That in addition to (medical) marijuana they found kilos of coke and heroin?
            That the 'business' was actually a front for Nicaraguan cartel with ties to Columbia, Mexico and the Taliban?

            Sorry to burst your bubble but this was just a simple little state certified business selling medical marijuana to patients under state law.
          • blagoaw, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1twiztidsinz has a bit of a point here.. When both parties get a say and it gets printed in the media, they wind up saying whatever works best as PR and the public comes away dumber for it and holding their polarized opinions more strongly than before (yes, I am rather disillusioned about embracing American ideals without personal responsibility). What would have been nice here though is some more research and analysis (as opposed to a record from the guys running the machine, and mudslinging at the Feds). This is of course from "Hollywood Riot" though, and I'll take anything from it with a grain of salt.
          • issachar, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2Getting buried means nothing beyond the fact that your comment was unpopular. I ignore them.

            I stand by my point though. A complete story must include statements (or refusals to make statements) from both sides of an issue. As I said, the DEA's position might be load of crap, but that's for the reader to decide. As it stands they didn't give us the whole story.

            With all due respect to blagoaw & twiztidsinz, I have no bubble to burst on this issue but a source of media that prints only *their* side isn't a good source of information.
    • tech42er, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Are you kidding? Sure they would!
      http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
    • chepnut, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3you have no idea!! they do just come in and raid the dispensary for no other reason to send a message. They come in grab the money and medicine grab all the paper work and leave. Normally the dispensary opens up the next day and cleans up the mess. Remember this is your government doing this to you! This is one of the reasons militias were formed to watch the government, if they deemed it so harmful then explain to me why there are still patients still being sent medical marijuana by the federal government every month!

      In your part of the country the government might still be looked at with respect but around here they are looked at as tyrants!
      • Falldog, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Tyrants eh? So does that make you a bitch for not doing anything about it?
    • Falldog, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2I don't give a ***** rats ass what you think or don't think about the DEA. Regardless of the story to have second hand information on only one side of what happened is just ignorant. Making brass assumptions right off the bat is even worse. Remember the story about the guy who supposedly got arrested because he forgot soda on the bottom of his cart?

      Stop with your stupid "The government is all evil" annoying agenda and wait till all the facts are out before trying to support your argument. I could have easily made ***** like this up.
      • waynetheman, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1"Stop with your stupid "The government is all evil" annoying agenda"

        Um... until they start operating on a voluntary basis, stop threatening people's lives if they don't give them their money, and stop smashing people's rights, they ARE "all evil".
  • FadieZ, on 04/26/2008, -23/+134***** THE DEA.

    Oh, and everybody digg this the ***** up for your liberty's sake.
    • smurfsahoy, on 04/26/2008, -21/+6Buried for trying to promote liberty by threat and coercion. You are not very clever.
      • laserblazer, on 04/26/2008, -9/+6Buried for making a douchebag comment.
        • Tyrghast, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Buried for not understanding the metaphor...
        • theNolander, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3buried for burying.
        • Outsid3r, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Buried for burying the burier
        • fajitamelt, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Buried for continuing on with this nonsense.
        • ZeroIce, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Buried for being hypocritical.
          • smurfsahoy, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Douchebag, perhaps. But hypocritical? I'm afraid I'm not seeing that. I didn't tell anybody to do anything, much less do so with a doomsday warning appended on the end.
          • fajitamelt, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Calm down, smurfsahoy. He was going along with the comments above.
          • smurfsahoy, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Oh it's okay to shoot people, then, as long as it's a day after a major school shooting?
        • RiouG, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4C-C-COMBOBREAKER!
        • fajitamelt, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Nooooo!!!
      • tech42er, on 04/26/2008, -0/+8He was not threatening your liberty. He was merely announcing that your liberty is being threatened (by the government).
    • je12u, on 04/27/2008, -4/+2Yea, ***** liberty!!

