What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
280 Comments
- zizzybaloobah, on 02/24/2009, -2/+127"If we think the drug cartels are going to tuck their tails between their legs and go home, I think we're badly mistaken," Fay said. "They're going to heavily target our children."
News flash to Ms. Fay: they already do that. - bluesparks, on 02/24/2009, -4/+79See? It's bad puns like this in the headline that make no one take the legalization lobby seriously.
People are going to ignore good math until you stop acting like children. - MofugginPaulrus, on 02/25/2009, -0/+52It's a stupid point anyways. What 8-year-old has the MONEY to buy drugs? The privacy?
- okvol, on 02/25/2009, -2/+41Mainstream churches and illegal cartels will march side-by-side fighting this idea. But the resistance needs to be overcome.
1. The income from taxation would greatly relieve the current burden on the state and federal governments, just like the repeal of prohibition.
2. Release the inmates that are serving time for possession. This would free up a lot of jail space, and further relieve the financial burden on the state government. California spends more on prisons than schools.
3. Most the propaganda against pot is BS. The facts are tough to come by, but violence and gateway effects are scientifically unproven.
Come on, and let's get behind this idea. - mparker21311, on 02/25/2009, -1/+33The simple fact that drug cartels want Cannabis illegal should tell you something.
By making Cannabis legal, you're taking a significant portion of money away from the bad guys. You're also going to slow the "gateway effect" by not having people buy from dealers who just love to offer free Cocaine with each Ounce of Cannabis. - imacommi, on 02/25/2009, -2/+33FTA: "If we think the drug cartels are going to tuck their tails between their legs and go home, I think we're badly mistaken," Fay said.
"They're going to heavily target our children."
What a bunch of crap! Have you ever seen anyone on the corner trying to push little kids to buy black market beer? These people really need to get a life! - toimenator, on 02/25/2009, -0/+24Who wrote that headline?
- icemanGFX, on 02/24/2009, -8/+32You know, it's fine for them to fight it, the cartels are just going to get more violent until it's legalized, it's just a matter of time.....
- Spawn2105, on 02/25/2009, -0/+23Poll FTA at time of my reading:
"Should the state tax and regulate marijuana?
91.7 % Yes
8.3 % No
1701 total responses"
I know its still a relatively small sample size and you won't find a completely accurate sample pool on digg or the latimes, but i still think those numbers so far speak for themselves... - Smokeydabear, on 02/25/2009, -2/+24"Those costs include Doritios, Slurpies, beef jerky and maybe one of those 99 cent bags of Corn Nuts," said expert Spliff's McDoobieshire.
- phschris1, on 02/25/2009, -3/+23The cartels dont want this legalized...they make a fortune off it being a black market item...if its legalized the cost of marijuana will plummet.
- JTMON, on 02/25/2009, -0/+20It will plummet. It's called supply and demand, basic economics. The price is part that, part risk. Take away the risk and the fact that ANYONE can then grow it and you get much much cheaper prices.
- KSUdesigner, on 02/25/2009, -0/+20Just like everybody is a raging alcoholic since that is legal too, right? Some people will be idiots no matter what, but it's not like everybody is going to be stoned 24/7. You don't go to work or school drunk do you? There would definitely be restrictions if it were legalized, just like there are restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use.
- avianeddy, on 02/25/2009, -2/+21"Wont someone PLEASE think of the children?!"
Sure, if we had been doing that, we wouldn't be IN this financial mess and leaving trillions of dollars of debt for them.
Legalizing mj would bring in tax revenue... and yes, some of our kids will be smoking it in the future... gotta be frank about that, but at least it will be regulated and not an illicit "gateway drug." - bromac, on 02/25/2009, -0/+18New costs on society?
*****. People drink less when there's more pot to smoke. You'll actually reduce the costs that alcohol already inflicts on society. The worst violent crime a stoner will commit is murder an extra large pizza.
***** hypocrites. Go back to your scotch and stfu, - Shiftgood, on 02/25/2009, -3/+21biased pool.
- jgubbe, on 02/25/2009, -4/+21LEGALIZE IT!
- inactive, on 02/26/2009, -0/+14Plummet is correct.
- vat0r, on 02/25/2009, -1/+15They still think all the weed in the US comes from drug cartels uh? Funny, I live in an area of the country that is loaded with pot smokers and growers. Guess what, low violence, low crime and absolutely no gangs or cartels. Imagine that..
- alexsk8ca, on 02/25/2009, -2/+16Druggies? Do you drink beer? That's a harder drug. Do you drink Coffee? Caffeine is a harder drug. Would you call those people druggies? More people are addicted to caffeine then anything, and a hell of a lot more people die from it too.
