Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Why Conservatives Should Support Legal Marijuana
nationalreview.com — There are approximately 700,000 marijuana-related arrests made very year. Most of these — 87 percent — involve nothing more than mere possession of small amounts of marijuana. This exercise in scrupulosity costs us $10-15 billion per year in direct expenditures alone.
vault- 2551 diggs
- digg it
- jcm267, on 02/27/2008, -24/+170Regular diggers' heads will explode. They won't know whether to bury this for National Review or digg and favorite for pro-legalization.
- Jambi, on 02/27/2008, -8/+75Not really. Why would we bury an article before reading it? Also, I think you mistake Digg for being a bastion of liberalism, when in fact people being payed or asked to digg articles up or down tend to skew the statistics quite a bit. The National Review, along with a number of other conservative magazines, journals and pundits has been championing legalizing marijuana and certain other drugs for at least a decade now. It was a good idea then, it's a good idea now, and yet it'll be a cold day in hell before legalization happens, thanks to all the bureaucrats and politics with a vested interest in the status quo, along with the (often religious) teetotaler brigade.
- jcm267, on 02/27/2008, -21/+28Outside of the LGF-friendly confines of my friends list, digg IS a bastion of liberalism. I don't see how you think otherwise.
- Jambi, on 02/27/2008, -6/+46Because I've seen plenty of intelligent conservative posts, just not on the hot button issues of the week like Obama or the Bush Administration. After all, look at the constant support for Ron Paul, a small-government conservation/libertarian if ever I saw one.
- jcm267, on 02/27/2008, -49/+16I always had a hard time finding any intelligent posts coming from the Ronbots. Ron Paul was the candidate of choice of conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, and naive college students. There wasn't very much support on digg for, say, Romney.
- floatingorb, on 02/27/2008, -13/+13From the article: "We're not going to find someone running for president who advocates reform of those laws...."
Ron Paul has stated that he would use presidential pardon to free 'non-violent' drug offenders convicted under federal laws.
Here is a nice vid set to Led Zepplin's "stairway to heaven" that sums up the laws:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mapMhS6AoMw
@Jcm: Why am I not surprised to run into you here? Jcm is a known (some think paid to be) troll of the bury brigade people. He slams anything RP, 911 truth, and I see now hemp/cannabis; He has "heard his master's voice" and came arunnin' to this one--It threatens his master's control structure.
Why do the powers-that-be spend so much of our money on something so obscenely unjust as the "drug war?" It is because you gotta spend money to make money. - jcm267, on 02/27/2008, -8/+24I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs you pathetic troll.
- card51short, on 02/27/2008, -7/+2naive college students...lol jcm believes the media and the government are working for him...to HELP him lol
JCM you are gonna get hit so hard when you wake up. Just remember my name. - floatingorb, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2@Jcm267
Then I apologize. I misunderstood your 'presense' on this posting.
- mightydavefish, on 02/27/2008, -14/+12Well, a bastion of "no *****" which is what the entire rightard movement is based on.
You guys whine because no one believes the crap you guys spew, because you can't back any of it up.
Face it, "i hate muslims and gays and women" is not a defensible position.
Warmongering is not a defensible position.
Defending corruption is not a defensible position.
You dumbasses choose to shill for evil, then cry about it when you are treated like pieces of *****?
Moron.
It's funny that you choose to surround yourself with the other floaters over at LGF.
We need a stronger flush on that.- jcm267, on 02/27/2008, -8/+17It's digg's resident bigot/anti-LGF troll, mightydavefish! Hello, bigot!
- Terr01, on 02/27/2008, -6/+8If your mental model is to contrast "LGF-friendly" as the major alternative to a "bastion of liberalism"... well, I'd suggest your calibration for ideology is just a little off.
- tech42er, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2You think LGF is liberal? They're incredibly pro-Israel (as am I, usually).
- Terr01, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1Alternative. Not substitute.
- Jambi, on 02/27/2008, -6/+46Because I've seen plenty of intelligent conservative posts, just not on the hot button issues of the week like Obama or the Bush Administration. After all, look at the constant support for Ron Paul, a small-government conservation/libertarian if ever I saw one.
- caferrell, on 02/27/2008, -10/+38I think that digg is also a bastion of libertarian and even anarchist thought. What you don't see represented here in a percentage that corresponds to National voting patterns are the mainstream "conservatives".
The fact is that the great majority of mainstream "conservatives" are pretty much just clueless parrots of mainstream media. That means that they do not do well on digg because they cannot defend indefensible philosophcal and political positions especially related to worldwide empire.
Frankly, mainstream Democrats also do poorly on digg and are not well represented for the same reasons that apply to the "conservatives". Most diggers are more thoughtful than the TV public- Jambi, on 02/27/2008, -5/+18I'm not entirely sure I'd call the sort of people you're referring to conservatives. I happen to know quite a few very intelligent and thoughtful conservatives, but the reason you don't often hear about such people is that they've been increasingly marginalized by Republicans since the mid to late 90s. Small government conservatism is mostly dead within the Republican party, after all.
- caferrell, on 02/27/2008, -6/+24That is why I wrote "conservatives" in quotation marks. I consider myself a conservative without the quotation marks. Most of today's "conservatives" think that a giant military and dictatorial powers for the President along with an abrogation of our civil liberties is part of a conservative agenda. In effect, the Republican party has convinced people that statist corporate policies are conservative. They are not, they are in fact fascist.
- sienar, on 02/27/2008, -4/+5you can replace your "conservatives" with the term neo-cons. those people truly are enemies of democracy and freedom. they should all be sent to iraq with the ***** equipment many in our military have
- jcm267, on 02/27/2008, -10/+7And here's your typical arrogant, condescending Ronbot remark. It's not that conservatives "can't do well" on digg, because there are several conservatives on digg who are very well-spoken, it's that adults usually don't have as much time to play on the Internet as kids do. And kids online tend to support either Obama or Ron Paul.
- Jambi, on 02/27/2008, -5/+18I'm not entirely sure I'd call the sort of people you're referring to conservatives. I happen to know quite a few very intelligent and thoughtful conservatives, but the reason you don't often hear about such people is that they've been increasingly marginalized by Republicans since the mid to late 90s. Small government conservatism is mostly dead within the Republican party, after all.
- Wargalas, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3It's "paid".
- jcm267, on 02/27/2008, -21/+28Outside of the LGF-friendly confines of my friends list, digg IS a bastion of liberalism. I don't see how you think otherwise.
- iraq, on 02/27/2008, -7/+9funny *****, I was going to leave a similar comment. I still haven't decided whether to digg it or not, but I certainly wouldn't bury it for being from the national review. :) As long as that stuff is put in political opinion, I'd never bury liberal or conservative slanted articles.. but I know a lot of people do as I've had plenty of opinion articles "buried as inaccurate". Lame.
- sonicomega, on 02/27/2008, -3/+5This needs to be heard. Dont bury, make flyers and leave them in car windows! Do it now!!
- kaelyiesta, on 02/27/2008, -3/+4You are too pessimistic. Sure there are assholes that bury based on the messenger rather than the message, but most people are fairly reasonable and will read the article first before deciding its value.
- SzaszMan, on 02/27/2008, -2/+17Odd. I've always known Buckley was anti-prohibition and that's never suprised me about him. But that's the difference between Goldwater Republicans and Nixon Republicans. Goldwater and other "classical liberals" like him (including Buckley and today's Ron Paul) actually believe in the Constitution.
- metric7, on 02/27/2008, -1/+10I'm a conservative and I support legalization. Theres a lot of us.
- Berkana, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Ditto. Just look at the support for Ron Paul, who is also a conservative, and thinks the war on drugs is idiotic.
- bamapachyderm, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2News flash: You don't have to even LIKE Ron Paul to be a pro-legalization conservative.
- StandupShowcase, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2yes, they are called libertarians. and digg is full of them (even though 80 percent don't even realize that they are right wing aside from social issues)
- Berkana, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Ditto. Just look at the support for Ron Paul, who is also a conservative, and thinks the war on drugs is idiotic.
- grungegbunny, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3Dugg for the pro legalization.
- stoanhart, on 02/28/2008, -4/+2You misspelled explode. It starts with an "as"
- nbrntrt, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2Your right... I kind of thought the same thing, but they (The National Review) actually came across as "thinking" and a somewhat sound voice.. oh my gosh, did I just say that? :)
- diskit, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2The best part about legalizing it is that digg won't be constantly flooded with submissions about legalizing it.
- Jambi, on 02/27/2008, -8/+75Not really. Why would we bury an article before reading it? Also, I think you mistake Digg for being a bastion of liberalism, when in fact people being payed or asked to digg articles up or down tend to skew the statistics quite a bit. The National Review, along with a number of other conservative magazines, journals and pundits has been championing legalizing marijuana and certain other drugs for at least a decade now. It was a good idea then, it's a good idea now, and yet it'll be a cold day in hell before legalization happens, thanks to all the bureaucrats and politics with a vested interest in the status quo, along with the (often religious) teetotaler brigade.
- OBDriftwood, on 02/27/2008, -2/+65Buckley has been a level-headed conservative voice for decades. He also has articulated well reasoned opinions on decriminalization for decades. It's a shame so many "conservatives" don't believe enough in what they preach to put it into practice. Note that any dissenting opinions will not address the substance of Buckley's comments, but will hyperbolize on stereotypes.
- geomon, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Level-headed?
I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but some of Buckley's positions were completely off the Reservation. Here is an excerpt from the NY Times coverage of Buckley's passing:
"In 1955, Mr. Buckley started National Review as voice for “the disciples of truth, who defend the organic moral order” with a $100,000 gift from his father. The first issue, which came out in November, claimed the publication “stands athwart history yelling Stop.”
It proved it by lining up squarely behind Southern segregationists, saying blacks should be denied the vote. After some conservatives objected, Mr. Buckley suggested instead that both uneducated whites and blacks should not be allowed to vote."