      edit: sorry...I'm really high...
  • Diggrock, on 04/26/2008, -13/+71The sad part is, he was heading to legally buy alcohol at his local 7-11, when the pot store was broken in to. Are the DEA to blind to see what's going on? Alcohol is toxic, marijuana isn't, yet the former is the legal one. ***** the DEA.
    • choopie911, on 04/26/2008, -5/+26Remember though, marijuana is a gateway drug not alcohol, that's impossible.
      • narcofiche, on 04/26/2008, -1/+22I think a big part of the reason it's considered a 'gateway drug' is due to the fact that you have to find the people who sell it, who probably sell other things and push those on people as well. But having legal businesses that only sells marijuana would take out most of that problem. But that's just a cop out, the real reason is that they have pills that they can market to people instead of using a natural plant. If our government was in control maybe things would be different, but it's the corporations and pharmaceuticals that have the power now.
        • ZeroIce, on 04/26/2008, -0/+13Good point, man. I never thought about that. Everything would be so much simpler if you didn't have to make shady deals with people and could just walk into a 7-11 and buy some bud.
        • wrs123, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5Dead on. Its also kind of the "slippery slope" mentality. There is such a social stigma against pot for no good reason, and once you go against the grain and smoke it, it doesn't seem like such a big deal to go against the grain a little more and try coke, then crack, etc etc. Legalizing would break that stigma, and taxable marijuana=pure government revenue. WHAT IS THERE TO LOSE?
          • narcofiche, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Totally agree. That's why I have a problem with drug education in schools. They teach you that pot is no different than cocaine -- "it's all bad" -- then when the kids try pot (and more than likely they will) they'll assume that the other drugs are ok too if they're "all the same."
        • Atomic05, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4@Zerolce
          The same thing happened during Prohibition in the twenties; gangs and criminals thrived on the illegal commerce of alcohol. Remove that commerce, and the crime dries up or moves elsewhere.
          • stephenv, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1You never hear about Anheuser-Busch doing a drive-by on Miller.
          • ZeroIce, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Yup, and since marijuana has been illegal since like 1940, it is hard for people to see it hasn't always been illegal and was irrationally criminalized.
    • narcofiche, on 04/26/2008, -2/+12Yes, but marijuana helps you see the future, therefore it's a threat to the government.
    • kelly, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1When you make distinctions such as that they will ban alcohol... not legalize marijuana.
      • Icyfenix, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5'cuse me? Ban alcohol? McCain has extremely strong ties(married into) the ANHUSER BUSCH family.
        He'll never let that happen.
      • choopie911, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5Yeah because prohibition worked so well the first time. Do some research, and look up Anslinger.
        • bjornski, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Hell. Half these people don't even know where the Kennedy family got their money.
    • ATLien74, on 04/27/2008, -0/+5There's proof right there that health reasons have absolutley nothing to do with the legal status of marijuana. It's all about taxes...money!
      • choopie911, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2You're way behind the times if you still think marijuana's legal status has ANYTHING to do with your health. Here, have a quote from the man who made it illegal:
        "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
        Harry J. Anslinger
    • waynetheman, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Oh, they're not blind. They know exactly what they're doing.

      The only reason alcohol isn't ALSO illegal is because people had enough sense to fight back and vote "not guilty" on juries and finally rescind the Prohibition Amendment in the early 1900's. Otherwise we'd be down to just tobacco and caffeine now (and it looks like tobacco is already the next target.)

