What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
CNET Top Weekly Download for Free Anti-Virus view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
77 Comments
- blackdeath88012, on 03/21/2009, -3/+61Someone serve this Iowa Senator and Charles Grassley a hot cup of shut the ***** up.
- Qbryzan, on 03/21/2009, -3/+25FTA "Iowa Senator and longtime marijuana law reform opponent Charles Grassley immediately criticized Holder’s announcement, stating, “The first rule of medicine, first do no harm, is being violated by the attorney general by his decision.”"
No it isn't, Grassley, you lying jackass. That rule is being violated by the DEA, local and state police, and their enablers (read: politicians) - Infowarsdotcom, on 03/21/2009, -4/+17The "right approach" would be to reject the "safe" method of protest and ask for legalization. Instead of treating cannabis like a criminal plant that should be ignored, the case should be made for cannabis being an innocent plant that hurts no one and helps everyone. It's a cost efficient way to treat everything from head aches to cancer.
And you get high as *****. - LBWayward, on 03/21/2009, -2/+14The president's policy is wrong.
The "hands-off" approach means that criminals still profit from the of marijuana economy.
- HippyJM, on 03/21/2009, -0/+12I think Jon Stewart might still have some on set
- BlacklabelSAR, on 03/21/2009, -1/+10This issue was discussed on CBNC. The only person on the "against" side was the former head of the DEA. When he was asked to compare pot to alcohol, he refused.
"I'm not here to talk about alcohol." Is all he would say. The hypocrisy was there for all to see.
Oh, and CNBC's Weed show is the most popular show they've ever had. And this is a business channel.
(I have no special love for CNBC, it's just on all day where I work) - cl2yp71c, on 03/21/2009, -3/+12It's hard to express how angry I am at these moronic politicians.
JUST LEGALIZE IT! - ITdude472, on 03/21/2009, -1/+10I guess that might be part of the "hypocritical" oath... its like he forgot that almost all drugs have unwanted, sometimes harmful side effects.
- inactive, on 03/21/2009, -1/+10As an Iowan I must first apologize for my senator's ignorance. Obviously he doesn't have a relative with multiple sclerosis, so he doesn't have a personal interest in this battle. I do however, so after seeing this article I immediately sent him a message. Here it is:
Administration’s New Policy on Medical Marijuana Is The Right One -
Grassley’s ideological opposition, though predictable, is offensive to those who support both science and the right of self-determination.
____________________________
I do find your ideological opposition to people with terminal medical conditions using cannabis as their medicine of choice, quite offensive. Doctors and Scientists have well documented the medicinal uses of cannabis. Last I checked you were neither. Maybe you should keep your opinion to yourself until such time as you can have an educated opinion. By attacking medical marijuana law reform, you are attacking the rights of the sick and dying. An action that is most reprehensible. You should reconsider. Have you ever even spoke to any medical cannabis users? Have you conducted any Scientific studies? Please inform me if I have misjudged you. - JoeVet, on 03/21/2009, -0/+8He has publicly stated that he is not going to use his political capital on this topic. His actions however are very clear. He just may use his bully pulpit at the end of his second term if there is one. Until then, just getting the fed to honor state regulation of medical marijuana is a big win, especially to those who are truly ill and need it. Eventually it will be legalized for all. The only question is when and will I be here to enjoy it.
- charm803, on 03/21/2009, -0/+8That would hurt big medicine providers so I don't doubt the ulterior motive.
I was in rehab last year for depression and I've never done any kind of drugs. I do drink, though.
Funny story:
A guy was sent in by his mother because she caught him doing weed. He admitted to doing weed about 3 times a day, usually right before work, after work, and right before going to sleep. He said he wasn't addicted, but he felt relaxed.
Turned out he had high blood pressure and he inadvertently controlled it with weed.
Not saying it works for high blood pressure, but this kid went in to get off weed, and at the end, he left taking 4 different types of pills.
At least weed is a more natural drug and they should have looked into that instead of the "prescribed" and "legal" drugs. - BlacklabelSAR, on 03/21/2009, -0/+7You must not realize just how many people already do smoke pot. People from all walks of life. Just like many people drank alcohol during it's Prohibition.
Notice that I didn't troll you or even digg you down. No reason to.
p.s. There's not enough weed in the world to make me stupid enough to be entertained by American Idol or Dancing with the Stars. - JoeVet, on 03/21/2009, -0/+7Last time I checked, the attorney general doesn't practice medicine.
- BobFromReboot, on 03/21/2009, -0/+7Umm stoners already have access to weed so it makes no difference. BTW it's crackheads that live in boxes you moron.