Now lining up with pro-segregationists doesn't put him on the side of "level-headed" in my book, but you may roll with a different crowd. To be fair, Buckley was principled in standing up against anti-Semites:
"After a year in the Central Intelligence Agency in Mexico City (his case officer was E. Howard Hunt, who went on to win celebrity for his part in the Watergate break-in), Mr. Buckley went to work for the American Mercury magazine, but resigned after spotting anti-Semitic tendencies in the magazine."
So he was a complex man with complex views about race. He was decidedly mainstream for conservatives of his time on the issue of integration of blacks, but progressive for a rich WASP with respect to anti-semitism.
In short, he was not the cardboard cutout that the Left painted of him.- CptBuck, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3He wasn't a wasp, he was catholic.
- geomon, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Level-headed?
- txchica, on 02/27/2008, -10/+32I could see supporting it as long as it was limited to small amounts and regulated. similar to how we regulate alcohol with the same kinds of punishment for misuse.
- geniusj, on 02/27/2008, -3/+18Why does the amount matter? I see what you're saying with regards to the rest of your comment, but the amount seems irrelevant to me.
- lordsteve, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5I may be wrong, but I think he may be referring to the similar way in which alcohol is regulated based on the _amount_ that is in your system while driving.
- DukeMojo, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5I usually find a limit to how high I can actually be.
- MWeather, on 02/27/2008, -4/+2The only limit on how high you can get is how much you can smoke before passing out. If your eyes haven't involuntarily rolled back in your head from being too high, you haven't reached the limit.
- smotpoker, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1Depends on the strain/quality of the weed you smoke and your current tolerance level. Tolerance doesn't just mean it takes more to get you high, but that you cannot get quite as high period in some cases until you give it time to go down
- MWeather, on 02/27/2008, -3/+2Tolerance and weed strength just ups the amount you have to smoke before you get high enough for your eyes to roll back in your head.
- smotpoker, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2MWeather - Wrong. A week of chronic smoking will make it impossible (unless you are talking about oxygen deprivation induced stroke?)
- MWeather, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1The only way for it to be impossible is if the weed wears off faster than you can smoke it. If that were the case you'd only be high for a split second.
Like every other drug on the planet, there is no limit to how high you can get on weed. Eat a plate of chronic brownies with an ounce baked in if you think there is a limit. - smotpoker, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1MWeather - You were obviously not paying much attention in health or DARE class. You have no idea how the tolerance mechanism of the brain works. Admitted those classes were a bit skewed towards info on harder drugs, but the same principle sorta applies
Your statement is akin to saying putting the same gas into the car will always get the same mileage, you fail to account for oil getting old or natural tire deflation, etc.
Three months/3k miles after your last changed the oil, your car won't get the same mileage no matter how much gas you put in. As an example, there have been a few times that I was on a bit of a smoking binge due to friends/circumstance and the same weed that got me really high from a bowl would barely get me high if I smoked a couple of blunts of it (enough to make my throat hurt)
I admit it isn't technically impossible in all circumstances, but in most it is. After a week of chronic smoking, it will take some weed that is substantially higher quality or some time lapse before you can get high enough to 'pass out' - MWeather, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1"Your statement is akin to saying putting the same gas into the car will always get the same mileage"
No, it's absolutely nothing like saying that, since I'm not saying there is no tolerance with weed.
"After a week of chronic smoking, it will take some weed that is substantially higher quality or some time lapse before you can get high enough to 'pass out'"
The strength of the weed doesn't matter. The amount of THC and other active canabinoids consumed in a given time period matters.
Your body doesn't know if that THC comes from a gram of chronic, or a quarter of schwag. - smotpoker, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1"Your body doesn't know if that THC comes from a gram of chronic, or a quarter of schwagYour body doesn't know if that THC comes from a gram of chronic, or a quarter of schwag"
Try smoking a quarter of schwag to the head and telling your sore throat and tired lungs that. Again, I accept it isn't IMPOSSIBLE but it is very hard, wasteful, tiring, boring and literally painful - and therefore very improbable in most cases.
- DukeMojo, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5I usually find a limit to how high I can actually be.
- txchica, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2The amount matters when someone is operating a vehicle unsafely when their reflexes are impaired.
- smotpoker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8cFGXOH67k
If you search on the topic, you will find various studies suggesting that driving on marijuana is terribly dangerous if you search, but these claims are nearly always to promote/justify political agenda or are based solely on thc being found in the blood stream of accident victims, which doesn't in any way indicate whether the victims were actually intoxicated at the time (since it can remain in your blood for up to a month)
If you look at actual real testing/experiments and related studies/data, they suggest that there is very little motor-reflex impediment and it is usually noticable and compensated for by paranoia
I am not trying to say it is completely safe, but I am saying that it is NOT comparable to alcohol intoxication and poses far less of a threat. Generally they don't forget they are high and tend to be over-concientious to compensate. The analogy I use is that drunk drivers drive more like a 3 year old when highly intoxicated while a stoned driver would drive more like an 80 year old who finds the entire ordeal nerve-racking- txchica, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2I'd agree with you in general theory, but I've treated patients with closed head injuries that occurred while they were smoking pot. Luckily they didn't hurt anyone else, but that was just because they hit other objects before they hit other cars. There has to be some kind of field "sobriety" (for the lack of a better word) test for those who smoke pot to make sure they are at safe levels to operate vehicles. There would be no problem if they smoked it at home or had a DD to drive them home if they smoked it outside that environment.
- smotpoker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Well, the current field sobriety tests are supposed to do just that - unfortunately they just don't work in many cases because with a regular marijuana user, the level of impairment that occurs often still falls within the 'normal range' of a sober person's ability. I agree with you slightly but still basically feel this is a non-issue. I doubt marijuana intoxication, except with new users who would normally be too scared, impairs driving ability to a dangerous degree with a vast majority of people. The worst threat from smoking is if the user is already tired/fatigued and falling asleep behind wheel or 10 people are in the car distracting the driver.
Please don't interpret this like I am saying it is perfectly OK to drive while stoned. I just don't feel the intoxication level is high enough to impair safe judgement in a vast majority of the cases (this includes decision to get behind the wheel in the first place) and would pose far less of a risk than drunk drivers and definitely not worth the price of putting/keeping more innocent people in jail indefinitely to wait on some sort of new THC-based breathalyzer. Most in jail just had it on them or in their car/home and without intent or neglect of real harm, there is no criminal offense in my eyes. IMO, vague predominately unsubstantiated fears is a poor reason to take someone's livelihood and freedom - that which is supposed to be most highly prioritized and protected above all else in this country.
- smotpoker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Also, weed is nearly always consumed in "small amounts", I fail to see how it would discourage intoxicated driving, make it safer or make it more detectable..
- bamapachyderm, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4I tend to think there'd be less driving around getting high if people could legally do it elsewhere. Also, stoned people are a lot mellower than drunks anyway. Sitting in front of the TV eating junk food while watching "amazing" infomercials is a lot less dangerous to the public than bar-hopping.
- smotpoker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Although your point is semi-valid, dugg down for condescension and stereotyping
- floatingorb, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3I'm confused about that one; All the spatial and temporal distortions {that exist for 'new' users} are on the conservative side. They are careful. I had it put to me this way once: "When I'm drunk, I drive 80 mph and don't have a ***** clue what I'm doing. When I'm high, I drive 45 mph and am too aware of everything I do."--There is also greater consideration for other drivers--call it empathy.
- smotpoker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8cFGXOH67k
- lordsteve, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5I may be wrong, but I think he may be referring to the similar way in which alcohol is regulated based on the _amount_ that is in your system while driving.
- spyd3rweb, on 02/27/2008, -2/+4Sound great another corporate monopoly propped up by government regulations to keep the little guys from competing.
- smotpoker, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Which is still a step up from a corporate monopoly propped up by government regulations to keep the little guys unjustly imprisoned
- MWeather, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1What regulations keep the little guys from competing? Last I checked, the number of micro-breweries and micro-distilleries were growing exponentially.
- Godlike, on 02/27/2008, -1/+10Why does something that is not harmful need to be regulated in any way?
- CoolWind, on 02/27/2008, -1/+6It's harmful to some people. Just like any drug, some people can handle it no problem and some can't.
- drkroman9, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2its not a drug, its an herbal supplement.
- matador3, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Then they should exercise some personal responsibility and not use it. /problem solved
- bamapachyderm, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2Because, as a parent, I don't want my kid smoking it just like I don't want my kid drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. It's a lot easier for kids to get their hands on weed from scummy dealers than it is for them to get regulated booze and cigarettes from the store. Apparently you forgot--kids. They don't need the *****, they aren't emotionally mature enough to responsibly smoke or drink. Argue that if you want, but you'd be silly to say kids have intelligent mature judgment and are made responsible for stupid decisions.
I'd also argue that anyone in the military under 21 should be free to drink, but others are SOL.- matador3, on 02/28/2008, -0/+321 is ridiculous for a drinking age and you're kidding yourself if you think the law does anything to stop underage drinking. I got drunk for the first time when I was 13. Yes I was immature but the fact that it was taboo probably had a lot to do with why me and my friends did it. Kids are going to drink because it's a rite of passage. IMO drinking age laws are just as dumb as "teaching abstinence".
- mcbarron, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Then, as a parent, it's your responsibility to make sure YOUR kids don't. You know - it's called "parenting".
Don't ask the government to do your job - some of us have kids of our own to take care of.
- CoolWind, on 02/27/2008, -1/+6It's harmful to some people. Just like any drug, some people can handle it no problem and some can't.
- geniusj, on 02/27/2008, -3/+18Why does the amount matter? I see what you're saying with regards to the rest of your comment, but the amount seems irrelevant to me.
- Wosat, on 02/27/2008, -0/+151Federalism, limited government, free markets, states' rights, individual liberty -- under which of these tenets of conservatism can one argue in favor of the federal laws currently governing marijuana?
None of them, if you ask me.- Diderotten, on 02/27/2008, -21/+1with regards to individual liberty, which is to the extent another's freedom, they argue smoking it gets everone around it high. although the same could be said for ciggarettes(replace "high" with "cancer.")
