Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
The U.S. Marijuana Party
usmjparty.com — Is a motivated group of Americans who are tired of living in fear of their government because of marijuana prohibition. We are fed up with the intrusion into our personal lives, with urine testing at work and at school, with armed home invasions, and with the possibility of prison because of a plant.
RichRawlings- 2267 diggs
- digg it
- xsuite, on 10/12/2007, -250/+25Do you really think a party full of criminals will have any political leverage at all? Personally im all for legalization, but a polit party named after marijuana? Come on.
- ElectricFuneral, on 10/12/2007, -43/+334:"Do you really think a party full of criminals will have any political leverage at all?"
A)the republican party
B)I think A is sufficient. - capiCrimm, on 10/12/2007, -14/+209You realize the only reason they are criminals is because marijuana is illegal?
Do you also realize that one-issue parties like this are very important to American politics? If they grow big enough, then one of the two major parties has to absorb them and thus the issue gets handled. - fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -252/+23Anyone who's fed up with being treated like a criminal, for breaking the law, should stop breaking the law.
***** criminals.
No, I don't think marijuna is evil and I don't think it is a serious crime, but we don't have the luxury of picking and choosing what laws we obey sorry. - Phendrana, on 10/12/2007, -17/+129@fkr2
Need I bring up the slavery argument? - BowieX, on 10/12/2007, -152/+17I can imagine their "First 100 Hours" controlling Congress:
"So, man... like.... hahahahahaha! ...... woah what's THAT? A'ight, so..... weeeeeee! Man! Ann Coulter is HOOOT!"
[99 hours later]
"So let's pass this thing hahahahaha.... give me a pen...... is.... penis!! Hahaha weeee!" - fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -164/+18Go for it. I love the slavery argument. I mean, it's completely relevant - slavery violated the basic human rights of a group of people. What group's human rights does marijuana being illegal currently violate? Criminals. What human rights does it violate? None.
Make an exception for one group, even though the 'crime' is harmless and there is no victim, and you'll have other groups stepping up wanting exceptions too. Who first ... insider trading doesn't have a victim, should that be legalised too? What about someone filming consenting but underage teens? If there's consent how can there be a victim? Maybe bank robbing should be legal too - the money's insured so if they don't shoot anyone who's the victim?
Like I said before (quite unpopularly) .... You don't get to pick and choose what laws you're going to obey. If marijuana's illegal where you are, move, find another hobby or break the law. - Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -9/+113fkr2: But why is it illegal in the first place?
Look it up. The whole "basic human rights" thing might be more relevant than you think. - fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -136/+20It became illegal because someone at some time decided it was bad for you. It's still illegal because many people at many times in many places have come to the same conclusion.
Plenty of people dispute it, but at the end of the day it's illegal. That's all that matters. Personally I could care less if people are smoking weed around me - I lived on the caribbean half of last year where you can get stoned walking down a street. But the law should be followed.
PS. At the kids burying my comments -
It doesn't matter how much you want weed to be legalised, if you're caught somewhere it's illegal then you should put your little pipes down and step up and take the punishment like a man. You know it's illegal and if you make a conscious decision to do it anyway then boohoo. - JusticeAK, on 10/12/2007, -5/+103@fkr2
If you don't like a law, you can do something about it. Don't forget the inherent right and power as trial jurors to veto unjust laws or unjustly applied laws and thereby stop imprisonment of the innocent. Remember the Government works for us. - fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -112/+12So then I guess the majority of people don't want weed legalised since the government works for the people and it's become more illegal and carries harsher punishments?
Otherwise the law'd be changed right?
For the record, I think it really sucks to send some kid to prison for having a joint. It's a waste of life, time and tax payers money. But I think it sucks more when people consciously ignore the law. - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -7/+107fkr2:
Not all crimes are equal. Not all laws are just. And when you say "***** criminals", you lump someone who smokes a joint into the same group as rapists and killers - and that's just stupid. In any case, this group (real or not) seems to be about lobbying to get the law changed. Citizens are allowed to do that, and it's not breaking the law. - fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -100/+12By definition a criminal is someone who commits crimes.
Anyway, these lobbyists are allowed to lobby for it certainly. But until they get the law changed (or if) then weed's illegal and the law should be respected. I bet they're not smoking joints while talking to congress/police/whatever.
Who here is going to raise their kids to pick and choose what laws they want to obey?
