digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Getting Busted for Pot Can Cost Your Right to Vote

alternet.org — Once you've been arrested for the harsh anti-marijuana laws on the books, you can be denied everything from food stamps to voting rights to the right to adopt a child.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Moonrider, on 10/10/2007, -28/+128And this just for choosing to get intoxicated on a much safer substance than alcohol, a substance for which the main ingredient is lawful (at the federal level) to use if it has been extracted by a Big Pharmaceutical corporation and prescribed/administered by a doctor at a very high monetary cost, or if one is one of the very few who are allowed to use government grown marijuana to halt glaucoma. A substance which 12 states have legalized as medicine. Ask yourself: Why? If Marinol is recognized by the federal government as medicine, and if smoked marijuana is recognized as medicine by the federal government to the extent said government grows the stuff and gives it to a small number of glaucoma patients, and if those 12 states have seen the light and know marijuana can be used medically, why does the federal government continue to raid marijuana dispensaries in those 12 states and arrest the people who are there? Why do they continue to put people who are in possession of the herb in prison? Talk about contradictory policies. And since when should bureaucrats and cops (I am talking here about the DEA and the ONDCP) be able to take medical decisions out of the hands of patients and their physicians by overruling what drugs (or how much) the doctor may prescribe? Or be allowed to say scientists may not research this substance? This is beyond outrageous, there is not one whit of common sense in the anti-marijuana laws, or in those members of congress who continue to give the excuse "there is no research proving that marijuana is safe or that it is effective as medicine" when it is they who allow the DEA (without any proof at all that marijuana is harmful) to block any of that research. If you see the ridiculousness of this policy, please take a few moments to go to your Congressperson's and Senator's web-pages and use their email form to send a message to them asking them to please overturn the federal laws against marijuana cultivation, possession, use, and sale. If they get enough requests to change the law they will be forced to do it in spite of Big Pharma's objections. They only object because they cannot patent marijuana, and they see in it competition for their expensive, chemically made drugs. The whole "war on (some) drugs" is stupid, but the war on pot is even more stupid.
    • deaimon, on 10/10/2007, -69/+6Lawl ok Druggie.
      • JonForTheWin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33Lawl on freedom-hating retard.
      • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4He doesn't hate freedom. Freedom has nothing to do with doing what you want. Freedom is all about supporting guys with guns in Iraq...oh wait
      • TheUndertoker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3LAWLZ....ok retard.
    • h3llscaper, on 10/10/2007, -10/+14As an avid smoker, I'd recommend you try to structure your paragraphs a bit better. Stoners like you are the reason the rest of us get a bad name. Uninformed asshats will see that and think "hurrr stoner thoughts" and move on. ...just sayin.
      • Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Some browsers screw up the formatting when you hit submit.
        • sLydE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Which browser is this, Dillo?
        • JonLatane, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Safari sometimes does it for me.
        • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I use good-ol' Firefox and it does it to me occasionally. I don't think the browser does it, I think it's Digg.
      • tc811, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4That was way too long for a digg comment. Imagine if I was high.
      • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's probably the ***** digg comment system, that decides to remove all linebreaks should you edit your comment. Yay for progress.
    • drummer1189, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6other than the topic of h3llscaper's comment (nothing wrong with a few paragraph breaks to give the eyes a rest) everything you said was awesome and worth the read and im glad i wasnt ignorant enough to skip it just becuase it is a chunk of words
    • DiamondIce, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5I want to digg you up Moon, but man that's hard to read as one monolithic paragraph.
    • ProfessorFoo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I don't smoke very much but honestly it's a god damn plant. Since this is America shouldn't I be allowed to smoke any plant I want?
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Man you must have been high to write all that.
    • blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Banning scientists from researching it makes sense to me. Why let them find out that the drug you spend billions of taxpayer dollars on fighting is actually better for you than alcohol, cigarettes, and probably half of the legal drugs out there?
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The "War on Drugs" is a war on our Freedoms, nothing more.
  • gwinerreniwg, on 10/10/2007, -7/+93Doing anything that is a felony can cost you your right to vote. If I am not mistaken, minor MJ possession is a MISDEMEANOR in every state so I doubt this concerns the average pot-head.