- bphicke, on 02/27/2008, -0/+8You don't get high from second hand smoke.
- kaelyiesta, on 02/27/2008, -0/+7Nor increased odds of cancer, according to latest research I have read. I still don't like the smell so I have no problems telling off someone who stands too close to me and lights up.
- Scrappy1850, on 02/27/2008, -4/+1ive caught a contact buzz. but its much better to go right to the source.
- bphicke, on 02/27/2008, -0/+8There is a difference between being in a fogged car with your friends and being around normal second hand smoke. You didn't get high because you were standing next to someone smoking unless you were smoking with them.
- Scrappy1850, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3correct! you are like the mr wizzard of pot
- Godlike, on 02/27/2008, -2/+4You are not going to get high or pop positive from brief exposure. You probably tricked yourself into thinking you were high, they do experiments sometimes where they give people drinks without alcohol and tell them it has it and the effects on social drinkers are almost exactly the same placebo or not.
Unless you put the thing to your lips and breathe in you are 'safe'. You are 'safe' anyway because it's not harmful.
- CoolWind, on 02/27/2008, -5/+2Unfortunately, you do get addicted to nicotine from 2nd hand smoke. That's why so many people ended up smoking in the past, because they were exposed to so much second hand smoke in public venues, like bars/clubs, restaurants, etc.
- bphicke, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1My father was a heavy smoker, I was always around it. While in the navy, the majority of people there smoke because it is the only way they let you have a break at work. I have smoked maybe 10 cigars and 2 cigarettes in my life. Heavy exposure to second hand smoke never had any influence on me. Its a crock of ***** Liberals use to pretend to be humanitarians. "It's for your own good"
- Phrag, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I spend the majority of five years in a coffee shop filled with cigarette smoke and I have never had the urge to smoke one.
- Leomarth, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1My parents smoked my entire childhood (In the house and the car while I was in it! GASP!) and I've always had a revulsion to smoking. If you're citing a statistic, that's fine, but realize that most people who are around second hand smoke choose to be there.
The absolute worst thing you can do to someone is coddle them through consequences of their actions.
- MWeather, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Thta's only reason to ban smoking around other people, and only if they aren't voluntarily around the smoke, like visiting a bar that allows it.
- matador3, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4That's why smoking policy should be entirely up to the property owner.
- bphicke, on 02/27/2008, -0/+8You don't get high from second hand smoke.
- TinternAbbot, on 02/27/2008, -0/+15Governmental Conservativism and Social Conservativism have unfortunately been conflated.
- MWeather, on 02/27/2008, -5/+3Social conservatism is an oxymoron when it comes to government.
- bamapachyderm, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Um, no. I'm for legalization, but I am a social conservative. See also: Buckley, etc.
- pintomp3, on 02/27/2008, -3/+9social conservativism. economic conservatives have been sidelined by social conservatives for a long time, at least going back to reagan and his war on drugs.
- kaelyiesta, on 02/27/2008, -2/+11The war on drugs really started with nixon, but even that ignores the racist propaganda of the 30s and the inept congress at the time. A senator on the texas congress floor is on record saying "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy". There was a huge backlash against the mexican immigration in the southwest and pot was a target of this animosity. As for the inept bit, the 1937 tax act, one of the most crucial early bits of prohibition against pot was passed without any knowledge of the matter. The politicians just wanted to go home and get out of the heat so they all voted aye on a substance most hadn't even heard of. Here is the entire debate, as described by the link at the bottom(if you know anything about legislation, you will be beyond amazed by the brevity):
"Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"
To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."
Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"
In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and -- do you remember? The AMA guy was named William C. Woodward -- a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." It wasn't true, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote.
In the Senate there never was any debate or a recorded vote, and the bill went to President Roosevelt's desk and he signed it and we had the national marijuana prohibition.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/whiteb ... - bamapachyderm, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2You seriously don't know ***** about conservatives, do you? How about stepping outside the echo chambers that are full of caricatures of conservatives (including social conservatives)?
- kaelyiesta, on 02/27/2008, -2/+11The war on drugs really started with nixon, but even that ignores the racist propaganda of the 30s and the inept congress at the time. A senator on the texas congress floor is on record saying "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy". There was a huge backlash against the mexican immigration in the southwest and pot was a target of this animosity. As for the inept bit, the 1937 tax act, one of the most crucial early bits of prohibition against pot was passed without any knowledge of the matter. The politicians just wanted to go home and get out of the heat so they all voted aye on a substance most hadn't even heard of. Here is the entire debate, as described by the link at the bottom(if you know anything about legislation, you will be beyond amazed by the brevity):
- drake53, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1True
- emutiny, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0Exactly what I was thinking
- Izult, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1By those standards we have VERY few true conservatives in congress and a boat load of fake conservatives as their constituents.
- Amazonca, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0No one would take the responsibility for the consequences that may lead legalization. So conservatives just will get some additional votes.....
my space:
http://www.cigbrands.com/
- Diderotten, on 02/27/2008, -21/+1with regards to individual liberty, which is to the extent another's freedom, they argue smoking it gets everone around it high. although the same could be said for ciggarettes(replace "high" with "cancer.")
- chrisgnv, on 02/27/2008, -3/+84How does anyone support criminalizing and prohibiting the use of marijuana, but simultaneously turn a blind eye to the overwhelmingly worse effects of prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco? Anyone with an inch of rationale should support the legalization, decriminalization, and regulation of marijuana.
Unless, of course, there is another factor at play in the persistent illegality of marijuana.... $$$- KraftDinner101, on 02/27/2008, -1/+6Most people who support the former are misinformed. If they knew the true facts and weren't stubborn enough to actually believe the true facts, they would support legalization as well. Some people put a little too much trust in their politicians. Everyone just has to keep in mind, they're there to please the masses. Most of which believe Marijuana is bad, so they keep spewing the same wrong facts to keep everyone happy.
- cersad, on 02/27/2008, -1/+12Interestingly enough, one of my professors claims that the alcohol industry is one of the largest anti-marijuana interest groups out there. So we'll probably never see legalized cannabis.
- FoghornLeghorn, on 02/27/2008, -0/+15That would make sense. I know I personally prefer to be stoned as opposed to drunk, it's way more fun, less harmful and you don't have to worry about a hangover.
- spinaltap87, on 02/27/2008, -2/+4and you can still drive, read, speak without slurring, music sounds better, sex feels way better...
- bamapachyderm, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4I think you're an idiot if you drive around stoned. It's just as stupid as driving drunk. I support legalization, but driving stoned? ***** stupid, and it's arguments like that which destroy the argument for legalization with most people.
- MWeather, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1It's stupid to drive stones, but not as stupid as driving drunk, not by a long shot.
If the multiple studies on the subject are any indication it's as stupid as driving while tired, which is legal.
- spinaltap87, on 02/27/2008, -2/+4and you can still drive, read, speak without slurring, music sounds better, sex feels way better...
- bobbybobington, on 02/28/2008, -4/+2Why can't they just get along? They both pretty much do the same thing
- spinaltap87, on 02/28/2008, -4/+1you're stupid.
- chrisgnv, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1What's the answer to most of life's questions? Money.
- FoghornLeghorn, on 02/27/2008, -0/+15That would make sense. I know I personally prefer to be stoned as opposed to drunk, it's way more fun, less harmful and you don't have to worry about a hangover.
- SIRBERUS, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Someone once asked me why Salvia was legal and Marijuana is not.
I told them, "Easy... you can't do anything with salvia other than grow it and/or smoke it. What corporation would foot the bill to put it out of business?"- MWeather, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Salvia is legal because in order to ban it you mush show harm. When most drugs were made illegal, this requirement wasn't in place, or the data was falsified.
Look at how they tried to ban ephedrine. They didn't show harm, so the decision was reversed.
Also, Salvia was unpopular until recently. There was no impetus to ban it.
- MWeather, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Salvia is legal because in order to ban it you mush show harm. When most drugs were made illegal, this requirement wasn't in place, or the data was falsified.
- Fejerro, on 02/27/2008, -1/+40Imagine the tax revenue from selling marijuana over the counter, instead of under the table on the streets, plus all the money that will be saved from enforcing current marijuana laws. It makes good fiscal sense to legalize and regulate possession and the sale of marijuana.
- floatingorb, on 02/27/2008, -2/+8The first laws on hemp in this country was that you had to grow it; A part of your land was dedicated to the growing of hemp. The hemp was the (property) tax!
- MWeather, on 02/27/2008, -2/+6And even after that you could still pay your taxes in hemp.
- CoolWind, on 02/27/2008, -3/+3The tax revenue won't be that great because everybody will grow their own. Maybe that's why the government is so slow to legalize it.
- smotpoker, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5Who do you know that ever grows anything?
Growing decent weed is hard and time consuming (and expensive if done indoors). A few people might grow here and there but even those who do would give up after a few tries and even the successful ones would still want more variety or be too impatient/busy to deal with the hassle
I took a poll on a weed growing site a few years ago. Half of the professional GROWERS said they would pay around $35/oz for decent pot if it was commercialized. These are the people who actually already know how and have infrastructure.
No... it isn't really a problem- maexus, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Weed is more resilient than you give it credit.
- smotpoker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I said "decent", by which I actually meant "higher quality". Just growing doesn't mean it will automatically be good. It also depends in part on what region of the globe you live in and local habitat. For instance, THC glands are formed every night but tend to evaporate the next day. How much evaporates depends on the temperature. There is also a big threat of fungi, parasites and wildlife.
Just because the plant grows doesn't mean a bunch of insects won't lay eggs all over it or spiders will decide to avoid spinning webs all around it, effectively ruining the crop. Improper fertilization or stress from an animal breaking a limb or heat can induce hermaphroditism which causes self-pollenation which leads seed production/thc-reduction. Marijuana with seeds can get you high, but not at the levels or efficiency of sensi (which would be floating around a lot more easily when legal and mass produced)
- smotpoker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I said "decent", by which I actually meant "higher quality". Just growing doesn't mean it will automatically be good. It also depends in part on what region of the globe you live in and local habitat. For instance, THC glands are formed every night but tend to evaporate the next day. How much evaporates depends on the temperature. There is also a big threat of fungi, parasites and wildlife.