      It's all about money. Anyone who, in 2008, continues to support the criminalization of cannabis is either a willfully ignorant fool, a retard, or a corrupt slimeball knowingly profiting from it's ban.
  • cjshamrock, on 04/26/2008, -14/+41Damn those Feds, the DEA and Bush's War on Drugs. They should rot in hell, there are people who actually NEED medical marijuana - What this government is doing is illegal
    • Lynxplus, on 04/26/2008, -3/+11The most laughable point is that in the way they are doing things they make it more profitable to trade in a black/Gray Market. WTF is wrong with this *****. Millions of college kids smoke and adminit to smoking 70% of the NBA smokes. So what the DEA's real message is don't get caught and keep it under the radar and we won't hassle you. What a ***** joke.
      • keenedge, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0So what your saying is, it's not wrong if everyone else is doing it. Yes, I would say that attitude is exactly what is wrong with this country (please note the correct spelling btw, I wouldn't want you to miss that one on your next spelling test).
    • natey3, on 04/26/2008, -4/+4If they actually NEED the marijuana they can just come during business hours to buy it, theres no medical need to buy narcotics/hard prescription drugs after hours. Every other person that needs drugs gets theirs during business hours.
    • Lynxplus, on 04/26/2008, -2/+23Not to discredit Bush and his war loving ways, but this war on drugs was started by the Reagan administration if I'm not mistaken.
      • winmywii, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2"Blame Reagan for making me into a monster"
      • tech42er, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5Very true. Reagan was a libertarian as governor of California, but he became more conservative after the assassination attempt made against him, though it may have simply been a coincidence. At any rate, though drugs had already be illegal for some time, Reagan stepped up enforcement and started the Drug War, an egregrious assault on our liberties and a waste of our taxes. That is sadly his legacy. :(
      • geoboy, on 04/27/2008, -0/+7Actually, the "war on drugs" was first declared by Nixon. Well he was the first president to ever use that phrase, anyway. Nixon referred to drugs as "public enemy number one in the United States" according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
      • Soave, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2And it's not like Clinton got rid of the 'war on drugs' either.
    • ElumEnopee, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1I never knew there were so many sick people here at Digg.
    • mike17032, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Bush's War? Are you 12 or something?
    • cheesejaguar, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3"Damn those Feds, the DEA and Nixon's War on Drugs. They should rot in hell, there are people who actually NEED medical marijuana - What this government is doing is illegal"

      Fixed.
    • jeeky, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0What about us who don't give a *****? And no, I'm not a Linux user.
  • 2GIRLS1COFFIN, on 04/26/2008, -40/+6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________________
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ ***** THE RIAA! /
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . . .________________/
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
    . . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
    . . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
    . . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .,/ /|| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .’| |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
    . . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
    . . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’ . . . .
    . ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
    ./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
    / : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :

    : : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :
  • NaziHatinChimp, on 04/26/2008, -16/+83You are not free.
    • smurfsahoy, on 04/26/2008, -13/+16Don't be a tool. A world withoug laws would be infinitely less free than this one. I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but it's because it isn't dangerous, not because of some twisted notion that I'm "not free" if I don't get to do whatever the hell I want.
      • tech42er, on 04/26/2008, -6/+3***** you. The most important law is that of consent. If all parties in a transaction consent, it should be legal. So if I want to buy drugs (safe or not) and someone wants to sell them to me, that should be legal. If I then want to consume these drugs with my consent, obviously, it should be legal. When we are forced to do things non-consensually or prevented from doing things we want to do and consent to, we are not free.
        • smurfsahoy, on 04/27/2008, -1/+3Duh, drug laws are a shining example of the law of consent at work, my friend. In fact, the idea behind most drug laws (this is false for marijuana - hence I support its legality) is that when you are under the influence of the drug, you lose the ability to give consent yourself or to secure other people's consent for your actions, or to realize that you even should, etc. I might never harm a fly normally, but hopped up on crystal meth, I think my roommate is an alien overlord or something, not deserving consent, and I shoot him in the face.

          The idea is NOT usually simply that you will harm yourself. Hence drano and tall buildings with roof access are still legal... They can hurt you, but they don't encourage you to hurt yourself, or to hurt those around you, while not in your right mind, and while not capable of giving or asking for consent.