    That said, every pot-head should know their state's laws: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516
    • DiggzDE, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4amen
    • shanevendrell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Ehh yeah. 2nd offense of even a roach if you will is a felony in louisiana.
      For my friends first offense they found a barely visible speck in his pocket lint.
    • kindrobot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7You know nothing about drug laws and methods of prosecution. It's common for casual smokers to go to prison for extended periods of time based on manufactured "witnesses" (see:other smokers who know them and get deals for calling their smoking buddy a DEALER). Being a casual smoker does not protect you from lies and the people who will legitimize them in the legal system using authority. Educating themselves about the law will do nothing to protect them. Only changing those laws and the methods of persec... I mean prosecution of said laws will change anything. It's the oldest disrespect of the law in existence. One guy gets off because he's willing to lie about another person who did nothing or even less then he did, thereby benefiting the career of the prosecutor. Winning is the goal of the prosecutor. If you think any of them care about what's true and right, you're delusional. That's the game, and it will probably always be that way. It's why we have so many protections for defendants, which are being chipped away by lawmakers and voters who want to FEEL like decent people. Doing what's truly decent means nothing to most of them, it's the feeling they like, combined with as little thinking and effort as possible.
      • aragon127, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Here's how marijuana enforcement works. Let's say you have a buddy named John. John likes drugs. John sells drugs. John gets busted selling drugs (likely some PCP or other "hard" substance). He tells the cops he knows a big dealer. They cut a deal to let him off. He calls you to hook him up with a quarter pound. You get busted. John gets off. It happens all the time. Ask any copy who's been involved in drug interdictions.
      • Rsimmond, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Your utterly pointless ramblings show that you are the one here who truly lacks an understanding of the legal system. Asside from making a series of utterly unwarranted accusations at no-one in particular, you refuse to justify your comments. Next, your aimless rant does nothing to address the comment originally made by qwinerreniwq. It's understandable that you dislike the plea bargaining system, but really that has precious little to do with the classification of drug crimes as misdemeanor or felony.
    • topside, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'm in Louisiana and I currently do not have the right to vote due to 2nd offense possession of marijuana. I was 17 (in high school) for my first offense. Second offense was a traffic stop where they found an old baggy in my car that I didn't even know was there. Haven't smoked in ages and I wont get my right to vote back for at least 2 years when my felony probation is complete. It sucks because I can't apply for a job without checking the "Convicted felon" checkbox.

      Sure it's my fault and I take responsibility for my actions...but a convicted felon? That harms me WAY more than pot ever did.
  • yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -32/+69The title should have been "BREAKING: Committing a felony results in legal consequences of committing a felony!"
    • nedzeve, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Wrong.

      Being convicted of a felony results in legal consequences of committing a felony.
    • vermax, on 10/10/2007, -9/+14wow. that's very astute. the point of the article is that it shouldn't be a felony, and the punishments are hugely out of proportion to the "crime". don't you have some kids to chase off your lawn, pops?
      • drummer1189, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5word
      • yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I don't know what article you read, but the point of the article was stating the consequences of a felony conviction, which is identical regardless of what the felony was.
    • jooaakim, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12America says very proudly that it is the best democracy in the world.

      That is wrong. Very, very wrong.

      America is a dictatorship. That the actual dictator is chosen does not matter, the "dictatorship" is still there.

      Why?

      Because there's such a huge majority of low income and or coloured people or in other ways not as "important" people that either do not even know how or are not allowed to vote.

      Do you really have to pay the rest of your life for smoking pot or even committing a real crime? Isn't the, for example, prison sentence enough?

      Losing the right to vote is more or less losing the right of being classed as an adult, especially with all other things in mind you also lose the right to.

      Wake up, America. Democracy is long gone in your country.
      • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3"Dictatorship" does not mean "Country that has laws I don't like," Stoney McStonerson.
      • Sibre, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6If someone is too stupid to even know HOW to vote, perhaps they shouldn't be voting in the first place. If they cannot legally vote, then perhaps they should consider any of the many methods to fix that? Become a citizen, file an appeal, etc. Not being allowed to vote isn't necessarily permanent, and in many cases can be changed if you go through the right channels.
        • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"If someone is too stupid to even know HOW to vote, perhaps they shouldn't be voting in the first place."
          Under majority rule, they're promised a vote. Under the rights against tyranny, they're promised fair and ethical decisions made on their behalf.
      • yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes, because democracy == nobody has low income. That's communism, genius.
        • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Eh sorta. Given what we have seen though, everyone is just equally poor with communism.
        • yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2well since "low" is relative, it doesn't really make a difference.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Wow, another Law and Order Conservative.

      Let me guess, you still stand behind the President's law breaking and are a good 'merican. Not saying that is 100%, just saying that it's very likely. Assholes tend to concentrate towards the same choices.
      • yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I didn't say anything about my opinions, so keep your stupid thoughts to yourself. You can smoke whatever the hell you want, I don't care even if it was unhealthy for you, because if you're stupid enough to voluntarily do something likely to result in your death, I don't want you to be here.
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Ya but that title wouldnt have made the homepage.
      • yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Oh yeah, you're right, I would have needed to capitalize random words. BREAKING alone doesn't cut it.
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Ya, but not exactly. For drug laws there are special consequences involving food stamps. In Ga. if you have *any* drug convictions you are not eligible for state aid or foodstamps. If you have any felonies involving violence = same.

      Also, I am sure drug convictions are a big red flag for adoption, just like violent felonies....
  • Jazzillion, on 10/10/2007, -17/+27'The title should have been "BREAKING: Committing a felony results in legal consequences of committing a felony!"