- Acharne, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2$35 an oz. is a pipe dream for good pot.
- smotpoker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1By my, admittedly dated, calculations, at that price the government would get around $12bn per year if that $35 was split evenly between gov and producer. This is based on *admitted* pot smokers from a federal survey and doesn't take into account the other smokers who weren't asked or the money saved to law enforcement etc
With commercialization/competition, it wouldn't be too much of a pipe dream... $24 billion per year is a lot of money and even that figure is conservative (no pun intended ;))
- smotpoker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1By my, admittedly dated, calculations, at that price the government would get around $12bn per year if that $35 was split evenly between gov and producer. This is based on *admitted* pot smokers from a federal survey and doesn't take into account the other smokers who weren't asked or the money saved to law enforcement etc
- maexus, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Weed is more resilient than you give it credit.
- drkroman9, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6People can certainly brew their own beer.... but why go to the trouble when you can go down the street and buy a 6 pack?
Same thing applies for marijuana
- smotpoker, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5Who do you know that ever grows anything?
- waynetheman, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2You're not quite getting it.
The government, including plenty of sheriffs, is ALREADY profiting from pot being illegal. Plus, this way they keep an added measure of control allowing them to conduct illegal searches, illegal seizures, and more. Why bother legalizing it? It's something they're going to have to be *forced* to do, because they're so corrupt they have no incentives to do it on their own.- smotpoker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I totally agree with you there, man. I've seen "marijuana abuse" used waaay too often as an excuse in the justice system. There are many illegal searches and arrests who have been completely justified with a simple "I detected an odor of marijuana...". Unfortunately it is also used as a scapegoat for many users to help get out of trouble, which sucks. All it does is justify the system's position and makes it harder for them to admit if it is wrong.
What judge wants to admit they got played the 800 times they let someone off with a light rehab sentence because they mentioned marijuana use or that they threw the broke up 800 families and put them on welfare because of marijuana in conjunction with some zero-tolerance policy they helped create?
- smotpoker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I totally agree with you there, man. I've seen "marijuana abuse" used waaay too often as an excuse in the justice system. There are many illegal searches and arrests who have been completely justified with a simple "I detected an odor of marijuana...". Unfortunately it is also used as a scapegoat for many users to help get out of trouble, which sucks. All it does is justify the system's position and makes it harder for them to admit if it is wrong.
- floatingorb, on 02/27/2008, -2/+8The first laws on hemp in this country was that you had to grow it; A part of your land was dedicated to the growing of hemp. The hemp was the (property) tax!
- alcornmj, on 02/27/2008, -2/+77"It is de facto legal in the Netherlands, and the percentage of users there is the same as here."
Obviously, criminalizing it hasn't reduced it's usage. All it's done is cost the taxpayer billions in enforcement and incarceration costs, when it could instead be a source of tax revenue and made safer through standardization. Let's not forget the positive impact permitting farmers to grow hemp would have as well...- tbom, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1hemp, lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#THC_in_hemp- Tenareth, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Everyone knows that... however, the US still doesn't allow for Hemp to be grown.
Ok, what I meant to say is everyone "intelligent" knows that, which excludes most people in the government.
- Tenareth, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Everyone knows that... however, the US still doesn't allow for Hemp to be grown.
- Izult, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3industrial hemp is very different from the smokable but you're right about it being a positive. Not only for farmers but for us as well. it's one of the more renewable resources, used in making food (i put hemp milk in my coffee every morning), clothes, rope, paper products, building materials... the list could and does go on and on.
- bamapachyderm, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Not to mention the fact that it's easier for kids to get pot than it is for them to get alcohol or tobacco. And right now, they get it from scummy dealers who are more than happy to give kids real drugs. It really pisses me off, because I do not want kids smoking, drinking, or getting high. They're always going to do it, but it doesn't have to be so easy for them to do it.
- tbom, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1hemp, lol
- Iconoclast25, on 02/27/2008, -1/+26The other advantage of legalizing it (and Prohibition hasn't worked, no more than it did with alcohol), would be to regulate purity, THC content and the like. The only reason marijuana was made illegal and for the passage of the NFA was to provide a justification for not discharging all the Federal agents rendered superfluous by the repeal of the 18th Amendment at the height of the Depression. Like most government regulations, at its heart it is bogus.
- fractalman, on 02/27/2008, -4/+5Wake up America.
We need to get away from all the government regulated this that and the other thing. The only thing government regulation ever did was get in the way and gum up the works.- coviecarbine, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3The phrase "wake up America" = bury.
- BikerDude69, on 02/27/2008, -1/+6Actually it was made illegal through the efforts of Willam Randolph Hearst who owned newspapers and who had invested millions in the timber industry. Hemp was simply a threat to the timber industry as well as the petrol industry AND the chemical/plastics/rubber industry.
ALL PLASTIC PRODUCTS SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP SEED OIL. Hempen plastics are biodegradable! Over time, they would break down and not harm the environment. Oil-based plastics, the ones we are very familiar with, help ruin nature; they do not break down and will do great harm in the future. The process to produce the vast array of natural (hempen) plastics will not ruin the rivers as Dupont and other petrochemical companies have done. Ecology does not fit in with the plans of the Oil Industry and the political machine. Hemp products are safe and natural.
MEDICINES SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP. We should go back to the days when the AMA supported cannabis cures. 'Medical Marijuana' is given out legally to only a handful of people while the rest of us are forced into a system that relies on chemicals. Pot is only healthy for the human body.
WORLD HUNGER COULD END. A large variety of food products can be generated from hemp. The seeds contain one of the highest sources of protein in nature. ALSO: They have two essential fatty acids that clean your body of cholesterol. These essential fatty acids are not found anywhere else in nature! Consuming pot seeds is the best thing you could do for your body. Eat uncooked hemp seeds.
CLOTHES SHOULD BE MADE FROM HEMP. Hemp clothing is extremely strong and durable over time. You could hand clothing, made from pot, down to your grandchildren. Today, there are American companies that make hemp clothing; usually 50% hemp. Hemp fabrics should be everywhere. Instead, they are almost underground. Superior hemp products are not allowed to advertise on fascist television. Kentucky, once the top hemp producing state, made it ILLEGAL TO WEAR hemp clothing! Can you imagine being thrown into jail for wearing quality jeans?
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/03-25-06/discussi ...
http://www.votehemp.com/- Jlaugh, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3If everything where fixed in the world then we wouldn't need a political class. Therefore I doubt they will ever fix things.
- CoolWind, on 02/27/2008, -3/+1You guys keep ignoring the fact that if marijuana is legalized people will grow their own.
- lotsa1s, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1No they wont. Have you ever tried to grow pot? You don't just stick some seeds in a pot if you want anything remotely smokable. You need a whole plethora of different gear and supplies, and the process its self is a lot of work. Saying people would just grow their own is like saying people will make their own cars. *****. I would rather just pay someone to do it for me. This is America.
- fractalman, on 02/27/2008, -4/+5Wake up America.
- Bassologist, on 02/27/2008, -4/+12Legalize it, regulate it, and save some cash...sounds good to me.
- tman84, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Google Jello Biafra "Grow More Pot"
- ccxftw, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Dugg for DK
- Leomarth, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1"Legalize it, and save some cash" ... fix'd.
- tman84, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Google Jello Biafra "Grow More Pot"
- fant0m, on 02/27/2008, -1/+22National Review founder and conservative commentator William F. Buckley Jr. died overnight in the study of his Stamford, Connecticut, home, the magazine announced on its Web site Wednesday.
- cnn.com- YogiWanKenobi, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5I just heard some sad news on talk radio -conservative commentator William F. Buckley Jr. was found dead in his Connecticut home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Digg community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
- mikelist, on 02/27/2008, -1/+0 buckley was an unalloyed conservative, which i can respect, as opposed to the current crop of those who describe themselves as conservatives. i am an unalloyed liberal, and diametrically opposed, but i have to respect principled views of all stripes.
sleep well bill.- Amadeus2490, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1This never would have happened if marijuana was legal.
- kmlixey87, on 02/27/2008, -2/+5by the nature of the "conservative" party, we would see a dramatic rise in the social smoking class known to most as the "bogarts" and "scavengers".....
- Wosat, on 02/27/2008, -0/+71William F. Buckley Jr., the author of this article, died today at the age of 82. He founded the National Review, helped shape the modern conservative movement, and was a seminal figure in my own political awakening. He will be missed, but his ideas will never die. Rest in peace.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080227/D8V2P9PG0 ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F_Buckley- vault, on 02/27/2008, -0/+18May he rest in peace. Crazy timing, submitting this the die before he died.
- vault, on 02/27/2008, -0/+15*day before he died.... :-/
- dougs55, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5I think of Buckley as an old school conservative, sort of like my 75 year old republican father who hasn't voted republican in decades. To me the modern conservative movement is all about people like Robertson, Falwell, and the Bush family. Note that the Reagan family likes these guys so much they are forbidden to use Ronnie's name or photo.
- scorchedearth, on 02/27/2008, -2/+7Unfortunately, christo-fascists like Robertson, Falwell, and the Bush family ***** on traditional conservative values.
- Midtowner, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5Amen to that. The christianists really have nothing to do with conservatism other than the fact that they've pretty well hijacked it. How you can say conservatism = warantless wiretapping is completely beyond me.
- MWeather, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Real Christians are socialist, just like Jesus.
- Midtowner, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5Amen to that. The christianists really have nothing to do with conservatism other than the fact that they've pretty well hijacked it. How you can say conservatism = warantless wiretapping is completely beyond me.
- brianbennett, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5There is no "conservative movement" in this country at present since there are no real conservative leaders.
- bobbybobington, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2Except for Ron P... er I mean... you know who.