          And for many drugs, even when you aren't high, withdrawal often influences your consent as well for procuring and taking more drugs.
          • evdubs, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0So, you've boiled it down to a psychology problem. If different mental states are linked to criminal actions, those people with those mental states should be treated in a psychological manner until they do commit criminal actions. All you're doing by treating everyone as a criminal who alters their mental state is incriminating people who have not commited any real criminal action. This is a psychology problem, not a criminal one; treat it as such and counsel people. It's not against the law to have your mental state altered if you get laid off, lose a significant other, or even get drunk.
        • NikoKun, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Maybe not... but we should have the rights and freedom of choice, OVER OUR OWN BODIES TO DO AS WE WANT.

          As long as we are not causing harm to others, Who the ***** has the right to tell us what to do?
          • smurfsahoy, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Several problems with that:
            1) A huge number of drug users are ignorant and uneducated about the effects of the drugs, and thus the effects on their own bodies may NOT be what they want (and rarely are)
            2) With many drugs, you can and often do harm others more often than if you were not on the drug.
            3) If drugs are completely legalized, food producers can stuff them into cereals and stuff and ***** with your mind without you realizing it, etc.
      • Ymeg, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Nice straw man. I defiantly know that he said anarchy is the best, right?

        *****.
        • smurfsahoy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1So your hypothesis is that he was just randomly saying we are not free, without any connection to this thread? It's fairly obvious he means that since we are compelled not to smoke marijuana, we have lost a freedom. My point is that anti-marijuana laws are by no means ridiculous. They happen to be a bit overboard given the drug in question, but other very similar laws for very similar drugs are perfectly legitimate, and increase our freedoms.
    • palehorse864, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3You cost $19.95,
      • palehorse864, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5And come with a free umbrella if you order you now.
    • ElumEnopee, on 04/26/2008, -5/+7You are not smart
    • NaziHatinChimp, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Who said anarchy is best? I didn't. I just pointed to the obvious and got your ball rolling. You said the rest.
      • smurfsahoy, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1You implied that a perfectly normal law (that restricts our actions for legitimate reasons in such a way as to INCREASE our freedoms) in fact decreases our freedoms. I think that is completely backward. The only coherent explanation I can think of for why somebody would believe that is if they are anarchist, and just don't believe in laws in general. Otherwise, you must be holding drug laws to a different standard than every other law, which is irrational.

        So no, you didn't say it. I just gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming the most rational explanation for you. If you want to go for the double standard explanation, be my guest.
  • futureisours, on 04/26/2008, -3/+12What do you expect?
  • Phatlip012, on 04/26/2008, -15/+7Is this really news? I thought everyone knew the government was above the law now. :(
    • LOPposse, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4What law did the DEA break? Medical marijuana is still illegal federally. I disagree but the best way to go about is to get the law changed not gripe when the law is enforced.
      • humangrenade, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1If you actually read the article you'd understand that he was referring to the fact that the DEA wrecked the rest of the store for no reason. Jack-ass.
  • NikoKun, on 04/26/2008, -10/+46What a waste of tax dollars, and a horrible crime toward state's rights...