    That comment justifies the penalty of a felony for the use and distribution of a harmless plant. The point to be made is marijuana arrests are responsible for 41% of all drug-related arrests, resulting in the denial of freedoms. No greater good comes from the denial of one freedom leading to the denial of others all in the name of cannabis. Legalize it!
    • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10As someone who supports the legalization of Marijuana, might I ask what the hell you are talking about? The comment justifies the penalty of a felony for a felony. It doesn't matter that it's harmless -- the denial of freedom you mention is the risk freely entered upon by those who choose to break our standing laws. Whether it should be legal or not, the governemnt is not responsible for the choices you make.
      • Jonsblckhwk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2nor is the government responsible to legislate morality.
      • Stormflux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The government is responsible for passing fair laws and getting rid of unjust laws. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
    • chaos36, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3So you shouldn't get punished if you personally don't agree with the law?
      I know the world would be a happier place without my ex and think killing her should be ok but know what would happen if I did.
      • Stormflux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Legalizing a harmless substance is nothing like killing your ex.
    • sremick, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Any reason you didn't reply to the proper thread?
    • zeromancer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3you should all move to ohio. up to 100 grams is a misdemeanor. just don't caught with para.
    • mrbroli, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2"The point to be made is marijuana arrests are responsible for 41% of all drug-related arrests, resulting in the denial of freedoms."

      ...and 53% of those 41% result in plea bargains resulting in guilty pleas to misdemeanor offenses. Less than 23% of those offenders even serve jail time. See? I can make up statistics on the spot too.

      Cite some references or it didn't happen.
      • kryond, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I can't site any refernces, but I work for a company that makes software for cops. Everything I've seen when I've reviewed the systems says that pot alone is ALWAYS dismissed with a citation, just like you get when you're speeding. Sadly, most of the pot incidents also included something stupid or compounding such as driving while high, fighting, theft, or vandalism.
  • irvman21, on 10/10/2007, -26/+24Wait, so there are consequences for violating federal and state laws, even if you disagree with them? Shocking.
    • rssej, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Consequences that far outweighs the crime, especially a victimless one (and a law of taste) at that.
    • dildoolielly, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7
      If you're willing to overlook Gov't abuses against those you disagree with, I've got a newsflash for you: You're a fascist pig who's contributing to the downfall of the American Way.

      Go crawl in a hole.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -15/+15maybe you shouldn't be bitiching about the consequences but the fact that it is illegal. If we don't have a right to our own bodies then might as well overturn roe v. wade while we are at it.
    • digh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I'm sure a lot of prostitutes would agree with you.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4well at least that is legal in some parts of this country whereas recreation marijuana use isn't legal anywhere except for medicinal purposes
        • Cwo655321, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3well its legal it part of the world; go there :)
          • Stormflux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So instead of fixing America, you want to abandon it? Sounds to me like you don't care too much for your country.
        • reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Why should we have to go there? I love this country's founding principles but along the way the politicians started taking away all of our civil liberties. Whether I smoke pot or not has absolutely no effect on you, if you are against it then don't do it. Why can't we just leave it at that?
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2How about if I think we should overturn Roe v. Wade but make cannabis legal? That's more logical to me, but maybe I'm insane...
      • rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I have never tried pot and never intend to. But you will take away my right to do with my body what I like under the direct supervision of a doctor over my dead body.
    • Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Its bad enough that it is illegal, but the staggering amount of discrimination a person convicted of a drug offense faces after they get out of prison pushes it over the edge.
  • slayersharpe, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11They're trying to keep Nader out of office
  • backoff34, on 10/10/2007, -8/+35Now I understand the whole "if you commit a felony, you have to live with the consequences of committing a felony", but seriously... Pot should be legalized and taxed, like cigarettes. Even with taxes it will be cheaper and of higher quality than the usual neighborhood pusher.

    The 'War On Drugs' will lose one of the chief enemies (pot) and the government would save money from jailing the offenders, and make money by taxing it.

    Also the fact that it is safer than both alcohol and tobacco makes one wonder why it is still illegal... The only people who are against this are the old politicians still high off of 'Reefer Madness'.
    • Bluntman4000, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10The Government Makes more money from keeping it Illegal than they would if it was legalized and taxed. Also keeping it illegal comes with the perk of being able to blame everything bad on "those damn Stoner Liberals!"
      • kindrobot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's what's so amazing. You're wrong! Think it through. Can you even begin to imagine what it costs to capture, prosecute, jail and parole a pot smoker (which are all dealers based on most laws)?? If you think that's somehow a profit for the government, you're not thinking straight. But I believe your heart is in the right place.
        • blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Profit for the right people. Privately owned prisons comes to mind. I'm sure the owners donate to politicians.
        • Stormflux, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It may cost the taxpayers more, but politicians don't necessarily care about that. The wasted money gets funneled to special interests, like police departments, prison contractors, pharmaceutical companies, etc... and the politician benefits from all of this. The system is broken.
      • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9"The Government Makes more money from keeping it Illegal than they would if it was legalized and taxed"