"Oh, that's a stupid law you don't need to obey it!" - saw2239, on 10/12/2007, -10/+67fkr2,
your right parents shouldn't teach their children to pick and choose what laws they follow, however when a kid grows up it is his responsibility to decide whether or not a law is just and if he determines that it is not, its up to him whether or not he chooses to follow it. That's part of growing up. - fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -94/+12Yeah, it's a part of growing up. The part where you decide if you're going to obey the law or be a criminal, and accepting the consequences is also a part of growing up.
- nwily, on 10/12/2007, -7/+74That's how I was raised. I was taught to what is moral, and if that contradicts the law, so be it. I hope to raise my kids the same way.
That is the whole foundation of civil disobedience. It is the only ways societies laws change. - prescod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39Absolutely we should teach our children to obey only laws that are just. They have a responsibility to their consciences first and foremost. As George Bush would say, laws are just words on goddamn paper. And unlike George Bush, my children have not taken an oath to uphold the law so why should they?
- Aldrenean, on 10/12/2007, -3/+57"we don't have the luxury of picking and choosing what laws we obey."
As far as I understand it, it is a democracy, and if a law is seen as unneccessary or unjust by the people, it should no longer be a legitimate law. - skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+46"Oh, that's a stupid law you don't need to obey it!"
Let me put that how I see it:
"Oh, that's an immoral, outdated, ignorant law you don't need to obey it!"
So it comes down to what you think is moral or not. Just because it is a crime does not make it immoral. Have you ever broken the speed limit by 1mph? 5? 10? You see where I'm going with this... - saw2239, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31Living in California I am more than willing to suffer the $100 to my wallet.
and as it is I choose not to follow unjust laws, laws are made for the protection of the person, not for the advancement of an agenda. - hambend, on 10/12/2007, -5/+68@fkr2
It doesn't work like that. You can't just put a law in a book somewhere and expect people to change their lives for it. That's the same mistake every totalitarian government makes.
People are free. It's not a right, it's not a privilege, it is a *fact*. We do whatever we want to do, because that's what people do. Stupid governments try to get people to behave by banning behaviors, outlawing opinions and just generally making criminals out of their own populace. It's a nanny state policy. It's expensive and ineffective, and who polices the police?
People are free. Good governments realize that, and let you exercise your natural freedom, as long as you extend the same courtesy to everyone else. Not because they just want you to do whatever you want, but because governments have neither the capacity nor any ***** business trying to stop you. Good governments focus on educating people, so that we make better choices by ourselves. It's surprisingly effective.
If people don't want to obey a law, then the law is wrong. Not the people. - fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -78/+7Nobody's "changing their lives" because of this law. It was illegal when you were born, there's a chance it'll be illegal when you die.
That's "you" changing because of the law - from a civilian to someone who consciously breaks the law - aka a criminal.
It's cute the way you think people are free and that's a "fact". People in a governed society are not free, they're free within limits which are set by others for the good of the many. Those limits are "laws".
"If people don't want to obey a law, then the law is wrong. Not the people."
Please tell me you don't actually believe that ***** .... Pedophiles think the law is wrong, and I bet anyone convicted of murder feels it's wrong to be locked up for life. - saw2239, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25fkr2,
Thats why people have morals. Laws are supposed to be prosecuted "in the spirit of..." which is to say that morality is supposed to be applied to all laws. This is an immoral law and thus should not be enforced. period. - SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7@aldrenean
Yeah, if the people are really for the legalization, it won't be illegal anymore to smoke marijuana. If the people really wanted it, they would elect candidates running on that platform. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. We elect leaders to make the everyday decisions for us, and if we disagree, we elect a new one..
Just because YOU don't like a law doesn't mean you can break it. That's the point he was trying to make. Plenty of people think rape is okay, or that being an illegal living here is okay, or anything else. Doesn't mean they can break it. - shableep, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38"Who here is going to raise their kids to pick and choose what laws they want to obey?"
Me. The justification of legislation should always be challenged by the people. There should never be blind obedience. Understanding your values, morals and being conscious of your rights (and the world) is a bit more important. - fkr2, on 10/12/2007, -70/+7You don't challenge a law by breaking it ...
I really hope your children understand the difference between contesting a law *without* breaking it, and writing an appeal from prison. - humanseemer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+53@fkr2
"You don't challenge a law by breaking it ..."