- matador3, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named
- scorchedearth, on 02/27/2008, -2/+7Unfortunately, christo-fascists like Robertson, Falwell, and the Bush family ***** on traditional conservative values.
- syowr, on 02/27/2008, -3/+3And who says weed isn't bad for you ...
Everyone get out yer tinfoil hats!!
- vault, on 02/27/2008, -0/+18May he rest in peace. Crazy timing, submitting this the die before he died.
- LogicBomB, on 02/27/2008, -1/+20It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, it should be legalised for solid, hard facts. You don't need to smoke it or hang around with "the kinds of people" that smoke it but supporting legalization is important for a multitude of reasons.
- bamapachyderm, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Exactly. I'm definitely not a pothead, and don't hang around with them. I'm a mom (and a social conservative and a non-drinker, at that), and I think it should be legalized for a lot of reasons. Alcohol is far more dangerous and it's harder for kids to get it than pot, and I hate that American dollars go to REAL criminal elements (not just Joe Schmo small-time pot dealers, I mean big dealers, esp. outside the US). If that money's going anywhere, let the gubmint have it and use it for Americans' benefit, and maybe we'll get a tax break somewhere else in the end.
- Amadeus2490, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Awwl when mom thinks it's cool, it no longer is.
Now the kids have to start doing Spice.
- Amadeus2490, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Awwl when mom thinks it's cool, it no longer is.
- bamapachyderm, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Exactly. I'm definitely not a pothead, and don't hang around with them. I'm a mom (and a social conservative and a non-drinker, at that), and I think it should be legalized for a lot of reasons. Alcohol is far more dangerous and it's harder for kids to get it than pot, and I hate that American dollars go to REAL criminal elements (not just Joe Schmo small-time pot dealers, I mean big dealers, esp. outside the US). If that money's going anywhere, let the gubmint have it and use it for Americans' benefit, and maybe we'll get a tax break somewhere else in the end.
- edstate, on 02/27/2008, -2/+31Real conservatives want the Government out of our bedroom, as well as your lungs. Your body is your own. Something Dems and Reps don't seem to understand.
After you smoke, and what you do when stumble out into the real world, however, is YOUR responsibility.- Scrappy1850, on 02/27/2008, -3/+3i take too long ordering at taco bell. ill stammer while looking at the menu board until the guy behind me forces me to order the next thing i see. dont ever ask "are the nachos good?"
- usrlocalbin, on 02/27/2008, -11/+15“Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn’t the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit … paranoid? You know what I mean? It’s nature. How do you make nature against the ***** law? It grows everywhere. Serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying God made a mistake." -Bill Hicks
Seeing how most conservatives are also jesus freaks, they would be on the same page as Bill on this one. But they arent....strange..- leopardflames, on 02/27/2008, -2/+4[sarcasm]nice generalization. [/sarcasm]
- radicaledvard, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3Dugg, for Bill Hicks reference.
R.I.P - lotsa1s, on 02/28/2008, -5/+4LOLOL CUZ RELEGOS PEPLE R IGNORENT
DIG ME UP KUZ I MAID FUN OF CHRESTANS LOLOLOLOL - bamapachyderm, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3As a conservative, may I just say that you're a ***** idiot.
- OLTLfan, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2Au contraire, mon frere. My husband and I are both Jesus freaks, conservatives and supporters of legalization of weed. Count at least these two Jesus freaks in the "two out of five."
- TheWriteGuy, on 02/27/2008, -4/+22There is no such thing as a "conservative" today -- just fundie hypocritical Republican asshats.
William F. Buckley RIP- mahsah, on 02/27/2008, -7/+12Yeah, I know saying "Ron Paul" gets you buried these days on digg, but I seriously say he was the only true conservative in the GOP debates, and one of the few left in Congress. He's against the "War on Drugs".
- pintomp3, on 02/27/2008, -11/+4except he's also a fundie. he's supports banning abortion, banning sodomy, doesn't believe in separation of church and state, and denies evolution.
- SeekerDarksteel, on 02/27/2008, -2/+8No he doesn't, no he doesn't, yes he does, and no he doesn't. On the last point, he admits he's not sure, but in the same breath admits he's not a scientist so his opinion is irrelevant.
- pintomp3, on 02/27/2008, -2/+11. ron paul's sanctity of life act of 2007
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show
2. "Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_o ...
3. "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. "
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
"evolution is a theory and i don't accept it"
it doesn't take a scientist to acknowledge reality. it's like claiming "i'm not a scientist, so i don't know if the earth is round".
- pintomp3, on 02/27/2008, -2/+11. ron paul's sanctity of life act of 2007
- homah, on 02/27/2008, -2/+5What a crock of ***** this is. He is not for banning abortion. You are confusing his personal views with his political beliefs. He believes abortion laws should be a state issue, not a federal issue. He would not ban sodomy. He doesn't care what you do behind closed doors. It goes completely against his principles. I don't even know why I'm responding to this *****, as it's obvious you haven't done your research.
- pintomp3, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1research like this?
sanctity of life act of 2007
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show
"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."
- pintomp3, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1research like this?
- SeekerDarksteel, on 02/27/2008, -2/+8No he doesn't, no he doesn't, yes he does, and no he doesn't. On the last point, he admits he's not sure, but in the same breath admits he's not a scientist so his opinion is irrelevant.
- pintomp3, on 02/27/2008, -11/+4except he's also a fundie. he's supports banning abortion, banning sodomy, doesn't believe in separation of church and state, and denies evolution.
- mahsah, on 02/27/2008, -7/+12Yeah, I know saying "Ron Paul" gets you buried these days on digg, but I seriously say he was the only true conservative in the GOP debates, and one of the few left in Congress. He's against the "War on Drugs".
- MCCULLAH, on 02/27/2008, -14/+4marijuana?.....whats that
- Scrappy1850, on 02/27/2008, -5/+4it's a lifestyle choice. like "troll"
- CoolWind, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1sharp
- Scrappy1850, on 02/27/2008, -5/+4it's a lifestyle choice. like "troll"
- daxsymbiont, on 02/27/2008, -27/+2lol.
That's like saying left wings should support george w. - blackmage439, on 02/27/2008, -1/+13Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking (in fact, it made the problem worse. Classifying marijuana as a "hazardous" substance is just as bad. Those conservative fools could be cashing in on massive amounts of taxes right now, not to mention saving billions on wasted ATF funds and jail cells...
- deadcrickets, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4No, the fake "conservatives" who push these laws as well as invasion of privacy and invasion of sovereign countries on false pretenses actually make money off of all of above and the crimes.
It's extremely well known that judges in the local VA area like a judge in Herndon make huge amounts of money off of the jail system. This one particular one in Herndon invested $15,000 into the jail and has made $200,000 since. That's off of one investment off of one jail. Conflict of interest anyone?
- deadcrickets, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4No, the fake "conservatives" who push these laws as well as invasion of privacy and invasion of sovereign countries on false pretenses actually make money off of all of above and the crimes.
- Damian91, on 02/27/2008, -7/+2If it's something everyone can create/do then it's illegal.
- twp219, on 02/27/2008, -4/+6this reminds me of the simpsons episode when the pro-legalization potheads forgot to vote...which would probably work in the conservatives favor
- Scrappy1850, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4no, they remembered to vote. they just got the day wrong.
- mikelist, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1true, principled conservatives would tend to oppose the war on drugs, as opposed to 'more government intervention' neocons and fundie 'conservatives'.
- jeffinfremont, on 02/27/2008, -1/+10There are a lot of rich people making a whole lot of money off the marijuana black market.
There is also a massive prison industry that is bolstered by this so-called war on drugs.
Those are the two forces you are up against if you want to overturn drug laws.- DavidYeah, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3Nothing keeps the marijuana black market folks from going legit once it's legal. I have to agree with you on your later point though. Prisons for profit are a shame and should be banned.
- AngeloM3, on 02/27/2008, -5/+1Let me edit your post.....
"There are a lot of rich WHITE people making a whole lot of money off the marijuana black market."
If it were rich black/brown/yellow etc... you'd see some changes!
- IllBeBack, on 02/27/2008, -11/+11Conservatives should also support gay marriage since so many of them turn out to be gay.
- FoghornLeghorn, on 02/27/2008, -1/+7They should support gay marriage because the government should have no say in who can or cannot get married. Less government intrusion in your personal life is supposed to be one of the central conservative tenants after all.
- spidamonkey, on 02/27/2008, -2/+8It seems no conservative will do this because a rival conservative would just claim he's soft on crime.
- deadcrickets, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3And yet the crime rates over the past ten years have increased due to so many being indignant after being given felony charges. So we have increased taxes, increased crime, reduced individual rights, reduced competition in the market place, reduced state rights....
Remind me again why any conservative still supports this?
- deadcrickets, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3And yet the crime rates over the past ten years have increased due to so many being indignant after being given felony charges. So we have increased taxes, increased crime, reduced individual rights, reduced competition in the market place, reduced state rights....
- weside, on 02/27/2008, -20/+4"There are approximately 700,000 marijuana-related arrests made very year. Most of these — 87 percent — involve nothing more than mere possession of small amounts of marijuana."
This doesn't change my opinion on it at all. If you're possession of it, it's not like you don't know it's illegal. To use a cliché phrase, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the law, it still exists and you're still liable for prosecution if you choose to break it.
On top of that, our current marijuana laws are not strict enough. There's no reason for someone like Snoop Dogg to continuously be caught with marijuana and just released. What kind of example does that set? Our laws need definitely to be more strict if we are serious about dealing with this issue.- sonicomega, on 02/27/2008, -2/+7and were obviously not serious about the laws. Thats why if your rich you can get away with it. Since the gov't doesnt take it seriously, they should relax the law. Should we make more strict J-Walking laws because everyone is doing it or just turn the other cheek and act like it's not happening...or just get rid of the law? I know weed and traffic violations are oranges and apples but you should be able to see my point.
- weside, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2I definitely do, and I agree with you. The problem *is* that it isn't being taken seriously enough by our government.