- ZZeke, on 02/25/2009, -0/+13I was just having a conversation today in which someone was telling me about a college-age kid they know who has either completely deliberately trashed or drunkenly wrecked 3 totally decent cars in the last 4 years, and now his parents are looking to buy him another vehicle (and insure it for him)! I know of a 98 explorer that's a little hacked up from being a work truck but otherwise in good running condition for about 2500 dollars or less, so I suggested that as a good replacement, especially since he's probably just going to wreck it anyway. Later in the day I heard that the vehicle was discussed by the family, but they're not interested because "it's too old, he wants something 2001-05"...
The parents are the ***** problem. They're either too damn stupid or too damn lazy to recognize what their role as parents is in the first place, and with regards to the statement above taken from the article, the government is ALWAYS looking to prey on their ignorance and indifference in order to push whatever the agenda of the day might be...and people suck it up like it's going out of style. Thankfully not all parents fall into this category, but it sure seems as if more and more do with each passing generation. - apetrie, on 02/25/2009, -0/+13This statement is completely ignorant and shows your total bias:
"I know I would not want someone who smokes pot working for me the same as I would not want a drunk."
A pot smoker does not equate to a drunk. Unless you think anyone who works with you who has ever had a drink, including a glass of wine with dinner on Fridays or something, is a "drunk".
You could argue that a major pothead, someone who smokes all the time, would be just as bad to work with as a "drunk", but equating anyone who smokes it at all with drunks is just ridiculous and stupid. I sincerely hope you are not in a position of any authority in your workplace. - walkingdogs, on 02/25/2009, -0/+13Let alone the countless pill poppers in this country that take who knows what drugs for who knows what ailments. It's prohibition straight up and hypocritical in the very least.
- specter19, on 02/25/2009, -1/+14Wow, you must have some seriously sketchy dealers if they`re offering you free Yayo with your weed.
- thescorpion420, on 02/25/2009, -0/+12Why is it always OH THE CHILDREN! If people did some parenting then perhaps their helpless children would make the proper choices in life.
- angelgabe, on 02/25/2009, -0/+12And some Funions!
- Manther, on 02/25/2009, -0/+12When people smoke a lot of bud secretly, some get into harder drugs, as you can tell in places like the United States. Bottom line, THERE IS NO WAY TO SUCCESSFULLY STOP THE USE OF ANY DRUGS. You can tone it down by making it harder to get, but making it illegal does NOT make it harder to get, if anything it makes it easier.
I had a really hard time getting alcohol in high school, but pot I could get all over the place. If it's not being sold in a store, it's being sold in the streets. Everyone has access to the streets, but not everyone can get into a regulated store. - paperclipsNsoup, on 02/25/2009, -0/+11Yeah, I live in a really pot friendly area too, theres been a rash of grow busts, always a young couple in a quite neighborhood that converted their entire upstairs into a grow operation.
Never have I seen anything where they were busted for doing dumb *****. Its always that neighbor that smells something funny. - mparker21311, on 02/25/2009, -1/+12Never forget about Ron Paul.
- DougChristian, on 02/25/2009, -0/+11Frankyfan: So. There will always be ***** trying to stop progress out of their own interest. This has no place in the debate. They can go get jobs at the new pot shops.
okvol: You forgot:
1) Money saved by eliminating enforcement.
2) Fortunes made with the rebirth of the industrial hemp industry.
3) That good feeling we'll all get from upholding the principles of personal liberty that the country was founded on. - lofispy, on 02/25/2009, -0/+11How do know that no one you work with gets high? Membership statistics from NORML pretty much prove that people from every walk of life, profession, and income level smoke weed, and every single testing mechanism put into place by businesses looking to keep stoners from working for them is easily beaten. And given you're obvious bias against people who smoke, I would say it's not likely anybody would tell you if they did, especially is you have any sort of authority or pull. And finally, given no tokers actually usually show ANY sign of their hobby to those they consider hostile to it. All told, I would pretty much guarantee that you live in a world where you're perceived reality has little semblance to the one you actually reside in, which is likely filled with all kinds of so-called devious behavior behind closed doors and away from your prying eyes. Just a thought....oh, and finally, while not wanting to work with any users is certainly your right if you so chose, I believe it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about people and the realities of the world you live. Not to trying to knock you or anything, it's just that you're life is probably filled with users that you consider good people BECAUSE THEY ARE, and you don't even know it.
- DirtyVicar, on 02/25/2009, -1/+12I'm really sure an executive at Save Our Society From Drugs is going to be an authoritative expert on drug cartels. The newspaper shouldn't be printing softball quotes like that.
- Frankyfan3, on 02/25/2009, -1/+12These federal law to ban cannabis was not based on anything in relation to science, medicine or reducing harm. The study commissioned by Fiorello Laguardia and the American Medical Assocation's position were not only ignored, but were not even brought into the congressional discussion to be ignored.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36KLuAZd8Qk
William Randolph Hearst, with his wood pulp industry, along with Dupont and their growing plastics industry conspired with Harry J. Anslinger who was suddenly out of the job of enforcing alcohol prohibition to outlaw cannabis hemp. And the initial targets of this enforcement were not the "negros that will go to bed with white women" or the jazz houses, but the industrial hemp farmers that offered a competition with a highly renewable agricultural source of fiber.