    ***** DEA... Get out of the states that legalized it!!! There is absolutely no reason to be fighting Marijuana. It only causes more problems, and further unnecessarily restricts our freedoms.
    • Lynxplus, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6The DEA has no right.
      • Slash0, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3That is completely untrue. The DEA operates under federal authority, which prevails over state legislation in any and all circumstances thanks to the principle of Paramountcy. (Or whatever it's called in the U.S.)
        • homah, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5yes, it operates under an authority that the federal government was never intended to have.
      • gnuyen, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        At least that's how it's supposed to work.
    • jgtg32a, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1Hi let me introduce you to the Supremacy Clause, in short weed is still illegal
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
    • DrummerAndrew, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Do something about it. Support the "Make room for serious criminals act" by writing to your representative.
  • gsimon, on 04/26/2008, -8/+22You realize we could resolve our national debt problem by legalizing and taxing. Why spend more of our money fighting it, it really isn't working...
    • Chiliap2, on 04/26/2008, -6/+3It would not solve our national debt problem. Our GDP is even smaller than our debt. How would taxing one item come even close to solving it.
      • narcofiche, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7I think you underestimate the amount of people who smoke pot, friend.
        • Lynxplus, on 04/26/2008, -6/+2I think he/she underestimates a lot. read some figures you ***** sheep.
      • smurfsahoy, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4The debt, if we don't add to it, stays the same each year. The GDP keeps coming in anew. Basically what you are saying is something like "I owe Jim $12. But I only make $10 a week in allowance. Therefore I can NEVER pay Jim back." False. You can pay him back in two weeks...
      • snypa, on 04/26/2008, -5/+1Your gonna be dugg down, but your right. The gains from the taxation of mj will do hardly anything for national debt.
        • smurfsahoy, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2I dugg him down because his reason why is dumb. Whether taxation really could do anything is another story entirely from whether it is mathematically possible for it to do so.
    • Lynxplus, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2We need to attack this just like Prohibition was attacked.
    • Risingashes, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1That's not how 'national debt' works. You'd need to grow all of it here- 100%. And it's going to be coming in like clockwork from other countries if it is legalised.
      But even if it's banned from import- you'd still need to export like crazy in order for it to make a dent in the national debt.
      The most it would do is slow down accumulation of debt as people shift their spending from imported goods to weed.
      Yay for mj- but 'national debt' isn't an argument for legalisation.
    • Alex2, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1So.. you got yer 10 trillion dollar debt. And you got 6 billion people on the planet. You basically gotta pay off your debt by SELLING EVERYONE ON THE PLANET 3000 DOLLARS WORTH OF DOPE (assuming a 100 percent price markup).

      I don't know many people who smoke that much dope.
      Maybe you do.. then good for you.
    • Filter, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Yeah, since taxes solve everything right? Take a look at where the taxes from cigarettes are going. It isn't to health care like they said it would.
  • twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -14/+14Total ***** *****.

    I thought that the Constitution gave states the power to make their own laws even if it conflicted with the government's set of rules.
    • NikoKun, on 04/26/2008, -6/+6It does... Cept the Federal Government just ignores that... and since they're the highest power, who's gonna stop them?
      • narcofiche, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Magic Johnson.
        • shakbhaji, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3For some reason I found that hilarious. I got the image of Magic in his Lakers uniform with the short shorts, throwing a barage of basketballs at a cartoon uncle sam.
      • DrummerAndrew, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1WE THE PEOPLE, that's who.
    • atact88, on 04/26/2008, -2/+23Um. No.
      State laws must fit under the umbrella of federal law. The Articles of Confederation gave states much more power (a Confederacy), but the United States nearly fell apart under that agreement, and thus in 1786, the Constitution was written to form a strong, cohesive nation under a federal government.

      Medicinal marijuana has always been a point of contention because it conflicts with federal law.

      *sigh* Americans don't even know America anymore.
      • Tyrghast, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6Well that's because the Articles of Confederation aren't covered in most high schools and even fewer colleges. I didn't have any classes dealing solely with government law and the relationship between states and the fed until my senior year in high school, and those were Advanced Placement courses (meaning a small percentage of the high school actually attended those classes).
        • atact88, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Well thank goodness I went to PRIVATE school, where US History - the Whole History, was standard fare for all of us. Politicians are really doing our kids a disservice, with all the mucking around with education for election purposes.
      • gnuyen, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        Seriously. That's how it's supposed to work.
    • twiztidsinz, on 04/26/2008, -6/+1Apparently either the above comment, or this one (http://digg.com/basketball/Josh_Howard_Interviewed ... pissed someone off and they decided to bury every one of my recent posts.
      • smurfsahoy, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Yeah, it pisses off people like me, who actually understand the constitution. State law absolutely does not trump federal law. Other way around. Not in EVERY case, but de facto yes, and most things can actually be legitimately tied to interstate commerce.
    • choopie911, on 04/26/2008, -0/+8Legal by state law, illegal by federal law.
      • SoonerRoadie, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3And Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution says that federal laws are "the supreme Law of the land...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So, as long as there is authority under the constitution for Congress to pass a law banning the possession or sale of marijuana, it controls, not the state law.
        • homah, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Where in the Constitution is such authority given?
          • Mothrog, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2The commerce clause.
          • homah, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4If the commerce clause is interpreted in a completely different way than was intended, yes.
          • Mothrog, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4"If the commerce clause is interpreted in a completely different way than was intended, yes."