And If a group of people that are opposed to legalization of jaywalking want to get serious about it, then they need to get more strict about it as well. :P
- weside, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2I definitely do, and I agree with you. The problem *is* that it isn't being taken seriously enough by our government.
- malex, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4So... do you have any reaction to the points made in the actual article?
If prohibition serves no purpose and costs taxpayers billions to enforce, why would a rational conservative defend it?- weside, on 02/27/2008, -6/+1Because we've been too liberal in dealing with it. I am saying let's make the money we spend work by being more strict about it.
- PeterODactyl, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6Wouldn't that cost even more money?
- vault, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3You're an idiot.
- JStraum, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3So maybe le's see, we could try throwing 1.4 million Americans in jail? Maybe that would do the trick?
S e v e n H u n d r e d THOUSAND ! ! ! The number is actually closer to 800,000 this year so your strategy is already being employed...still ain't workin holmes... - noself, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2You're a fascist man. You really want the government to be more strict on something that amounts to personal choice? You want to live in a society where you are not even free to choose your own poison? While we're at it, lets legislate away some of the things you love. Not for any good reason bear in mind; we just don't like you.
- weside, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Thank you for the compliment!
- weside, on 02/27/2008, -6/+1Because we've been too liberal in dealing with it. I am saying let's make the money we spend work by being more strict about it.
- aidave, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3If one of your cherished activities were made illegal, like watching TV, would you stop doing it?
No. People will never stop using cannabis, no matter what laws are against it, no matter what fascists like you think. Nor should they. People are living free now, they dont need to wait, they dont need permission from a cop. Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free? shyeah- weside, on 02/27/2008, -4/+4I'm sorry, was marijuana made illegal *after* you started using it? If so, then you have an argument. Otherwise, you do not.
- FLLawLibrarian, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1I see what ya did there....
- vault, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2No one is arguing that it is currently illegal, we're saying it should not be.
The point of Buckley quoting the statistic I put in the description was to show how much money we waste on what isn't a real problem to begin with.
- diskit, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1yeah, pot and TV are pretty much the same.
- weside, on 02/27/2008, -4/+4I'm sorry, was marijuana made illegal *after* you started using it? If so, then you have an argument. Otherwise, you do not.
- warriorscot, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1They dont need to legalise just make a sensible approach on it, turn more of a blind eye, uptake the idea of "a little personal" its not a high class drug in most forms so it should be considered illegal only in large quantities, that would be sensible as its so ingrained in US culture you will never stop people using it sort of draconian punishment which i believe would fall under "cruel and unusual". Its not like US has problems with high strength cannabis like Europe does its mostly natural stuff grown locally so it is not particularly harmful to health.
- kleptomaniac, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1I see you've missed the point of the entire article, as your suggestion would only aggravate the problem. It's painfully obvious that people will not stop using pot, plain and simple. If you need any more evidence then look at the multitude of drugs with far harsher sentences or countries with penalties such as death for simple possession and be amazed, they still have the same problems. All marijuana laws serve to do now is clog the American judicial system, overcrowd jails and waste taxpayer dollars on a fruitless and wasteful campaign. Moreover, the current marijuana laws prevent good research being done on very medically relevant topics as well as place cash squarely in the pockets of gangs, drug cartels and criminals.
- weside, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1"It's painfully obvious that people will not stop using pot, plain and simple."
Then we will remove them from our society.- noself, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Fascist and you like it. What are you, skinhead, neonazi, kkk? Did you daddy touch you as a child? Gotta get that anger out man, or it will eat you up.
- weside, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1"It's painfully obvious that people will not stop using pot, plain and simple."
- sonicomega, on 02/27/2008, -2/+7and were obviously not serious about the laws. Thats why if your rich you can get away with it. Since the gov't doesnt take it seriously, they should relax the law. Should we make more strict J-Walking laws because everyone is doing it or just turn the other cheek and act like it's not happening...or just get rid of the law? I know weed and traffic violations are oranges and apples but you should be able to see my point.
- neutrascrub, on 02/27/2008, -2/+21i'm a conservative and i smoke weed almost everyday. i don't see why the rest of us don't support it.
- Scrappy1850, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5there arent enough of us out there.
- SemajReffahs, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4Likewise with me Neut. Smoking helps calm my nerves and ease my mind before i start my activities. Note, I don't smoke before work, but at this point it probably wouldn't matter
- leopardflames, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5i think it's more a stereotype saying that 'conservatives' are against it.
- geoffg, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4Same hear neut,
@ Scrappy, there are plenty of us out there it's just somewhat against our philosophy to go around prosceletyzing our message every 5 minutes in order to try and convince or coerce the masses to listen to us. Classical liberals discover the truth on their own and usually don't feel the need to repeat it over and over like other religious ideologies. Reason...just is.- jelly052283, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0thank u!!! I agree!!! its about being repetitive!
- o0joshua0o, on 02/27/2008, -1/+15Current marijuana laws are a political version of the Emperor's New Clothes. Everyone can see how ridiculous they are, but no politician wants to take the risk of saying so.
- sonicomega, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2here here!
- homah, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2Some have taken such a risk, but of course they are blackballed by the media.
- andrewsb, on 02/27/2008, -5/+1stupid scrupulosity on sinsemella
- sonicomega, on 02/27/2008, -8/+4Didd this. Make this as big as Anon. Do it now!
- aserer511, on 02/27/2008, -1/+24I'm a registered republican, and I ABSOLUTELY, unequivocally support this because
1) it's pricey
2) it puts peoplke who just want some fun in jail
3) it propogates drug related murder
4) it costs teh federal government so much and sours relations with other nations.
5) more or less no matter what it is here to stay
It's NOT worth it. by NO metric- datatribe, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1On a pure fiscal stand, yes. Also a registered republican, I have to agree.
I think the right, though, somewhat further right than mainstream republicanism today, derives a prohibitory viewpoint from the general biblical guidance to deny self, die to sin, etc. How we have laws making pot illegal but cigarettes and pharmaceutical drugs (both by far more harmful) legal is beyond me... oh yeah - money there.
Personally though - if you like having your intellectual capacity hampered, toke up man. Most people I know who regularly libate in this stuff show a steady and marked decline in their ability to think straight. I don't think that's a random victim, I think it's a freaky trend. I stopped drinking and smoking and stay away from most prescription drugs for the very same reasons. Most of that stuff just has wicked nasty side effects. I wouldn't want to do it to myself and if it's something I'm going to toke up a cloud with, I wouldn't want to do it to the unwilling and unwitting around me.
So should it be legalized? I don't care. If it is though, like other things that destroy your mind and body, kids should be kept as clear as possible and the social stigmas should be welcomed, not lambasted. It's a social preservatory function to stigmatize behavior damaging to the greater well being of society. I think we get this from our nomadic, enclave roots where you lived or died by the ability of your tribe mates or neighbors to keep their heads on straight. Is it so different today? Do you want cops with guns or bus drivers toking up before duty because they can? Regulation would seem to make a lot of sense - more tax revenue can come from some other vice instead of our income (tax).- UglyBunny, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Marijuana does nothing to destroy your mind. That is something you have been led to believe by the same people who argue for prohibition. Marijuana might make you lazy, lose your ambition, slow, and tired, but it does not make you stupid.
- datatribe, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Of course...
[backs slowly away]
- datatribe, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Of course...
- joshgeek, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2"It's a social preservatory function to stigmatize behavior damaging to the greater well being of society."
what exactly is this damage you speak of? Like locking up otherwise law abiding citizens, the sick and dying, and the doctors/farmers trying to help them?
- UglyBunny, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Marijuana does nothing to destroy your mind. That is something you have been led to believe by the same people who argue for prohibition. Marijuana might make you lazy, lose your ambition, slow, and tired, but it does not make you stupid.
- vuoto, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1Unfortunately, you are a tiny minority of Republicans who would support the legalization of small amounts of marijuana. When it comes right down to it, the "conservatives" who have run roughshod over the Republican party in the last two decades simply don't believe anyone who is not very rich or very powerful should have access to things that make you feel good. They are so busy trying to portray themselves as pure-hearted supporters of "family values" while they're snorting crystal meth off a male prostitute's butt in an airport men's room. Hypocrisy has so bent this GOP that nothing sensible will ever come from them again. Torture is fine, civil liberties are a waste of time. Big corporations should be given immunity from all wrongdoing and everybody who is not them should just shut up and work for minimum wage and spend their money at Wal-Mart.
Truly, I'm not sure if William F. Buckley died of natural causes today or if he took his own life after reading the latest issue of National Review and saw what his "Conservative Movement" has turned into.
- datatribe, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1On a pure fiscal stand, yes. Also a registered republican, I have to agree.
- bigfinger, on 02/27/2008, -1/+22Thats one tax I would vote for! Legalize it for 21 and over and tax the hell out of it and put that money into K-12 and education for Higher Learning.
- aserer511, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4hard to implement but sin tax here is SUCH a great example. people are so used to paying objectively high prices, they'll have no problem paying the same, with 1/2 of the revenue going to teh feds
- janeuner, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6Or use the tax to pay off the National Debt (which was created, in part, by the Drug War).
- spyd3rweb, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3If you tax the hell out of it the problem starts all over again. Don't you get it?
- EtherGnat, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2Even heavily taxed legal marijuana would be cheaper.
- SwedishNinja, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1Probably lower grade, though. I remember watching a documentary on medical marijuana and the one man who still receives pot from the government noticed that the joints had been in storage for YEARS and they had dried out.
However, I would take that over delicious buds if it meant I wouldn't go to jail.- EtherGnat, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Taxed doesn't mean you'd have to buy from the government. I see no reason why their couldn't be healthy competition and fantastic product.
- UglyBunny, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Just grow your own, its called weed for a reason.
- SwedishNinja, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1Probably lower grade, though. I remember watching a documentary on medical marijuana and the one man who still receives pot from the government noticed that the joints had been in storage for YEARS and they had dried out.
