What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
177 Comments
- inactive, on 03/22/2009, -2/+85let me grow my own
- govsucks, on 03/22/2009, -4/+85Well, Im a libertarian and I used to be a Republican and I've always puffed and always will. Conservatives should support freedom. That is REALLY the issue here not weed. People need to stop getting hung up on the one little freedom that collectivism takes from THEM and focus on the larger picture of liberty VS collectivism. Collectivism is the main cause of liberty being lost in many more ways than our ability to smoke a plant. The collective forces us to participate in a ponzi scheme our entire LIVES, that is way worse than not letting us smoke weed. The collective takes the product of our labor for any reason it sees fit. What weight does weed have compared to that?
Focus on the real issues people. If we return to human freedom, weed will come with it. - Frankyfan3, on 03/22/2009, -0/+73Not all of them. Both parties have supported the failed policies of prohibition for decades.
Traditional Conservatives, and those who actually believe in less government interference in our lives are against prohibition.
Those who advocate for the continued criminalization of drugs tend to do so for one of the following motivations:
1. They have a genuine concern about the danger of drug abuse to society and individuals and are uneducated on the impacts prohibition law has on these dangers.
2. They have a selfish interest in continuing the drug war (financial gain, political power, etc.) that has nothing to do with the well-being of society,
3. They're more interested in inflicting punishment on certain groups/types of individuals than in reducing harm (see SadoMoralists).
Enough with being TOUGH on drug use.
Let's try being SMART on drug use!
http://www.legalizationfacts.com/ - inactive, on 03/23/2009, -2/+58Here's one conservative who is the strongest critic of the war on drugs, Ron Paul, owning Stephen Baldwin in a debate over marijuana legalization:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufekh_SwZd0 - Evanmontegarde, on 03/23/2009, -0/+35Legalizing marijuana isn't a liberal or conservative issue, it's a common sense issue.
- hhhh64, on 03/23/2009, -0/+31I am republican, and I strongly support the legalization of Marijuana.
Don't stereotype, man! - SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/23/2009, -1/+24Who said anything about being a rebel? We just want to have a beer and maybe toke up without committing a crime.
Despite what the "Above the influence" commercials tell you, not all of us let our clothes, virginity, and choice of drugs define who we are. In fact, I think it'd be a pretty depressing life we did. - inactive, on 03/23/2009, -0/+22Why Democrats should insist on overturning cannabis prohibition in New York: cut wasteful spending, restore respect for law enforcement, grow a sustainable economy without large government stimulus
- diggenerate, on 03/22/2009, -0/+22I think that is a stupid excuse to use. The vast majority of people in this country already know that the government is wrong, so if they back-peddle now everyone should see it as the government finally doing the right thing.
- Syric, on 03/23/2009, -1/+23I thought liberals were supposed to be "A dirty rotten buncha pot-smoking hippies"? Sorry, but it really is conservatives who are in the way. Not the small-government conservatives, mind you, but the darn religious right and the family-values social conservatives.
- GovernmentsGun, on 03/22/2009, -1/+22I think it's government in general that is invested in prohibition. I mean, for decades now they've been saying that Marijuana is a dangerous drug gateway drug, that has no valid use. Government has killed, jailed, and stolen from people for this very reason.
Now, if they're to just flat out go back on that, and say that it's essentially ok, it would undermine the confidence people are supposed to have in government. I don't think anyone in Washington, Democrat or Republican, could stomach that. - alexsk8ca, on 03/23/2009, -0/+20I don't think anyone is blaming them as much as pointing out that if conservatives really were for smaller government and less government spending then it is stupid to support such a wasteful policy. Also a lot of people who are digging up and supporting articles like this also disagree with the democrats, and the assumption that if someone disagrees with republican policy means they agree with the democrats is completely false.
- Harbinger67, on 03/23/2009, -1/+19Up next, Stephen Hawking debates quantum physics with Mike Tyson. Stay tuned.
- poopsybythebay, on 03/22/2009, -24/+41It should be that way, but conservatives are too invested in prohibition.
- cazbar, on 03/23/2009, -4/+21It seems the loudest conservatives are the ones who refuse to be informed about the topics they are being loud about.
- Syric, on 03/23/2009, -1/+15I liked the part where you don't know what collectivism means.
- bigsheldy, on 03/23/2009, -1/+15When are people going to get on board with this? I'm a registered Republican and I'm more for this than any other piece of legislation right now.
- inactive, on 03/23/2009, -0/+12Fiscally, I'm probably more conservative than anyone you've met. I'm against the tax and spend drugwar, and I've called it "the tax and spend drugwar" since Reagan's time, as a sort of a tribute. Don't try to lump all conservatives together. It's VERY difficult without a copy of the Constitution handy to name any kind of government spending I'm "for." I want LESS TAX MONEY SPENT on the drugwar, and if that's not conservative, what IS??