        Removing penalties for pot would result in a gradual reduction of occupied bunks in all the minimum-security prisons that were built in the 80's and 90', you have to keep those bunks full to justify building it in the first place. Sorry folks, for this reason and many others it won't get legalized anytime soon.
      • JonParker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I don't think that the government necessarily "makes" money from keeping it illegal, but there are a lot of state and federal jobs dependent on it, including police, DEA, judges, penal workers, and on and on. Entrenched bureaucracy is notoriously difficult to dislodge.
      • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I love stoner logic. Do you even have a clue what it costs to enforce those laws?
        • SzaszMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You ever heard of civil forfeiture? Legalized stealing.
      • rrbest, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Stoners are almost as annoying as athiests
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Hate to break it to you, but more people want it to stay illegal than dont. Thats why most of the laws supporting it get voted down.
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Think about all the cops that would loose their jobs if pot was legalized. Not saying it shouldn't be. Just trying to play devils advocate.
  • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -22/+6Voting for Kerry/Edwards should have cost people their right to vote. The same should be true for Hillary/Obama if it comes to it. Make the world a better place.
    • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Wow, I never thought I'd have to use this term, thinking it generally something right-wing nutters say to insist they're right and the sane are wrong, but here goes...

      Is there a reason you hate democracy?
      • Psionx0, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1You mean that his dislike of candidates that are being bought by big business is a dislike of democracy. Wow.... I guess a lot of people hate democracy.
  • slackerxpc, on 10/10/2007, -21/+4who votes anyways? its not like it really matters.
    • blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That's the reason Bush is still president.
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -10/+20revoking the voting rights of felons seems unconstitutional, because like it or not they still have rights, and need to be able to vote. You are born with your rights, no government can take them away.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Heh, I remember when I was canvassing before the last election, and one guy told me he was a convicted felon and slammed the door. I didn't even know what he meant. Later I found out that felons couldn't vote, and I was shocked.
    • Jacob, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6by breaking the law you are giving up your rights that the law upholds.
      • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4might as well just revoke your citizenship and send you to guantanmo if your convicted of anything.
      • pogfreak, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3your rights are inalienable and cannot be revoked or given up by.

        stampy stampy no erasies
        • Cwo655321, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2sure, like the right to freedom for charlie manson.

          dumbass!
      • drummer1189, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3actually you should have the ability to challenge the law you broke by being able to vote
    • AnotherBrian, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6I think it's reasonable for someone in jail to not be able to vote while in jail. After all they are being punished by having other rights taken away too. It is absolutely wrong to deny someone the right to vote after they have completed their sentence.
    • jooaakim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3spd3rweb: obviously, in america, they can. but then again, america is far from being a democracy.
    • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The government takes people's rights away all the time. That is, basically, what a government is for: to balance your rights against mine.

      The rule is that the government can't take away your rights without due process of law, which since we're talking about trials and convictions here, is clearly what is happening.
    • AdamFromMyspace, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I was charged with felony fleeing a peace officer (doing 112 on an empty highway on my motorcycle.. definitely not fleeing) and over the next seven months and two trips to jail I got the felony dropped. What if the judge had been in a bad mood and I was now a convicted felon, for a victimless crime?