- EtherGnat, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2Even heavily taxed legal marijuana would be cheaper.
- Scrappy1850, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6heh, higher learning
- steel66, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Why >21's... Most start smoking at 15
- tushyd, on 02/27/2008, -4/+2o0joushua0o,
Agreed. - diggdanoles, on 02/27/2008, -6/+11Conservatives need marijuana laws, just like they need laws to keep Sudafed behind the counter. It's all about fear, control, and guilt. By scaring us and controlling our lives, Conservatives make us think they are needed, and that without their 'guidance', we would all go to hell.
- Hetman, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3I'm for legalization of marijuana. But I come from a place that has a large amount of meth makers and meth heads. And I agree 100% that sudafed should be behind the counters. These fools are blowing themselves up making it. And I knew some girls who were on it and in like two years it looked like they aged 20. I'm not for telling people what to do but you cannot go around making a substance that has the potential to explode. "Especially since most of these people did not even graduate high school."
- datatribe, on 02/27/2008, -2/+4Um, you're ignorant. See Hetman's reply above. Sudaphed (psuedoEPHEDRINE) is essentially watered down speed. It's not a political issue to put the junk behind the counter. I've been taking Sudafed for years for chronic sinus infections because the side effects are not as bad as allergy meds. I'm an evil conservative, btw, and don't care that it's behind the counter. Knowing that meth-heads distill this stuff to make it stronger and then DESTROY peoples lives in the process I fully support making it a controlled substance. Pot doesn't blow up in your face, but it can bjork your mind over good if you use too much.
Being a conservative has nothing to do with it. It's pretty freaking obvious if you live in rural areas being raped by meth heads.- proton, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3I think you have a point, datatribe, but I think you're off a little. Personally I'm for decriminalization of all recreational drugs. That probably makes marijuana anti-prohibitionists cringe but is the controlled substance status of crystal meth actually doing any good either? It's an educational and health issue not a criminal one. The legality and taboo qualities of these substances also seem to push kids into using them because it's "cool" and people don't like discussing them with reasoned and educated statements.
- jelly052283, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0ok first of all... its behind the counter so they have the power to ID individuals and sale only to people over a certain age b/c of the chemical make-up of what is in the medication...not b/c so-called "meth-heads" do stuff to it...the point of it all is about "control"!!! And as a nation, we do need control but to certain extents...i mean get back on subject people...its about marijuana not meth!!! And the reasons marijuana is not legal and should be...I repeat....ALL ABOUT CONTROL!!!
- arpnuke, on 02/27/2008, -1/+19Dugg for "But that argument, to quote myself, is on the order of saying that every rapist began by masturbating."
- Smaug52X, on 02/27/2008, -13/+7This is the answer. Period.
For the last 35 years, my friends, the late Captain Ed Adair, Buddy
Duzy, George Clayton Johnson, and I realized that only Hemp could save
the World! We set out to teach the world all the things about Hemp
that had been covered up by our own government!
All the people who have read my book, or read it online, or other Hemp
books, realized that Hemp is the only thing to reverse the Greenhouse
Effect! Only solar, wind, geothermal and Hemp, etc. can save the
world. Fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) will be a thing of
the past.
Virtually all trees will be left in the ground forever. We only have
4% of the trees left, by volume and weight, on Earth as we did 125
years ago.
Other than the oceans, trees are the biggest carbon sinks - to reverse
the Greenhouse effect!! Remember, we have 4% of trees now, and getting
smaller!
Houses and building materials are being made from Hemp, including
fiber board, wallboard, paneling, insulation, wood-like beams
(stronger than wood).
Hemp seeds are the 1 healthiest food on Earth, with complete globular
protein edestins; essential fatty acids, linoleic and linolenic, in
the best form on EARTH!
30% or more of all medicines (125 years ago) were made from Cannabis.
In the near future, 30% or more of medicines will be made from natural
Hemp/Marijuana. In 6,000 years of recorded history, there has never
been one death due to Cannabis Hemp - unless they were shot by a COP!
60% to 80% of everything was made from Cannabis Hemp 6,000 years ago
up until around 100 years ago: for example, clothes, rugs, drapes,
curtains, diapers, canvas, string, rope, sails, houses, cars, etc... I
did not learn one word about Hemp in grade school, high school or
college!
Isn't it strange that the 1 medicine, the 1 fiber, the 1 food, the 1
fuel, the 1 paper and the 1 substitute for wood can be made from Hemp
and it is illegal!! Doesn't it make you mad as hell! You live longer
if you use Cannabis Hemp internally. You live about 2 years longer on
life if you smoke a little in the morning and a little at night. If
you smoke and also eat the seeds you live about 3-4 years longer on
top of that.
It is the healthiest plant for the ground and air. Cannabis Hemp is
the only known plant that can be grown from the Equator to the Arctic
and Antarctic Circles; from the mountains to the valleys, from the
oceans to the plains, including arid lands and everywhere in between.
Cannabis Hemp is the healthiest plant for the ground out of the
300,000 known species, and the millions and millions of subspecies of
plants on Earth, because it has a root system that grows 10 to 12
inches in 30 days compared to one inch for rye, barley grass, etc. The
roots penetrate up to 3, 6 and even 10 feet deep, pulverizing the soil
and making it arable. After harvest it leaves a root system that is
mulched into the ground, revitalizing the land and making it live once
again. It is the KING KONG of the King Kongs of all plant life.
We are circulating petitions to put the California Cannabis Hemp and
Health Initiative on the state's ballot for November 2008. This will
repeal criminal and civil penalties for Cannabis and ban drug testing
for metabolites. It will decriminalize the cultivation, distribution,
and possession of Hemp entirely!
One provision in the petition will order the immediate release from
jail and prison of all non-violent Cannabis Hemp offenders. Including
27,000 or more Californians that violated probation or parole for
positive metabolites from marijuana. The initiative needs 434,000
valid signatures to qualify for the ballot (750,000 all together);
signature gathering continues through April 15, 2008.
This initiative will legalize Cannabis Hemp, within the state of
California, for (a) industrial products, (b) medicinal preparations,
(c) nutritional products, (d) religious and spiritual products, and
(e) recreational and euphoric use 21 and older, with no restrictions,
and no one will ever go to jail again because of it.
It provides for amnesty, immediate release from prison, jail, parole,
and probation, and clearing, expungement, and deletion of all criminal
records for all persons currently charged with, or convicted of any
non-violent Cannabis Hemp marijuana offense.
This initiative protects jobs of medicinal Cannabis patients and other
Cannabis users. It prohibits the testing for inert and/or residual
Cannabis metabolites for the purpose of employment or other impairment.
California Cannabis Hemp and Health Initiative 2008
California Ballot Recipient Committee 1303604
We are looking for 100,000 sponsors and contributors, but will accept
a million, to help us to immediately fund our paid petitioner account.
100% of all funds will be used to buy validated signatures until we
qualify, then we will use the extra money for the November 2008
elections and we will teach the people of California that all the
things I said in this letter, and The Emperor Wears No Clothes was
true. Paid petitioners are currently circulating our petition and we
need to keep them working. Your generous support is needed and very
much appreciated. We don't have the money! We need the money now! We
only have 8 weeks to go.
Please make checks/money orders payable to:
CCHHI08 - P.O. Box 6733 - Westlake Village, CA 91359.
Please make sure that your address and phone number are written or
printed on checks.
Contributions over $100 must also include your employer (campaign
reform disclosure requirements).
Info for Wire Transfers:
Union Bank of California ? Routing 122000496 ? Account 5030038330
Wire Transfer Phone Number ?1-800-922-9473
For International transfers: Swift Number BOFCUS33MPK
Contact us: (bduzy@prodigy.net)
Credit card donors and PayPal account holders please use the PayPal
button at www.calhemp08.org.
Campaign reform disclosure rules and requirements:
? We can accept donations by cash (up to $24.99), check, money order,
wire transfer and PayPal.
? We cannot accept cash donations over $25.00.
? You must include your name and address with any donation over $25.
? You must include your employer's name with any donation over $100.
A few of my friends and I have sponsored 16 initiatives in California,
Oregon, Washington and Alaska. We got 8 of them on the ballot, with 5
of them passing. We have never asked for money in 35 years. We used
our own money entirely. We need your money to get it on the ballot
this time. If you don't, I still have 16 years left. Many of my
friends said to wait until 2012, but most of you will be out of a job
by then because of the Supreme Court of California's new decision
January 24th, 2008, almost a month ago, for all California people,
with doctors note or not, to lose their jobs without any recourse or
compensation. We ask that you donate now, as we are quickly running
out of time. Thank you. Get the money sent now, spread the word to
every one you know to help us out!!! Use your computers and phones!!
EVERYBODY! GET THE WORD OUT!!!
Jack Herer, Proponent
Voter registration link: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm
--
http://www.jackherer.com
http://www.calhemp08.org
http://www.myspace.com/hempjack
http://profile.to/jackherer/- thetruthisthere, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2HEMP FOR VICTORY!
- FlagrantDrugUse, on 02/27/2008, -3/+2umm...4% of trees left? I'm not a doctor or anything, but your're *****' retarded.
- RioDJNarrow, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1Agreed
- Scrappy1850, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1hemp seeds? a snack? are you a finch?! pass me some nachos, please. thank you.
- PrincessDejiko, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1They kind of taste like popcorn if you cook them in a pan with some oil.
- FlagrantDrugUse, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1he said to eat them uncooked! OMG you're wasting all those unique fatty acids!
- PrincessDejiko, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1They kind of taste like popcorn if you cook them in a pan with some oil.
- datatribe, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5Comment burried for being too freaking long.
- bamapachyderm, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1copypasta tl;dr
- RedPhalanx, on 02/27/2008, -11/+14Um...Ron Paul? Hello?
- DukeMojo, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3Yah know he's not the only one right?
AND IT'S OVER WITH! - SzaszMan, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3Get ready for the Digg-down parade.
- PixelMagic, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2He can't hear you. He's too busy not being President.
- DukeMojo, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3Yah know he's not the only one right?