- inactive, on 03/21/2009, -0/+7...they already do.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 03/21/2009, -0/+7Try competing industries. The anti-pot commercials are funded by the alcohol and tobacco industries. The same creatures that created the reefer madness propaganda.
The Late Great Bill Hicks had something to say about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCf2fJsBxRc - mason092, on 03/21/2009, -0/+7I tried to think of something to say, but that comment was too stupid, so I'll say this: Fail.
- NSResponder, on 03/21/2009, -0/+6"BTW it's crackheads that live in boxes you moron."
Actually, it's drunks even more than crackheads.
-jcr - tsmallm, on 03/21/2009, -0/+6I agree but I do think it is a small step in the right direction. get this law out of federal hands let states decide and let states sell and tax it not the federal government.
- tsmallm, on 03/21/2009, -0/+6They are they same person.
- Schweppesale, on 03/21/2009, -0/+6People are really still this stupid? It blows me away, I just can't wrap my mind around this level of retardation. The commercial says its bad, it must be bad; go read a ***** book and study up on the history of how this stuff was made illegal. Contrary to popular belief at the time, marijuana does not make black people rape white women. I just earned a Bachelors in Science and I smoke marijuana at least 3 times a week, it's a harmless waist of time; just like television.
- iliveincoto, on 03/21/2009, -0/+6Is it not obvious that laws prohibiting drug use do NOT work? After all, they've only been in effect since 1969 and have done nothing but cost the government billions and put non-violent offenders in jail.
Welcome to reality, where telling people to just "stop doing them" doesn't quite work. - Metavised, on 03/21/2009, -0/+6Care to tell us why?
- wcarver, on 03/21/2009, -0/+6Actually the "do do harm oath" can only be violated by a physician. Nothing in Holder's statement forces doctors to violate that oath. If a doctor truly believes that marijuana will harm a patient then they won't prescribe it. It's not as if Holder advocated the violation of the Hippocratic Oath he just cleared the way for doctors to make a decision about treatment for their patients without having the DEA breaking down thier door.
- EarlOfLade, on 03/21/2009, -0/+6And anyone who ends their post with "(and you KNOW I'm right!)" know they are NOT right.
- EdCenter, on 03/21/2009, -0/+5Benjamin Franklin? And you were high when you wrote this, weren't you?
- tsmallm, on 03/21/2009, -0/+5and it's easier to get a million people to stop smoking pot than it is to change one law how?
- moxley, on 03/21/2009, -0/+5I agree that it is an improvement, but it's not "The right policy."
The right policy would be to end prohibition, and if you don;t understand why then look at the history of how and why marijuana became ilegal, the parties behind it - and look at the the history of prohibtion movement - they ALWAYS fail and do a lot of damage in the process. - erkokite, on 03/21/2009, -0/+5I think you are confusing pot with heroin.
- aptanalogy, on 03/21/2009, -0/+4Actually, Ben Franklin was composed entirely of self-aware pot.
- filldeviant, on 03/21/2009, -1/+5You just made my day.
- Frankyfan3, on 03/21/2009, -0/+4You can actually be charged with driving impaired in WA for being sleepy.
Like Qbryzan said, ALL impaired driving should be treated the same.
The tests for marijuana intoxication are limited and marijuana is a drug that can stay in your system for weeks, showing a positive result in a blood test, which some people have been prosecuted for.
Here's a case of the judge ruling on the side of science: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/397/michig ...
Here is an interesting clip from a British show where they had a guy drive after smoking a joint:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3zou4F00Ic - Elderon, on 03/21/2009, -0/+4Polishdag, your logic is flawed.
There is direct data proving that alcohol is harmful and that driving while intoxicated directly leads to increased risks of fatal accidents. There is no such proof for marijuana. Besides I don't know anyone advocating being able to drive around completely stoned. - peestandingup, on 03/21/2009, -3/+7The "right one" would be to change the ***** law permanently. The "hands off" approach is a cop-out move & basically just means they wont be enforcing what's on the books.
So when a new administration takes over in 4-8 years, they can go right back to the same old *****. - 3tcp, on 03/21/2009, -0/+4ROFL
- charm803, on 03/21/2009, -1/+5They should put some restrictions like they do with cigarettes and beer and just get it over with.
I don't see how cigarettes can be legal and weed cannot.
What a backwards society. - RepublicofJosh, on 03/22/2009, -0/+3But I'm free!
- Qbryzan, on 03/21/2009, -0/+3ALL impaired driving should be treated the same, whether you are impaired due to alcohol, or impaired due to drugs, or impaired due to lack of sleep. The impairment itself should be the issue, and no reason for it should be considered acceptable if you are truly impaired.