            It's been that way since the New Deal era. Thank FDR for the ridiculous expansion of federal authority and the Supreme Court he blackmailed into allowing his ridiculous programs, the best case from that time period being Wickard v. Filburn. According to the Supreme Court in that case, a guy who grew wheat for his own private use was participating in interstate commerce. Under current Supreme Court jurisprudence, interstate commerce pretty well means any damn thing the Federal government wants to regulate.
          • homah, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Sorry to hear that. Thanks for the reference...I have some reading to do.
    • Mothrog, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7Reread the Constitution.

      "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
      • cubicledrone, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3Right back atcha, pal. Amendment X:

        "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

        This particular example aside, the amount of unconstitutional activity going on in this country on a daily basis is staggering.

        You have a real good day now.
        • Mothrog, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..."

          Read it yourself.
          • cubicledrone, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2You seem have a problem reading all the way to the period. Not surprising.
          • Mothrog, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3"You seem have a problem reading all the way to the period. Not surprising."

            Yeah, no. See, drone, the federal government has the power to regulate commerce, and that power has been interpreted pretty damn liberally for the past 70 years (see Wickard v. Filburn). Since Congress has already made a law under its delegated powers, the power to regulate marijuana is denied the states. Try reading ALL of the Tenth Amendment, and maybe pick up a civics book or two.
          • cubicledrone, on 04/27/2008, -1/+0Interstate commerce. Not all commerce. The tenth amendment is very clear and not subject to varying interpretations, and I am speaking in general, not specifically about this example.
    • urgeigh, on 04/26/2008, -4/+1It does, and it also gives the States the right to nullify Federal Laws and Power. Any and all power given to Federal Government is granted by the states, plain and ***** simple. (Or at least it's supposed to be). I'd like to see more use of the 10th Amendment, which is essentially the pillar of the entire Constitution, and probably the most important amendment. There's not technically any "conflict" with the Government's set of rules since the states dictate what those rules are. There's just a whole lot of power that needs to be taken away from the Federal Government by the States, and that cannot be done unless the people do something via their representatives. The best thing anyone can do who is truly concerned about our Government is study the Constitution and then act on what knowledge you have and communicate with your respective State Reps.
      • Mothrog, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2"It does, and it also gives the States the right to nullify Federal Laws and Power."

        Oh really? Where?

        "There's not technically any "conflict" with the Government's set of rules since the states dictate what those rules are."

        Except when there's a federal law on the matter.

        "The best thing anyone can do who is truly concerned about our Government is study the Constitution and then act on what knowledge you have and communicate with your respective State Reps."

        You might want to take your own advice.
      • SoonerRoadie, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4I'm not real sure where you get this state "right to nullify Federal Laws and Power." Its actually the other way around, according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, aka the supremacy clause.
      • JohnSteel, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3The 10Th Amendment does not give states the right to nullify federal laws or powers. It does not state that the Federal Government gets it's power from the States. Read http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti ... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." There is nothing in it that gives the States the power to override, overrule, etc powers that the Federal Government possesses.
        • urgeigh, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0So, you guys are okay with the Federal Government being able to interpret the Constitution and establish it's own Power over the States? That's borderline despotism.
          • Mothrog, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2"So, you guys are okay with the Federal Government being able to interpret the Constitution and establish it's own Power over the States?"