- DanOnTheMoon, on 02/27/2008, -1/+13The real argument is, "who owns your body? Who decides what you can and can't ingest?" Not to mention that prohibition is unconstitutional.
- FoghornLeghorn, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5To quote the great Bill Hicks "It's not a War on Drugs, it's a War on Personal Freedoms".
- SwedishNinja, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1***** you guys, I wanna eat castor beans.
The ricin makes them tasty :)
- DanOnTheMoon, on 02/27/2008, -6/+10Ron Paul!
- depro9, on 02/27/2008, -2/+8But if pot is legal how will corporations find their slaves?
- datatribe, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3Let's revers that... legalized pot will make willing slaves for corporations. :-)
- Evildudetx, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2No, it won't. You will see randomized drug testing skyrocket. People will get fired, or not even hired in the first place.
- Berkana, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4I bet you didn't know that Philip Morris has already preemptively purchased a bunch of trade mark registrations for pot-related terms and names in anticipation of any future legalization of pot.
Philip Morris's favorite activity is the marketing of addictive materials. They own Starbucks, in case anyone forgot.- joshgeek, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I heard a rumor that marlboro already has "marlboro black" labels ready and waiting for when it happens. dunno how accurate that is, though.
- datatribe, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3Let's revers that... legalized pot will make willing slaves for corporations. :-)
- bigfinger, on 02/27/2008, -1/+9I don’t see Marijuana being any worse then Alcohol and cigarettes. Think of how this could infuse the local economy. Farmers would pop up all over the place. Just make it illegal to import it. Cigarette companies would love to sell it, I can see it now Philly Sweets, and New Port Chronic. You still couldn’t drive under the influence. It would kill off a huge source of trafficking revenue, that was outside of taxation and move into taxation. It would illuminate the large amount of non violent arrests for position. So we save big and make big.
- thetruthisthere, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1Make the drug dealers pay taxes!
- datatribe, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3And in 50 years you'll have Big Marijuana getting the tar sued out of it by the states to pay the cost of healthcare for its citizens because, to remain competitive, they'll need to add "special ingredients" like, oh, say, asenic, asbestos, rat poison....
- drkroman9, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0Which is where the free market comes in, Anyone can grow pot from their backyards and farms...causing people to purchase more naturally maintained pot that will be better, more potent and an overall better high.
- bobburn, on 02/27/2008, -0/+12I'm very conservative (fiscally) and support this whole-heartedly. Marijuana legalization makes sense on many, many levels. First, fiscally: not only will the government cut spending, but they'll actually make money from excise taxes/business taxes. Second, smaller, less intrusive government: it's not the government's job to tell someone how to live (that's a very statist view) and what to do with their bodies. Third: banning this (relatively) harmless plant only serves to fly in the face of free market economics.
- bbardlbradd, on 02/27/2008, -17/+4I Have a few things to say about the use of Marijuana.
People say it's less addicting than tobacco, it's less harmful than alcohol, but you're all leaving something out. It's the fact that the studies aren't as good for Marijuana as for things that are legal. If made legal, for one, the study of the effects of the drug would cover the entire nation, and not only the people that agree to participate in experiments (or are in other nations, where it is legal). Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal, people will drink even if they don't feel like it, because they can. If weed were legalized, it would just be the new cigarette. All of the people that smoke just b/c, would smoke weed just b/c too. There would be SO many more "addicts" (People who use "Why should I, I am in control" as a way out of quitting) to weed than cigarettes.
Also, weed is a much easier and much quicker intoxication than alcohol and far more intoxicating than a cigarette. Imagine having people go out back when you're at work and instead of having a cigarette, having a cigaweed. So many people would be stoned EVERYWHERE, our economy would slouch and the current standards of living would go with it.
One more thing, that I want to add. When someone drinks, it doesn't effect. When someone smokes a cigarette, it doesn't effect you (Mentally, of coarse), but when you smoke weed, you can give people who don't want it, a contact high.
Marijuana is for the lose, and needs to remain illegal to keep it from spreading. It's like a lock on a door. It will keep good people out. Bad people will always find a way in. (Not implying that people who smoke weed are /bad/).
I fully support the idea that, in america, you should be able to do as you please, but weed is a particularly attractive drug, and I fear that in todays world it would do more bad than good. We just aren't ready for it to be legalized, and I don't know if we will ever be.
Just stay at home and hide that you have it/ smoke it, and things will be ok. I don't think the government and people backing it really give a ***** if you smoke it in your house and keep it to yourself. They wouldn't hesitate to make an example of you though :/- Footwear, on 02/27/2008, -1/+14You're terribly uninformed.
- bbardlbradd, on 02/27/2008, -12/+2(ah, edit: One more thing, that I want to add. When someone drinks, it doesn't effect others*. When someone smokes a cigarette, it doesn't effect others* (Mentally, of coarse), but when you smoke weed, you can give people who don't want it, a contact high. )
Also, if pot smokers are going to try to fight the government on this issue, they should do it the right way. All of this half-ass work done by the people who are smoking it, doesn't prove anything worth mentioning.
(Btw, I'd like to add that I'm not biased to the governments view on this issue, in fact, I'm all for legalization, myself, especially on the crappy argument that the government holds for the prohibition.)- smotpoker, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5"Also, if pot smokers are going to try to fight the government on this issue, they should do it the right way. All of this half-ass work done by the people who are smoking it, doesn't prove anything worth mentioning."
There is plenty of evidence, you and the media just choose to ignore/dismiss it because only pot smokers will mention it. You assume everyone who advocates legalization is a smoker and that all smokers are too stupid or inept to be credible (which only indicates something about you and the public in general more than anyone)
It takes five minutes to google "marijuana study" and pick some reputable sites to tell you that after 80 years of persecution, they have yet to find any definitive evidence of harm. Once you have an informed opinion, then make your comment- bbardlbradd, on 02/27/2008, -3/+1Oh, myself and the media... we are so ignorant.
I have done PLENTY of research on the substance, and I never said I was /against/ it. If you'd actually read between the lines, or even some of the text that I've typed, you'd see this. I said specifically that I did not agree with the government, which is usually in step with media, so idk where you've picked up that little piece of gold.
I don't only google, I search databases that my college offers me access to. Drug use has been a sort of focus for me, seeing as I'm majoring in philosophy, looking for credible/unbiased resources is rather difficult, especially when working with ethical issues that deal with drug abuse. The government, anti-marijuana, and pro too most of the time, are my greatest obstacles when searching for answers. What I mentioned up there was a quick note, not a scientific document.
If you want to but heads sir, you're looking in the wrong place. I am more for legalization than against it, when it comes to marijuana.- smotpoker, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2Your comment seems to imply large numbers of advocates haven't already been doing just that for years. You may be surprised how hard it is to convince some people who have been indoctrinated of the truth, though, and speaking as one of those people who are smoking it that has tried hard to inform people about it and been dismissed continually despite approach, evidence or source, I found it condescending.
I've presented very credible evidence that it is beneficial or harmless to some of the smartest people I know and a few have dismissed it simply because they are so full of anti-drug rhetoric. They assume all research that all drugs are evil either physically or psychologically, period. Your "half-ass work done by the people who are smoking it" comment implies your own bias to a similar affect (or seems to at least).
Much has been proposed and done but it is very risky for many people to openly/publicly advocate, especially for those who are supporting families or have sensitive/high profile positions, and many others are too disillusioned with the system and have more or less given up (kinda hard not to when nearly everyone assumes off the bat that everything you will ever do will be substandard or call the cops if they find out you smoke).
- smotpoker, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2Your comment seems to imply large numbers of advocates haven't already been doing just that for years. You may be surprised how hard it is to convince some people who have been indoctrinated of the truth, though, and speaking as one of those people who are smoking it that has tried hard to inform people about it and been dismissed continually despite approach, evidence or source, I found it condescending.
- bbardlbradd, on 02/27/2008, -3/+1Oh, myself and the media... we are so ignorant.
- smotpoker, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5"Also, if pot smokers are going to try to fight the government on this issue, they should do it the right way. All of this half-ass work done by the people who are smoking it, doesn't prove anything worth mentioning."
- aidave, on 02/27/2008, -1/+4Please pull your head out of your ass.
- wingo123, on 02/27/2008, -0/+7'Contact high' is a myth.
"When someone drinks, it doesn't effect others" - umm... whoa. Talk to the family members of an alcoholic. When was the last time you heard of a pothead beating their wife and kids?
Marijuana is not addictive, and doesn't make people crazy and/or stupid. You've been watching too much Reefer Madness.
Even if it were legal, do you really think most workplaces would let you smoke on the job? Do people go out back at your job for tequila shots?
The idea that it being illegal keeps everyone from going crazy and using it all the time has been proven wrong many times. Initially, more may try it who wouldn't have otherwise, but the numbers of regular users will not increase in the long run. See:The Netherlands.
And, ummm, yeah, there have been plenty of studies proving pretty much beyond a reasonable doubt that long-term use of marijuana is not nearly as detrimental as that of alcohol or cigarettes.
Just sayin'.- bbardlbradd, on 02/27/2008, -4/+1-Contact high is not a myth.
-If you don't understand the context of the statement, think about it again.
-I have seen reefer madness only twice in my life, and thought it was ***** hilarious. Also, I don't believe it makes people crazy, I know what it does. Addiction does not imply irrational/illogical thought.
-Anything that people can do, can become an addiction, the more people that are exposed to marijuana, without punishment or the threat of punishment, the more people will be exposed the the risk of addiction.
-No, they wouldn't. But it would be easier to tell that the people were carrying around a flask than a pack of cigarettes.
-I just took 4 shots of 99 Bananas on the job two nights ago, and learned my lesson. You don't want to work after drinking, and I was never aware of this before that day.
- I've seen the Netherlands. See: Cultural Differences.
-Long term marijuana use is no different than long term cigarette use, if not around three times worse. Sm
- bbardlbradd, on 02/27/2008, -4/+1-Contact high is not a myth.