Want an example of why you're totally-wrong from RECENT US political history?? Ok. Note "conservative" (read: big government lovin'!) Republicans' hysterical reaction to Dr. Ron Paul's candidacy.
It was NOT an accident that the network most-biased against him was Fox "News." Their control-freaky hysteria wasn't just about his opposition to foreign wars because Dr. Paul has made sense for *****' DECADES on the tax & spend drugwar, too. The biased collectivist ***** who are in control of the news media & political parties made VERY sure the only real "choice" this time was between tax & spend and borrow & spend.
Ask yourself, "why"? Not just why the obvious media bias against Ron Paul, but why that kind of bias right at that point in political history? And why didn't the self-annointed media bias watchdogs act less like castrated lapdogs in Ron Paul's case? I think, in view of the subsequent fiscal *****, the answer speaks for itself. - aufte, on 03/23/2009, -1/+13http://digg.com/politics/The_Criminalization_of_Or ...
That's what's stopping him. - SkittlesUSA, on 03/23/2009, -11/+23I find it funny that Digg is blaming Marihuana prohibition on conservatives while their left-wing Messiah supports Marijuana prohibition.
- opit, on 03/23/2009, -1/+12I see you've 'rebranded' the commie slogan.
You don't read really well. The question up for discussion is about criminalizing vice. Why is it worth doing when prison costs and capacities can't keep up : let alone the morality of punishing self-abuse. - Frankyfan3, on 03/23/2009, -0/+11GBPACKGB
That could be included in #2, you know, for political power that has nothing to do with the well-being of society.
More and more politicians are stepping up for this issue and finding voters responding positively. I was at a screening of Marijuana: It's Time for a Conversation and there was a state rep there, along with his opponent from the recent campaign.
1 republican, 1 democrat, both expressing to the community a need for renewed dialogue and examination of the effectiveness and efficacy of our prohibition policies.
In the previous race a different opponent had tried to brand the incumbent as "soft on drugs" and polling results after a major mailer went out stating this, showed an increase in support for the "soft on drugs" guy and a decrease in support for the guy who sent out the mailer. - NSResponder, on 03/23/2009, -1/+12William F. Buckley was advocating marijuana legalization at least a couple of decades ago.
-jcr - deity, on 03/23/2009, -1/+11I'm not necessarily conservative more of a libertarian, but I would like to see marijuana legalized. The government shouldn't be in the business of trying to control people's behavior except when the behavior infringes on someone's rights.
Also it would stop the god awful whining and lame justifications. Just admit you want to get high and the government won't let you do it legally, quit trying to point to pot as the cure for all evils.
I think in the long run legalizing it and making it extremely difficult for minors to get would reduce its usage overall. - GovernmentsGun, on 03/23/2009, -0/+10@diggenerate
I agree that it's a stupid reason to keep prohibition in place. But I think that's one of the factors keeping it illegal. - inactive, on 03/23/2009, -0/+10Legalizing = $30 billion dollar economy
No need to cut down trees for paper
Reduction in harmful agricultural runoff
Increase in crop production particularly in dryland areas
Proteins
Oils
Food
Biofuels
Soil enrichment
But don't let science get in your way... - novenator, on 03/23/2009, -1/+11Most of the self proclaimed conservatives on Digg seem to be for legalization. The problem is the vast majority of conservatives in America still cling to the 1950s propaganda that marijuana is an addictive and dangerous gateway drug. Liberals are almost universally in favor of legalization. Thus, the segment of the US populus we need to work on convincing is the former, so this is good find Frankyfan. Telling the truth about the economic values of legalization is going to be a huge selling point to them.
- HueyFreeman02, on 03/23/2009, -1/+11If I grew a plant, I know for sure it would die.
Americans are lazy. If it was just a case of "grow your own" then wouldn't that same idea appy to beer? And as far as I know, the beer industry still has a major place in the economy. Sure some will grow their own for the novelty, and maybe some will grow seriously, but nothing beats driving to 711 and getting some burritos and picking up a blunt while your there. Nothing. - NSResponder, on 03/23/2009, -0/+9"President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana"
That would be because the drug war is one of the biggest pork-barrel schemes around.
-jcr - inactive, on 03/23/2009, -12/+21All 5 of them. The rest are busy worshiping invisible sky gods and hating muslims.
- teamgwho, on 03/23/2009, -1/+10It's nice to see a conservative group against the drug war. That said, I'm getting tired of the labels. Everyone gets painted with a broad brush by being labeled a republican, a liberal, a democrat, a conservative and so on. There are many many views within those catagories. I personally find that no one party or label truly represents me and my views. I want government out of people's personal lvies but think they should keep business from ***** us over as employees, stockholders and customers. When you leave business to it's own, well we've seen what happens on Wall Street, and the banks and the real estate companies and many other types of businesses when they're deregulated.
