What is Digg?272 Comments
- Moonrider, on 10/10/2007, -28/+129And 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.
- 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 - yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -32/+69The title should have been "BREAKING: Committing a felony results in legal consequences of committing a felony!"
- JonForTheWin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33Lawl on freedom-hating retard.
- backoff34, on 10/10/2007, -7/+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'. - ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -7/+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. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12War on Drugs is just like war on terrorism: Empty rhetoric meant to dumb people down.
- 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.
- 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! - 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.
- Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Kucinich, Gravel, and Ron Paul all oppose the drug war. Ron Paul isn't the only one.
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - digh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I'm sure a lot of prostitutes would agree with you.
- Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8A complete absence of thought in one post. Amazing!
- inactive, 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, -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.
- 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?
- inactive, 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 - 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. - Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8So, nothing much will change?
- 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. - awpti, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7ANY felony arrest == loss of many common "rights" for the rest of your life.
- 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.... - 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.
- inactive, 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?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Go back to smoking your cigs and drinking your alcohole and STFU!
- rssej, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Consequences that far outweighs the crime, especially a victimless one (and a law of taste) at that.
- 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.
- 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?
- Jonsblckhwk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think you got that impression from government propoganda which is inherently wrong. I smoke and i vote.
- 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.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11They're trying to keep Nader out of office
- Bluntman4000, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11ZOMG not understanding the purpose of the Article gets you dugg down?! WTF!...
- gordonj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6This is obviously just a way of denying "democracy" to people who don't fit into the demographic of the people in power. Generally tokers are less inclined to be heartless capital ***** that would sell their own kids for a profit. ***** neo-cons!!!
- 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.
- Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Some browsers screw up the formatting when you hit submit.
- 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?
- 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
- 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? - 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.
- 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.
- mushroomsrmagic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5go ***** yourself
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You mean "no taxation without representation"?
Nah, that's just commie talk, eh? - pidey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7One thing that I believe should have been put in the constitution, is that if the government takes away your right to vote -FOR ANY REASON-, you no longer have to pay taxes. It would put a stop to such nonsense.
- 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.
- blaze4metal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4With their logic and science and stuff..
-
Show 51 - 100 of 262 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is