It worked for Ghandi.
I don't even like marijuana, but your attitude is what's wrong with this country. I'll do whatever the ***** I want, and I'm WILLING to accept the consequences, how about that? - daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2good luck.
- hambend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34@fkr2
"Nobody's "changing their lives" because of this law. It was illegal when you were born, there's a chance it'll be illegal when you die."
People have been using marijuana for thousands of years. It is our natural behavior. Let me put it to you this way; when many people encounter cannabis for the first time (not everyone, it's a choice thing), they are curious, they try it, they like it. Over time, as they learn about its properties and effects, some of them even learn to use it habitually because they find it enhances their quality of life. The law really doesn't really enter into the equation until the DEA busts down the door. Then the law changes your life in a big ***** hurry.
"It's cute the way you think people are free and that's a "fact". People in a governed society are not free, they're free within limits which are set by others for the good of the many. Those limits are "laws"."
You and I have different definitions for the word "free". I say mine is better than yours.
"Pedophiles think the law is wrong, and I bet anyone convicted of murder feels it's wrong to be locked up for life."
That's why I said "...as long as you extend the same courtesy to everyone else." There are some situations where not everyone can have their way (pedophiles and children is an obvious example), and then someone needs to step in and mediate. That's what the legal system is for, the greatest good to the most people. Nothing more.
Even in extreme cases like rape and murder, where freedoms simply must be limited, education is still better than legislation. Laws certainly have some deterrent effect, but it gets diluted by the fact that most people will still do whatever they want if they think they can get away with it. Better to educate people, to teach them the empathy and social skills they need to get along in society.
Better to not murder because you think it's wrong, than to not murder because you think it's illegal. - eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29"You don't challenge a law by breaking it ... "
Oh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience
While I agree that if you break any law you should be prepared to take the consequences, I don't agree that that should be the basis for ruining peoples lives.
http://www.crazylaws.com/
Youre a criminal if you break those too (assuming even some of those are legit). Does that mean you shouldn't break them if theyre stupid? Theyre for the good of society after all. Maybe you should go to prison for those as well?
Some hills are worth dieing on, if people want marijauna legalization to be it let them and don't ridicule them, if enough people die on a hill it will be quite noticeable, perhaps a change can be made. Are the laws regarding it incredibly stupid? most definitly. If you break them and expect to not have to adhere to the punishment are you stupid? most definitly
Anyway guys fkr2 or whatever he is is a troll. If you respond you lose. Your not going to change his mind, and while it makes me sad to think that people like him exist, it's best just to ignore them and move on, by responding to him you have only made him important, whereas if no one had responded to him he would be sitting at -20 diggs and no one would bother reading him. [heres to following my own advice]
The whole thing is really stupid anyway. If you really think this is about the drug at all, I do believe youre wrong. It is about prison labour and keeping prisons filled with labourers. The new slave class is made of prisoners. People who are payed almost nothing to do work or else. Free labour is lucrative. I wouldnt expect prison labour to go away anytime soon, thus I wouldnt expect drug related crimes to go away anytime soon because its the easiest way to induct people into the new slave class. - Phendrana, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31"You don't challenge a law by breaking it ... "
You hear that, Rosa Parks? To the back of the bus with ya.
Hey, that gives me an idea! Who wants to join my Million Stoner March? We'll march to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and then onwards to the closest McDonald's. Or maybe we'll just go straight to McDonald's. OR TACO BELL!!! That'll show em.... - Tien, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15fkr2,
I really don't want to touch this because i don't see this argument going anywhere, but the idea of civil disobedience or simply changing values stands even on issues like pedophilia. If enough people thought it was morally palatable and were doing it then society would bend to accommodate it. And then our culture would just relate to places like old Greece where relations between older men and boys was not demonized. Change in society starts with deviance whether it is illegal or not. - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@ fkr2
I’m going to have to split hairs with you on this one. Marijuana wasn’t outlawed because it was dangerous -- it was *classified* as dangerous in the 30s because Mexicans were its primary users. It was the Great Depression, and government and labor groups were looking for a way to demonize the immigrants taking white jobs. They used the “protecting our children and way of life” argument as an excuse to deport.