- PillCosby, on 03/21/2009, -1/+4senator GRASSley... hehe
- censormagnet, on 03/21/2009, -1/+4well thats good news, finally the fed backs off on something that the states have jurisdiction on.. thats constitutional
that chuck grassley moron needs to realize 2 things: 1) the federal government isnt a doctor 2) marijuana DOES NO HARM so his stretch of the medical creed doesnt even fit - EhBlueDuck, on 03/21/2009, -0/+2One is extremely dangerous and kills people, and the other doesn't.
It would be the same as saying - 'people drink, and people drive drunk...so we mine as well legalize driving drunk.'
You're an idiot for trying to compare the use of something with the misuse of it, and akchrs is just a troll so I'll leave him out of this. - Elderon, on 03/21/2009, -1/+3This whole marijuana thing makes me want to bash my head against the wall. It boggles my mind how completely stupid and closed minded some people, scratch that, A LOT of people are. It only takes a smart person one viewing of Reefer madness to see how ***** up our laws are and the bogus reasons for passing them.
Another thing that bothers me are the commercials. They are such blatant propaganda with no truth to them at all, it makes me sick. I wish these people would be forced to use real data to back up their claims and not made up numbers. I also love how they try and imply that you are just sheep if you take drugs, but if you "just say no" you are somehow hip and cool. Thanks, but no thanks. If I say no I want it to be because I came to the conclusion to say no based on facts, not you telling me what to say.
Anyways back to the topic. The guy talking about doing no harm needs to stfu. He is definitely not following his oath if he thinks the millions of wrecked lives merely for smoking a plant that did absolutely no harm is somehow following that oath, - urbanetruth, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2just taking the piss, fellas.
- inactive, on 03/22/2009, -0/+2IMO Grassley fears what a free market in hemp farming would do to his corn-ethanol funded political donors. IOW, he's a government-supported SOCIALIST despite calling himself "a conservative Republican." The irony is staggering, but if you think about it, I'm right.
By contrast, the hemp hippies who oppose him are the real CAPITALISTS, yet many of them are equally clueless about what it is they're actually advocating. A lot of problems could sure be solved if we went beyond a left-right political line to describe the human political spectrum of diversity... - akhomestead, on 03/22/2009, -0/+2People who grew up back during "reefer madness" do too. My dad thinks it's evil and he's a very smart guy, but from the time he was able to speak it's been beat into him how bad it is.
I only wish women were as easy once they got high like they led you to believe in "reefer madness" - emjaymj, on 03/22/2009, -0/+2He's probably a drug dealer or somehow profits from the supply side of the black market, where making it legal would take away his income. I mean, I know it sounds like a stretch, but no otherwise rational person would hold such a stance, and I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt rather than just outright call him stupid.
- tsmallm, on 04/18/2009, -0/+1@polishdag:
I understand what you are saying in that if we have a law against something and everyone is breaking it we shouldn't just give up on it. However not exactly the same argument here. Most people will agree that smoking pot is causing any huge problems, drunk driving on the other hand is a growing issue that is killing many innocent people, but I think that argument could be solved if we had more public transit then you could ride the train home instead of driving your drunk ass there.
Also since you point out drunk driving as a problem are you insinuating that we should outlaw alcohol? cause I'm pretty sure that prohibition didn't turn out well. - AwakeAmerican, on 03/22/2009, -0/+1yet we cant grow either one in America
- EarlOfLade, on 03/21/2009, -1/+2Charles Grass-ley? Really?
- IKORKYI, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1If the first rule of medicine is to first do no harm, i don't what is going through pharmaceutical's companies heads when they make medicine with all the side effects. The first rule of medicine should be have clinical data to make every decision for you.
Take anti-depressants for example. It's bad enough you're giving someone who is depressed an addictive substance, and in some cases (often, i would feel) alcohol and drug abuse are already part of the problem. Some side effects can even be fatal. Thoughts of suicide, effects on sexual performance and arousal - the list goes on and on. For someone who takes anti-depressents to relieve anxiety, the "negative effects," marijuana are welcomed side effects and are safer than most. Tobacco is legal, i would think it is reasonable to allow smoke-inhiliation-related side effects if you allow cigarettes. We use other opiates such as morphine, so its base seems OK. You can't drive when intoxicated with alcohol, and we police this OK. When you look at it, the uses may not be as beneficial as some, but you will also find that it has low effects of side effects. There is a perfect niche for a medicine that relieves minor ailments and produces minor side effects.
Another example is Enbril for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. It was great for my mother's mobility, but 3 months after taking it she experience complete and total permanant hair loss. Large benefit, large side effect. -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is