      Just because someone is a felon doesn't mean you know the whole story.
  • fixedcoma, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2No, no, no, requote, it's not like there's any one worth voting for!
    • Jacob, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I hate to say it but... Ron Paul
    • Bluntman4000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Besides Ron Paul!
    • Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Kucinich, Gravel, and Ron Paul all oppose the drug war. Ron Paul isn't the only one.
      • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Dennis "The Menace" Kucinich, I never in my life ever thought I'd ever consider him a viable candidate for anything, much less president. But here I am seeing that I agree with him on most major issues. After Cleveland I thought his career was over, just goes to show.
        • est1979, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2does it go to show you that people who hold the same crazy ideals as you are so bad at actually governing that they can actually run a city into the ground?
          isn't that what you want from the next president, someone who can run the country further into the ground than it already is?
  • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -19/+11ZOMG breaking the law has consequences?! WTF!
    • Bluntman4000, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11ZOMG not understanding the purpose of the Article gets you dugg down?! WTF!...
  • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -13/+13The war on drugs should be stopped. Ron Paul understands the war on drugs causes more problems than the drugs themselves, and wants it stopped. The war on drugs is a war against americans.
    • shanevendrell, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12War on Drugs is just like war on terrorism: Empty rhetoric meant to dumb people down.
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Ron Paul understands very little about anything.
  • hempydave, on 10/10/2007, -10/+12Having the smallest mistake when your young follow you the rest of your life is how the is how a police state uses fear to control the masses.
    • Bluntman4000, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Why are people digg'n him down Its true. Its possible To get withheld Federal Grant Money for College if you've had a Criminal drug conviction .
      • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Good. I would rather that money go to people that obey the law.
        • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's just money to pay for college. You really think that because someone smokes pot, they should also be denied financial aid for attending college? That's an example of an anti-marijuana policy that does more harm to a person's life than marijuana itself.
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Its not just possible to get it withheld. It IS taken away. FASFA has a little check box asking if you have ever been convicted of a drug related offense. Check that and you get no education.
  • maexus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8What are they afraid of that they create harsher and harsher policies against Marijuana. Since the last time they drafted the laws for it, has it become more dangerous? Has it caused more harm to people or make people harm others? I mean, I could understand the increased penalties if that were the case but.. and correct me if I'm wrong.. That isn't the case.
  • Gamer2k4, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Committing a felony means deciding what rights belong to you and what don't. Congress just jumps on board. "You don't think that law applies to you? Well, I guess this one won't belong to you either."
  • 0260, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6thats why libertarians never get enoug votes
  • Richandler, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6Haha one of these days the pot smokers need to march on washington. Every single one of them smoking a blunt.
    • phidelt930, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3are you kidding? that would just give the NARCs the perfect opportunity to capture all the stoners!! protect innocent people from these domestic terrorists!
      • reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1They can't put us all in prison at once...... how long do you think 250 million people would like paying for 50 million more prisoners...... lol it'd be a joke
        • Stormflux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Believe me, the prison industrial complex would LOVE 50 million more prisoners.
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4wait a minute- didn't that already happen? Doesn't NORML do it every year?
    • musters, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3We're probably more effective if we don't smoke a blunt. Any pot rallys just turn into a picnic and hacky-sack party because everyone is stoned.
  • ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -8/+20The War on Drugs is garbage. It's a major tax sink; first it creates criminals by calling for backwards laws with no scientific basis, then it procures funds to obtain those 'criminals', and then more money is consumed for legal proceedings and keeping those people in jail. It promotes misinformation and ignorance in school programs; it results in the infringement of person freedom of the users (it's their bodies), and infringes the freedoms of non-users by allowing for rampant use of random drug tests in companies.

    Attempting to draw logic from the current War on Drugs is impossible. Time and time again it has been shown that a fair amount of 'illicit' recreational drugs are much safer to use than either alcohol or tobacco. It's just been a bunch of feel-good scapegoat politics. Do they not realize they are creating more crime? And since demand doesn't let up, more violent organized crime results.

    But it's hard to see this. When many harmless drugs are listed as Schedule I, research into their activity becomes close to impossible to carry out because they're labeled as having 'no use'. Medicine suffers from not being able to study potential uses. The dangers are successfully obscured because nobody can really investigate them; granted, it does happen, and it's shown that a lot of them aren't that bad, but they still result in harsh punishments for no legitimate reason.

    Additionally, chemists suffer because now all of sudden useful 'precursor' chemicals that could be used in other synthetic methods now have a ton of political restrictions on them.

    I don't see who is winning the War on Drugs or where it is justified. It can't be to protect people. If that were so, we would have restrictions on fast food. About 60% of US citizens are overweight, and, if I remember reading the labels correctly, there are barely any Americans eating properly at all.

    Come on, people. Wake up. Get some personal responsibility. Stop letting them waste our tax dollars.
    • pogfreak, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Freedom works both ways: pot should be legalized and companies have every right to ask drug tests of their employees.
      • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't see why you're being dugg down.
        I'm all for legalization.
        I'm all for companies doing what they want as long as they're not prejudicing against certain core aspects that are traditionally discriminated against in ways that need to stop.
      • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1No no no, its only "freedom" if it supports the way they want things. Thats the libtard way.
      • blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I agree as long as the test proves that you are under the influence AT THE TIME OF THE TEST. The fact that someone smoked 2 weeks ago on a Saturday morning should not have any relevance to their job.
      • SzaszMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Even better - legalize all drugs and allow employers to set whatever conditions they want for employment, period.
  • lebsoljah, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6What about alcohoics?
  • Redemption289, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8First of all, this article is misleading. If you get felony charges for intent to distribute thats one thing, but most people get misdemeanors for getting busted with an eighth in their car, which is not grounds for removing voting rights.

    Also, if you are caught carrying any illegal drug into China the penalty is death (no joke). Just a fun little fact for those of you planning on taking a trip to Asia any time soon.
    • reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Interesting little tidbit: the dea once printed a pamplet originally titled "how to hold your own in a discussion about legalization" they decided to change the name because it pointed out the fact that they were having trouble developing logical arguments against it. The main theory to the books was to skew the conversation away from legalizing marijuana towards harsh drugs. The response to the suggestion that the drug war is unwinnable was to point out china's success with ridding their opium problem. Imagine that! The dea would like to exterminate every pot smoker in the country. They are all about freedom and human rights lol
  • Ugoff, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10A lot of these pot laws are deeply rooted in racism. I remember watching about it on the History Channel about how the federal government would spread such sick propaganda. Propaganda would include such gems like pot will make a "negro" go crazy and rape women and similar crap like that. It used to be that in Texas, if you were caught with just one joint, you could have gotten the death penalty. It was just a cop-out against the Hispanics who used it there. If you get a chance to watch it, it's pretty fascinating, they have a whole series on various drugs. I think it was called "Hooked, Illegal drugs" or something like that. If you get a chance, try to find it online. I think they have some videos on Youtube.