            That's kinda the idea behind the judicial branch.
    • Corrosionx, on 04/26/2008, -6/+1The Constitution is null and void, the united states of America doesn't exist anymore, there's only the UNITED STATES corporation doing whatever it wants, and obtaining consent through silence and ignorance.
      • smurfsahoy, on 04/27/2008, -1/+3You're supposed to put the shiny side of the tinfoil AWAY from your head.
        • Corrosionx, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Do your own homework, boy. This is not theory or conjecture, this is the cold hard facts. There's plenty of court cases to prove it too.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 04/26/2008, -9/+1Now's a good time to commit crimes then, with the feds being totally lit and all... Those snobby bastards get to have all the fun.
  • Lynxplus, on 04/26/2008, -11/+15The DEA is a SHAM, and excuse to bleed YOUR Federal Tax dollar for no purpose WHATSOEVER. You have to love the mentality of the these people which boils down to this: We break a safe and legal place for people to get medication for illness and force them to acquire their medication through shady/ILLEGAL means putting them at risk of being jailed and spending more tax payers money in a effort to LEGITIMIZE WHAT THEY DO. This has got to stop, the only consequence this has on the actual flow of weed is that it makes the vaule greater on the black market and you end up making the "Dealer Richer" What a smart idea and way to solve the problem. The DEA filled with mindless goons needs to DIAF we dont need your ***** draconic laws.
  • Zlorp, on 04/26/2008, -14/+8***** THE DEA!!!!
  • SwedishNinja, on 04/26/2008, -8/+45Don't Steal, The Government Hates Competition.
    • govsucks, on 04/26/2008, -2/+7Yep, so I say we give the government a monopoly on our healthcare and retirement, that should make things better by encouraging innovation and competition.
      • ltchimpo, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Careful with that bumper sticker, it's an antique :)
        • kajoob, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Does that make it less true?
        • govsucks, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1so is the idea of individual freedom. Just because something is new or "progressive" does not make it better.
          NEW! Socialism version 4,986,232 Now with more enslavement to the hive!
    • xerigen, on 04/26/2008, -2/+8Ron Paul has that sign on the desk of his office. http://www.theginblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/ ...
  • ericthegreat, on 04/26/2008, -10/+33I'm sorry to say but the federal government still has jurisdiction over the country and can execute their laws. They are well within their right to do such. If you are against laws that prohibit minor drugs then you must talk to your congressional and senate representatives. Quit bitching and work to change the law!
    • ltchimpo, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6No *****, serisouly, the federal government should be charged with taking care of our interstates and our defense systems. Not with education, not with healthcare, not with any other private industry. Leave that to the indivudual states to manage, you know, so the citizens of a state can... oh, you know, control what happens in their state?
      • ericthegreat, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3Again, talk to your representatives. If those are your feelings then let it be heard. Put the Xbox controller down and make your thoughts heard!
        • tcpip4lyfe, on 04/26/2008, -5/+1It wont do *****. And I play PC games thank you very much.
      • ltchimpo, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1I don't feel the need for marijuana legalization, not when their are more important problems that need tackling, besides: couple a politician with a marijuana legalization platform and you become a joke... except for Jesse Ventura.... because democrats in MN are dumb as hell.
    • roystgnr, on 04/26/2008, -1/+14Actually, the Constitution has jurisdiction over the country, and limits even the kinds of laws the federal government is allowed to make. That's why, the first time we tried Prohibition, we needed a Constitutional amendment to do it - because the population back then hadn't yet been conned into believing that the federal government had absolute power.
    • dillona, on 04/27/2008, -1/+3Just because they have jurisdiction doesn't make it right.
      • ericthegreat, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1True, so make your voice heard to the people where it mattes. Not some mundane comment on Digg.
    • waynetheman, on 04/27/2008, -2/+3"Quit bitching and work to change the law!"

      Or, how about we practice civil disobedience and break stupid, immoral laws; refuse to pay taxes to support such tyranny; and bitch about it to the high heavens until said laws are repealed? Yeah, considering how "well" the democratic process has been working lately, I think this option makes at least as much sense.

      Sorry if such "bitching" is bothering you. Maybe when something harmless YOU use is outlawed you'll change your tune.
      • DrummerAndrew, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3Don't break the laws, change them. If everyone interested in the decriminalization actually voiced their opinion to their representati