//steps off soap box
I'd like to see every politician out there, starting with Sherrif Joe Arpaio provide an answer to the questions posed on www.legalizationfacts.com/. it would be illuminating. For Them that is. - SwingleB89, on 03/23/2009, -1/+9If people want to smoke pot, they are going to smoke pot - prohibition or no prohibition. The same applies to any drug. This doesn't mean I am promoting the legalization of all drugs, but let's face it... Marijuana is pretty harmless. Ya digg?
- inactive, on 03/23/2009, -2/+10True. He's fiscally conservative, but socially tolerant.
- rd1010, on 03/23/2009, -0/+8Ron Paul is more libertarian than conservative, at least in my opinion
- djm19, on 03/23/2009, -0/+8Obama has essentially made it a state thing. By instructing the feds to not raid anybody unless they violate both state and nation laws. So if california passed legal marijuana, the national government would not interfere, because it doesnt violate state laws to grow/sell/consume it. Its not the most radical pro-pot thing he could do, but its also the most agreeable to both sides of the issue.
- Frankyfan3, on 03/23/2009, -1/+9There's a great line from a Bill Hicks stand up act where he goes on about how prohibition of marijuana is basically an indictment of god.
On the seventh day he rested and looked around and saw that it was good... except for all the marijuana growing everywhere. Damnit, they're going to think I put this there to be used. Now I'm going to have to create republicans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46whvQH2V4E - Billistic, on 03/23/2009, -2/+10Remember it was a newspaper baron that helped shut pot down so it couldn't replace paper. Newspapers aren't exactly going to be around much longer....
- DOUBLEZER00, on 03/23/2009, -1/+9Do you know how hard it is to brew good beer? It's very hard, takes a lot of time and a lot of practice. Do you know how hard it is to grow good weed? It's very hard, takes a lot....you get the picture.
Would you rather spend 5 hours brewing your beer then letting it ferment for a couple weeks/months or would you rather run to a convenient store and pick up a 6 pack? Same goes for growing your own weed. You don't just sprinkle some seeds in the your back yard and start plucking buds, you actually have to know the proper techniques and you have a several month grow time.
Plus the economic benefit wouldn't be there. It's not going to be cheaper to grow your own than to buy commercial bud. Growing takes a lot of power, water and nutrients and those costs add up. It's obviously going to be cheaper to buy commercial because of the bulk they grow it in.
And I don't know about you but I'd rather have some choices of what I'm going to smoke instead of being stuck with the same flavor for the next few months. - Arcueid01, on 03/23/2009, -1/+9It is about time to stop our foolish prohibitions against substances that aren't exceedingly harmful.
- inactive, on 03/23/2009, -1/+8I'd say it's nothing more than conservatism along with giving a ***** about personal freedom.
- inactive, on 03/23/2009, -0/+7I'm a conservative. I smoke weed on occasion.
Mainly on weekends, though, since I have a job, and other responsibilities.
But I'd rather smoke a fatty, then have a drink, any day of the week. - bayvet, on 03/23/2009, -0/+7And here is Conservative diety William F. Buckley discussing his pro-legalization stance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDWpdLEbc1s - akchrs, on 03/23/2009, -3/+10From Change.gov
“Will you consider legalizing cannabis/marijuana/hemp so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a multi-billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”—DJ C, Chicago, IL
Open for Questions Response, 12/15/08: “President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.” - barandon0D9, on 03/23/2009, -1/+8what?
- oc4p0, on 03/23/2009, -0/+7We know tons about it. We have been studying it for at least 50 years.
People who have a history of mental problems should not smoke.
This includes depression, anxiety, dementia, or being bi-polar as it may increase risk or effects from these problems. - friday1970, on 03/23/2009, -2/+8As a die hard in the wool conservative, I agree with you. Government has no business decided for me if I want to kill off a few brain cells. Heck, let enterprises sell it, put an age restriction on it, gov't tax it, and have that fund my social security.
But, I do think there should be some sort of sobriety test to keep people from smoking and driving. - oc4p0, on 03/23/2009, -0/+6It's up to the state. Not the President.
- LibertyLady7, on 03/23/2009, -0/+6@popfrogs. If you're insinuating that his grammatical error is related to his pot smoking, then please try and actually use the brain that you claim is so much better than ours. His error is on account of the fact that very few commenters on Digg proofread their comments before submitting them, as it's hardly a time-saver. I would bet that most people don't look at the comments they submit ever again either.
Errors that occur from not proofreading an Internet comment on Digg are not indicative of a causal relationship between pot smoking and stupidity in either direction. If a person is stupid, they're just stupid. Pot doesn't make you stupid and people who smoke pot are NOT automatically stupid as a result. There are MANY intelligent and capable people that use cannabis regularly. There are also many intelligent and capable people who make grammatical errors by not proofreading things they write. Your comment was presumptous and arrogant. - Wosat, on 03/23/2009, -2/+8Nice broad brush you've got there, poopsy.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 181 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is