    Anyways, it's personally not my lifestyle choice but I think that it's ridiculous that we are having our prison system overfilled with people who violate these ridiculous laws. Honestly, alcohol and cigarettes are more dangerous.
    • Redemption289, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9My favorite is still the Canadian MTV anti-pot commercial where these two kids (guys) are hitting the pipe then start kissing, and the kid in the back is like, "dude, aren't you brothers". Apparently pot makes you gay and incestual too. I never knew.
      • NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Got a youtube link by anychance? Sounds like it would be a pretty funny video.
  • andrgo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11I've never used drugs (no really, I haven't) but I do know many who have. If people can abuse alcohol legally (as long as they don't take it out on someone, or drive) why can't they abuse drugs? I mean if someone wants to get trashed, at their own place, on their own time, without harming anyone or anything - why can't they? They can with alcohol, they can drink themselves to death if they'd like and the cops wouldn't say "boo". But when it comes to marijuana, not even those who need it medically for horrible pain I can't even imagine, why the hell can't they and why can't people help them grow it? Marijuana from everything I've understood about it is only as taboo as the law makes it, it's not any different from painkillers, booze, or cigarettes - and those are all everyday buyable things!

    Mike Gravel 2008! The only guy that wants to do something about this.
    • Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Agree with most of what you said, but Gravel isn't the only one opposed to the War on Drugs. Kucinich is a big opponent of Drug Prohibition, and Ron Paul isn't a fan either.
  • SD929, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6Felony is a felony.
  • lebsoljah, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6Which stoner would actually stand up and go adopt a child... or even take the time to VOTE...
    Lazy bastards...
    • reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12I am a proud stoner and I have voted in every city, county, state, and federal election since I turned 18. So you can take your opinion and shove it up your ass.
  • omegaredIX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7If the marijuana laws bother you that much then petition and protest away. Let your voices be heard from the internet forums all the way to the senate steps. The change can come, you just have to want it. But how bad and how far is everyone willing to go in order for this change to happen.
    • lebsoljah, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Stoners are too lazy to do anything... and promoting marijuana by legalizing it would create a generation of lazy kids who have no goals in life but to get high

      Better stay illegal... Better if some don't know about it... That won't prevent me from smoking at my house
      • drummer1189, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3wrong
      • worms83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0lebsoljah: As apposed to all the fat ***** kids we got growing up now? Seriously, I don't remember elementary school kids pushing a buck fifty before 6th grade 10 years ago.
      • blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes. Legalizing would mean a 5 year old can buy a joint. That's exactly what everyone is thinking. Next argument, please.
  • Sandurz, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Not that voting really matters.

    Anyone heard of the electoral college?
    • nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I have, but what the hell is your point?
    • awhiteflame, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The electoral college upholds the local-state-federal government system written in the constitution. There is nothing wrong with the system, it's just used as a talking point by bitter democrats.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Maintains_the_federal_character_of_the_nation
      • reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Wrong. The electoral college gives states with small populations of illiterate redknecks more power than they should have. I should know I am from one of these states. If you win the popular vote then you don't necessarily win the general election. This is not democracy in action, this was written into the constitution in order to keep the southern states such as the carolinas from refusing to sign the constitution. This law is just like the 3/5th's comprimise and should be repealed because it is antique and no longer has a purpose. The union will hold even if 1 man = 1 vote.
  • angelcitysdevil, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Pot smokers are that much of a harm to society? Yet, certain Americans can endanger lives by driving under the influence of alcohol more than once, and then be offered millions of dollars to be interviewed after paying their debt to society.
  • GamingNews, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6It can be a subjective topic. I am more sympathetic to their cause, but at the same time, I've lived in two countries where those "first time dealers" would have been executed. Depending on who you ask, some may say that they get off very lightly.
    • trurevmbr07, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1how you come up with losing your rights is a light punishment i have no idea, horrific punishment for a victimless crime doesnt make an extreme punishment for a victimless crime any better
  • anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3sufferage marches then for ex felons, and those under 18. what ***** country is this, that you have next to no say so in the decision making process of the laws you live under... and further, many people have no say so whatsoever.
    so basically, if you're under 18, you have no more rights than an ex felon and neighter of you have any say so in the laws under which you must live. you can't vote, can't run for office, can't adopt a child, etc. bull. total bull.
  • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -4/+4i think someone is on an anti-pot soapbox here on digg, there's this story and another one a couple of stories above this one on the front page saying that marijuana is worse for your health than smoking cigarettes.

    buried, along with the other one.
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You right. They should throw me in jail for smoking cigarettes too. Maybe later they will go after people who eat too much salt.