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this." Albert Einstein
(1879-1955) Physicist and Professor, Nobel Prize Winner
Source: "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921 - paperclipsNsoup, on 02/25/2009, -0/+11@specter19,
Agreed, I don't even know any pot dealers that deal anything else... Well except shrooms at certain times of the year. And it's more of a 'I'll tell you if you ask' policy. - Frankyfan3, on 02/25/2009, -0/+10Don't forget the Prison Guard Unions. They are fighting this because overtime due to overcrowded prisons benefits them financially.
- diggdiggerid, on 02/25/2009, -0/+10care to provide any real argument?
- McGuinness, on 02/25/2009, -1/+11Time to buy Frito Lay stock, consumption of Doritos skyrockets in California in 5...4....3...
- Frankyfan3, on 02/25/2009, -0/+10Until that time comes, educate yourself and those around you about the rights and responsibility of the jury.
You can find someone NOT GUILTY of a crime if you deem the law to be more harmful than the defendant's "criminal" acts.
This is one of the ways alcohol prohibition was brought to an end, and we can fight corruption, violent crime and the waste of our resources by finding violators of prohibition law Not Guilty.
Judges routinely instruct jurors that they are not to determine the justness of the law in question, only whether the defendant is guilty of breaking it. This is simply not true.
http://www.fija.org//index.php?page=displaytxt& ...
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/z ...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163877,00.html
The doctrine of jury nullification rests on two truths about the American criminal justice system: (1) Jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return, and (2) Defendants cannot be retried once a jury has found them not guilty, regardless of the jury's reasoning.
So why do judges continue to get jury nullification wrong? Many point to an 1895 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that judges aren't obligated to tell jurors of their power to nullify bad law. Some have wrongly interpreted that decision to invalidate the doctrine of jury nullification altogether. They're mistaken.
In fact, the Supreme Court has since repeatedly upheld the doctrine of nullification. In 1952, for example, the Court found that "juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges." And in 1972, that "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." - cbrunet, on 02/25/2009, -0/+9Did anyone else read "They're going to heavily target our children." and think "Ohhh, won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN??"
- inactive, on 02/25/2009, -3/+12Whenever I couldn't find someone to buy me beer I'd just buy weed. Dealers don't id.
- jeremymccurdy, on 02/25/2009, -1/+10The more it gets nailed into people's heads that this could mean, jobs, major cashflow, and a drop in the prison population the better. Once it's leaglized then people will shut up.
- dizmoz, on 02/25/2009, -0/+9Funions are amazing
- pjpete, on 02/25/2009, -1/+10haha! I didn't even notice that- I actually read talking point. Boy, I guess I should put down the... uh, yeah.
- mparker21311, on 02/25/2009, -0/+9Which is why I refuse to call Cannabis "weed" or "dope". Let's not use the negative terms created to make this plant look bad. I don't even like to use the term "high" because we don't go around calling people "low".
- bromac, on 02/25/2009, -1/+9People in America don't pay attention to math, especially good math. Case in point: credit crisis, lotteries....
They vote and develop their opinions based on emotion, for the most part. Though I agree, the pot lobby needs someone more articulate that the average college kid.
Still, I'd like to see the arguments for the end of prohibition. Probably went something like "Hey, if you legalize whiskey, you'll get her frisky!" or any other parallel to the primal and crude alcohol advertisments that people just laugh away. Double standard, anyone? - inactive, on 02/25/2009, -0/+8Not to mention that "dope" can also refer to heroin.
- Flatlineskillz, on 02/25/2009, -0/+7The problem with your statement is the fact that Pot stays in your system long after you smoke it as opposed to alcohol where it leaves your system relatively quickly. Tests for alchohol cannot be detected in urine beyond 3-4 days in the best circumstances. As far as hiring is concerned a person could technically be a raving drunk all weekend long come in monday morning and pass some screenings. A person could go to a concert and smoke up then test positive weeks later.
I agree with you that DUI rules should include being high and most of them do ( Driving While Ability Impaired). I dont think smoking pot a month ago should proclude someone from their job when you have someone who could drink heavily and days later pass a screening. - drmobutu, on 02/25/2009, -0/+7DUI laws already cover being under the influence of ANYTHING, even cold medecine. And as far as potheads "stinking up" public places, those places can just put up a "No Smoking" sign. Companies will still have the right to do pre-employment drug tests, and insist that their employees not be drunk, or high, at work.
- specter19, on 02/25/2009, -0/+7Um hello, Mcdonalds dollar menu is like the holy grail of stoners.
- JTMON, on 02/25/2009, -0/+7It's already written up with an age limit so they are ahead of you on that.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 284 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is