Now, let me say, I agree with you in that the law is the law -- you break the law, you pay the consequences. However, laws can be changed. As a recovering drug addict whose drug of choice was marijuana (it can be psychologically addictive), I can tell you that alcohol is a far more dangerous drug. Mind you, it’s not for everyone (me, for one), but it’s not the drug of the anti-marijuana propaganda that proliferated the US from the 30s to the 80s -- nor is it the harmless, miracle drug as touted by many pro-marijuana groups. It’s a drug, no matter how you look at it. It has benefits, and it has detriments. It’s just not as dangerous as we have been taught to believe.
As far as the U.S. Marijuana party goes? Personally, I think, with the slow chipping away of our already guaranteed freedoms over the past 6 years, we have bigger fish to fry as a country. Let’s get some perspective folks.
Resource: http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/mustomj1.html - ksponge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Why bother arguing with fkr2? He/she obviously has poor logic skills and doesn't follow the proper pathways. He seems to like to label people though.
And not that you will but
@fkr2 Learn to think clearly. - dlbear, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9fkr2 is here to argue, not debate. His opinion will not be swayed by anything you say, every story re: Pro-Marijuana movements and legislation draws these bozos like flies to a steaming pile. It must give them a nut to call pot-smokers stoners, morons, etc; I can't think of any other reason they'd even care.
- EndersGame, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"You don't challenge a law by breaking it ... "
Really, now remind me again, the whole alcohol prohibition thing....did that really happen or was that fictional? Because I am pretty sure the masses at the time showed the government that the law was unpopular and unfair. In your perfect world everybody would have abolished distribution and consumption of alcohol altogether and just complained about it instead. And in your perfect world alcohol would still be prohibited.
Oh, and who was that Rosa Parks lady they always tell me about in school. It was against the law to sit in the front of the bus in her case, but yet she had some bizarre idea that breaking the law and proving a point was somehow going to get her cause some where. Oops, it did get her cause some where. In her particular case, it showed that african americans weren't some lesser species with half a brain that was going to sit there and take that kind of abuse. Rosa sat in the front of the bus, and she was a criminal taken off in handcuffs. Now we remember her as a civil rights hero.
It seems pointless to argue about whether you are a criminal if you smoke pot or not anyways. We should be focusing on the real issue, like why the hell is pot still illegal. I am sure most of the people that take part in this party would rather debate the real issue as well. If you guys think you have any reasons why pot should be illegal, I doubt you will be able to argue against the points I made in this article: http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/Pot_Penalties_Harsher_for_Minorities (search my second two posts)
Besides fkr2 you insinuate that this is a horrible way to get an unfair law changed, but I don't see your point. Laws are changed all the time, thats a part of the whole democracy thing this country is supposed to be about. Starting your own political party to lobby against an unfair law is one of many paths you can choose to change said law. Its probably one of the more extreme methods, but I agree that we need to do something extreme about this situation. - roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8fkr2 is debating...
The problem is, the debating skills of the other side only know how to come back by digging him down.
You don't change laws by breaking them. You change them by convincing others that they need to be changed. Thats like saying, "I want the speed limit to be 100mph on I95....so I'll just drive 100mph, eventually, they will change for me!"
It doesn't work like that. As to the original reason for banning it in the first place? Drugs were ruining society. Politicians, Other people in power and the like were doing as much "recreational" drugs as anyone. When you have an entire nation of people like that...it causes a problem.
The thing with legalizing one drug, is you almost have to legalize them all. Cocaine, Heroin, Hardcore Prescription drugs, all of them. And according to your "basic human rights" argument, they shouldn't even at that point, be allowed to control them...as that would require legislation as well. So now anyone, any age, can do any drug.
It's a cascading effect.
In the end, it's the law. That's all there really is to it. Break it if you choose, but you're not a martyr, you're not fighting for any cause, you're not special. You're just seeking an artificial high to make up for some deficiency in your life... I'm a fan of people doing whatever they please, and long as they are willing to face the consequences...so don't let me (or logic) stop you... - roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3@EndersGame
Prohibition was repealed not because people pushed and pushed for it, but because the government felt that allowing alcohol again would help people get through the depression. Prohibition lasted for 1920-1933, whereas the depression lasted from late 1929 thru the late 30's... A mix of lack of money to enforce the laws and the realization that alcohol might help the average joe get through the depression is what lead the the repeal. Up untill then, the fines and punishment for violating the dry laws was increasing. You see, a criminal is a criminal. The definition of the word is basically someone who breaks the law/commits a crime. More criminals generally leads to more laws...not the other way around.