      And smoking ONE joint every few days with MULTIPLE people is totally different than smoking cigs.
      2 joints a week lets say smoked between you and one other person = 4 joints a month or 20 cigs
      20 cigs in a pack, at one pack a day = 600 cigs a month.
  • sniperhare, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3It should be punsihable by these amounts. Breaking the law deserves punishment, they're laws for a reason.
    • FredoBerfil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4What "reason" is marijuana illegal, pray tell? The only reasons I'm aware of is racism, bad science, and bigotry.
  • Monty2, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4GOOD To quote liar liar DON'T BREAK THE LAW *****
  • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7The very idea that you can remove someone's right to vote is a huge problem. You could compare this to death penalty. The proponents will show you serial killers or child rapists as extreme examples but in the end the result is that they're sending to death a 16 year boy from some gang who killed once in a very particular situation. The same people will tell you "you wouldn't let a child rapist vote, would you?" and they'll use it to prevent perfectly normal people from voting because they know that certain behavior in life are also related to some voting habits. (Short said few pot-smoker are extreme right-wing).
    • blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why shouldn't child rapists vote once they are out of prison? That's what I ask anybody who advocates taking rights away from people who have paid their debt to society, whatever debt that has been.
  • kindrobot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I believe this is called disenfranchisement and recall reading somewhere that this had a big part in altering projected election results in the last few years.

    Ah, yes, this author mentioned it in a talk recently. (book tv?)
    Sasha Abramsky
    http://www.americanfuries.com/
  • PYRO200055412, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5What does it matter. Our votes dont really matter anymore.
    • musters, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Because too many people like you opt not to vote
  • gtak55, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4oh no. i wont be able to vote for dirty politicians....
  • PieterOpie, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8America loves to punish. This is too ridiculous. It is this sort of madness that has led to the USA having more people in prison than any other country on earth. People who engage in a victimless crime just do not belong in prison and do not deserve this insane treatment. I wonder about your "freedom", especially since that thug Bush has been screwing with your laws and constitution. It's pot.... not that nasty poisonous alcohol. You know - that stuff that is involved in about half of all crimes committed; the cause of a large chunk of the national death toll. The cops and others must be making a heap of corrupt cash for this to stay as it is. Why the hell do so many criminals always end up in charge of society? It stinks..... worse than pot. Eventually it will become virtually impossible to find a presidential candidate who has not smoked it and perhaps then things may change. I find it hard to believe there are still people who think it is such an "evil" substance to be avoided at all costs. Hmmm.... then again there are a lot of crazy right-wing fascist "christians" busy-bodies over there in the good old US of A. I applaud the Dutch (my homeland) for taking the sensible approach to marijuana. They have better things to do. Live and let live.... that's my motto. Minding everyone else's business all the time is unhealthy and annoying. Let's all drink to that and go wreck something!!!! WOOO HOOOOO...... (hehe)
    • FredoBerfil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I've always been impressed by the Dutch. They're capitalists, AND they manage to base their culture on the idea of inclusiveness and tolerance. Contrast that with us Americans, who base our culture on exactly the opposite, as demonstrated quite nicely by this article.
  • lopla, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7It's because of the Christians folks. And the sick thing is that they are the ones smoking pot. Put it this way.. I dated a Southern Baptist born again (ok she was hot so cut me some slack), this chick was wild in all respects and a heavy dope smoker and drinker. But on Sundays she was angelic, dressed nice, in church and "saved". She will be the same type wailing about the evils of pot etc. The hypocrisy of these moral wannabes is astounding and it is they who are in control of our lives!
    • soupdawg30, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Didn't you know most Baptists are hypocrites.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I argued with this dude about legalizing Pot -- he was against it.
      He was a civil servant going to college, while he was presumably in charge of the Water works for the county. A very conservative guy, who admitted taking a recreational toke of Pot now and then.

      I told him; "That recreational smoke could cost you everything if you were caught."
      He said; "Look, if it were legal, it would get out of hand."
      I said; "What, like MORE people might smoke it? You mean, the crazy people who aren't you?"

      I just don't get these ***** hypocrites. MOST of these people who are Law-and-order types are breaking at least one or two laws. But they don't trust people so they like the long arm of the law coming down hard on the riff raff. And the riff raff are always defined as people who don't act just like them. THEIR problem is OK, however, but Gambling will destroy people. Sure, people can get destroyed by video games as well, or blogging too much on the Internet.

      People get out of hand on all sorts of things -- so they need treatment and support. If people go to prison for a harmless addiction, then they can ruin their lives. My brother now makes a Quarter Million $ a year, and does important work that helps our economy -- he also sold Pot as a kid, but instead of the "urban" punishment of Jail time, he went to a residential treatment program. So, the white suburban kid grows out of the youthful indiscretion, while the black kid becomes the hardened criminal.