As for Rosa Parks. She didn't get a law changed. In fact, she wasn't even one of the first to do it. Jackie Robinson did it in 1944 (refusing to move to the back of a bus.) ... 11 years before Parks. The only reason we remember parks, is that this event triggered the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The only reason this event is remembered, is it was the moment when MLK came to popularity. She didnt get a law changed by breaking the law. Her breaking the law encouraged others to work on changing them, yes, but it was their actions of diplomacy and peacefull resolution that lead the the law being changed...not an act of crime. - GreyICE, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Wait, so your brilliant retort is that Rosa Parks did nothing by breaking the law, she just encouraged others to boycott the Bus Lines? Wouldn't that be the entire point of breaking the law, to visibly stand there and say ' this is not fair, help me change this?'
And the prohibition - the penalties were getting more severe because they realized everyone was breaking the law despite the penalties. So the idiots who made the law made the penalties more severe. And then they cracked down harder. And people kept right on drinking. Because the average human is smart enough to know what laws are stupid, and which aren't and act accordingly.
There's no moral value to something being a law. There's no reason to follow laws that are stupid, besides fear that you might get caught. There is nothing, NOTHING that makes any given law morally correct.
As for fkr2, he's showing the wonderful attitude that has gotten so many people so far with unjust laws - don't break it, don't actually fight it, just write letters to your congressmen. That'll change anything. That's why people are digging him down - his arguments are idiotic. - zombiedepot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17From:
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
- Federal Bureau of Narcotics Chief, Harry J. Anslinger, 1929
"After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat." - Pharmacologist Dr James Munch, expert witness of Harry J Anslinger
To:
"Marijuana leads to homosexuality ... and therefore to AIDS."
- White House Drug Czar, Carlton Turner, 1986
And then now:
Pete's couch.
It's a stupid law to prohibit a plant for racist and ignorant reasons. It's no coincidence that those who agree with it are also racist and ignorant. Prior to the past century it was used safely for 12,000 years. - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"You realize the only reason they are criminals is because marijuana is illegal?"
You realize the only reason murderers are criminals is because homicide is illegal, right?
I'm not saying weed shouldn't be legal, I'm simply saying that argument is moot.
Canada has had a Marijuana Party for quite some time now... we also have a number of other parties, some stranger than others ( http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=index&dir=par&lang=e&textonly=false ). I believe the leader of the Marijuana Party left and joined the Liberals, which was actually pretty smart; he has a much better chance of having his voice heard as part of a major party. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It wouldn't happen for fear of prosecution, but hypothetically: What do you think would happen if thousands of people converged on a single location, say Central Park NYC, and openly smoked marijuana? 30,000 people smoking weed in the park. Do you think they would all be arrested? Would that perhaps work as a political statement?
My little sister's boyfriend had this idea. I told him it would never happen, but it's nice to think about what might occur if it did. - nj10ii, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4"And not that you will but @fkr2 Learn to think clearly."
So there's the argument of the potheads, "you don't think clearly". Obviously you don't smoke pot! You haven't been enlightened.
You cant argue with potheads on digg, they are incapable of changing their minds. Mainly because the drug is thinking for them, or not allowing them to think at all. - FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15People who speak out against Cannabis, usually don't have the first clue about the plant.
Its kind of like how most Atheists usually know more about the Bible and Ancient history than most Christians. - OiPunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"It became illegal because someone at some time decided it was bad for you. It's still illegal because many people at many times in many places have come to the same conclusion."
Incorrect, sir.
DO some research--marijuana was initially made illegal in the early 1900s in an attempt to kill off Mexican immigration following the revolution - FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4@ xsuite 9 (a.k.a. Digg troll)
YOU IDIOTS SHOULD HAVE VOTED FOR KERRY
Bush and the rest of his Neo Nazi pals have highjacked your party and turned it into Vaporware overnight! And Bill O'Lielly said the "Liberals highjacked the DNC?" Riiiiight Fools!!
The GOP is heading like a speedtrain into extinction. The way of the Dodo bird. The Republican party will be half the size of the U.S. Marijuana Party ticket by 2008
Like you BigMac eating inbreds always say, "I'm Loving It!" - LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Love all the arguments for anti-drug laws. "It's illigal so you shouldn't do it". Well that's all well and good but when was the last time you downloaded a song without paying, tried grabbing an open wireless network when it was convenient or notified the cable company when they accedently gave you free cable?