      I think people deep down, understand that this is hypocracy -- they just like the status quo the way it is. And it makes me sick.
  • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6What does it matter what crime you committed... if your a citizen of the USA... you should be able to vote... it's not like the votes of a few criminals would effect the outcome of the elections... none of the candidates want to free murders...
  • soupdawg30, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Get over it. Get a life and quit smoking pot.
    • Coottie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Do you Digg articles to make other see that they are good?? Do you bury bad ones?? If so....then you are voting here. Perhaps you should vote IRL also?
    • dildoolielly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Go back to smoking your cigs and drinking your alcohole and STFU!
    • mushroomsrmagic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5go ***** yourself
  • awpti, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7ANY felony arrest == loss of many common "rights" for the rest of your life.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2problem is... too many non-serious things result in felony arrests...
    • wishninja, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Rights should never never be taken away. everyone should have the right to vote just as they have the right to breath air.
  • Coottie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Any felony CONVICTION and the person will automatically lose their voting privileges for life. Getting arrested and charged with a felony is only the first step in the process.
  • justiceforsome, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Is this just fud? How is this new, important or relevant to the modern ongoing struggle against marijuana prohibition? Since we all know any felony will take away more rights, what was the purpose behind submitting this story ? Please stop posting crap.
  • peranadigital, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5I don't think people that are smoking pot are really too concerned with voting.
    • insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1true. .half of all the people who are politicly active use drugs. . as we notice by the stupid laws they come up with. .
      • TnTBass, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1So you're suggesting everyone gets high so we can get some good laws passed, since half of the people aren't drug users and come up with really stupid laws?
        At least if Bush smoked drugs, he wouldn't be so eager to invade other countries... he'd probably have just gotten some Cheeto's instead.
    • dildoolielly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8""I don't think people that are smoking pot are really too concerned with voting.""-----------------------

      I don't think you "think" at all
    • Jonsblckhwk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think you got that impression from government propoganda which is inherently wrong. I smoke and i vote.
      • peranadigital, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I got that impression smoking pot for years during my teens and early twenties when my friends and I had very little interest in the political method. We definitely talked a lot about the potential outcomes of good politics but weren't much interested in the elections nor voting.
        If the majority of people that smoked pot voted, would it still be illegal?
    • musters, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"I don't think"... it seems like to me that you're not the one who is doing the thinking, and perhaps those smoking the weed are the only ones sitting down trying to solve some real problems in the US.
      I'd say I know more people who are pot smokers and passionate about political issues than I do non-pot smokers.
    • FredoBerfil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Then why take away their right to vote, if they're not interested in voting?
    • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Pot smokers will vote for a candidate if they say they'll end the drug war.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I don't think Felons should lose the right to vote. All you would need to do, to remove the right to vote to a large segment of the population, is to convict them of a minor crime and call it a felony. Just in case, Republicans make sure they disenfranchise a LOT of black voters -- so that all these felons aren't rushing to ruin our wonderful voting system;
    http://keywords.oxus.net/archives/category/law/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush
    http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=1880

    >> The point is, that you want representational Democracy. You could make 54% of the population felons, and basically make them the slaves of the other half -- because they would cease to have representation.

    Something is already wrong with our judicial system, and society, that so many people are going to prison. The potential abuse of the public, far outweighs the abuse that a Felon could make, voting perhaps, to legalize the drug they were convicted of. The worst that could happen, is that felons vote for the NRA -- which is doing a fine job of keeping them stocked with "stolen" weapons that fell off the back of the weapons truck (wink, wink) -- like weapons manufacturers aren't getting paid for all these weapons.

    I also find it ludicrous, to worry about a person voting twice -- it's hard enough to get people to vote ONCE. Much less ask them to risk jail time to be bussed around to vote. It's a lot of work, and I don't think there are any real cases that could turn any elections -- I mean, they've caught like, Anne Coulter voting twice, and I hardly think that one person made a difference. Thank God, Anne wasn't given the punishment that the crime usually includes if you vote Democratic.
  • kindrobot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"by breaking the law you are giving up your rights that the law upholds."

    How can anyone hold this up as if it were logic or common sense? Someone explain to me why this makes any sense beyond making people feel better about themselves. Last time I checked, most people think the law is best when it's used to punish people. So we agree to a term which equals the appropriate punishment for said law breaking. If a man has served his time for breaking the law, why should he lose his rights if he already paid the price?? You people disagree with yourselves and you don't even have the capacity to realize it.
  • JRW160, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"you can read the Constitution all you want, and you're never going to find any clause which grants a universal right to vote to American citizens. You will find a 15th Amendment where it is written that a person can't be prevented from voting because of their race, ethnicity, gender ... etc. All the 15th Amendment does is restrict the states and the federal government from turning voters away from the polls because of race, gender or religion. Nothing in the 15th Amendment says that either the states or the federal government must allow all people to vote. There are rights granted to all Americans. You can worship and express yourself as you please. Sorry .. no right to vote." --Boortz
  • nesibus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yea...cause you would have to be high to vote for some of the people that run for office.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.