You don't obey laws because they are laws - that's stupid. You obey them because it's good for society. If a law is retarded, outdated, and ENCOURAGES worse behavior (drug trafficing, supporting drug lords, lacing drugs with other drugs to hook people, etc...) then you don't follow it and try to get it changed because it doesn't make sense.
I follow the laws up to the point where I decide whether or not it's moral. Jaywalking is technically illigal but if car's arent coming I'll be damned if I won't cross because a piece of paper somewhere says so.
I don't care what fkr2 or anyone else says - most drug laws don't make sense are were created by opinion instead of fact. Don't get into an argument on drugs unless YOUVE DONE SOME RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT. - twtmc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Good for the US. Here in British Columbia, Canada, we have the Canadian Marijuana Party lead by Marc Emery. He is an extremely smart man and the party has done so much good, all without being elected. Because of them, there are now safe places to buy and smoke pot in just about all the towns surrounding Vancouver (all of them without a perscription), and they have even opened up a few heroin treatment centers with the money made from their profits of the online seed business that is run from the headquarters. Hopefully this marijuana party will do as much good as ours does.
- RealityCheque, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1What responsible parent raises their kids telling them to "only obey the laws they feel to be moral"? Answer: A lifetime drug addict.
It would take stoner pukes to think of something this ***** stupid. I read these weed articles every once in a while knowing that the people in the comments are going to say stuff that is totally retarded and could only be bred from years of marijuana abuse; however, this is probably THE absolute apex of stupidity. You nerds live in the deepest and darkest states of psychosis and denial of any group of people by leaps and bounds.
No doubt your state appointed psychiatrists have already told you all this, so it is pointless for me to repeat it. You can't fix hopeless, even if you smoke a psychotropic substance 3 times a day to try to forget about how terrible your life is. - Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4For everyone,
Supposedly, we the people, make the laws; through various representatives laws are passed and turned down. But the problem of having representatives that are OUT OF TOUCH with the people they represent is that they vote for things they believe instead of what the majority of people want. This makes the process for passing laws even harder. Along with the "marijuana is evil" mentality.
@fkr2 is it criminal to want to not feel pain without harmful side-effects? I knew a couple of people who have cancer and after they take medicine... it's just one of the saddest things to see. They are not criminals they are citizens that have a need and THEY are being arrested!! Dying people trying to live as comfortably as possible are deemed criminals; I call it normal!
Sure I want Marijuana legal so i can smoke it and I don't need it other than i like it. But if it could be legalized just for the sick, i wouldn't think twice or complain. - LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Anyone else find it funny that all these anti-drug posters just group all drug users into 1 pool? Some might consider that racist or biggotry but noooo since it's drugs and illigal it's perfectly acceptable.
Stop your ***** ignorance - your parents probably smoked, your teachers probably smoked and if the census can be trusted a good 25-50% of everyone you've ever known has tried it. That lawyer you have probably smokes and so does that cop upholding the law. No one brags because it's in their best interest to look "legally clean". OPEN YOUR GODDAM EYES. WE'RE NOT ALL LAZY SLOBS. - R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@orientis
"What do you think would happen if thousands of people converged on a single location, say Central Park NYC, and openly smoked marijuana? 30,000 people smoking weed in the park. Do you think they would all be arrested? Would that perhaps work as a political statement?"
April 20, 2006 - University of Colorado Boulder, every year, police stand there in stupor. I tried to find a pic, but they seem to have been taken down. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Got a link to an article or anything? Sounds interesting.
- R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@RealityCheque
"What responsible parent raises their kids telling them to "only obey the laws they feel to be moral"? Answer: A lifetime drug addict."
You know how ignorant you sound right? The answer in fact is more likely someone who actually thinks about the laws they follow rather than just following them. You somehow believe that whomever makes the laws has a far better idea about what is right than the individual does. That the few should rule the conduct of the many. The beauty of our system is that is opposes such fascist ideals, while you seem to embrace them.
Fun Facts:
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/subStateMJ/subStateMJ.htm - Marijuana use by state
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3906 - Cash crops - R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here is a story about the police attempting to arrest people for being there. They can never do it at the time because they don't want to start a riot. So much for being able to assemble and protest...
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/8119/C94/L94 - the story
http://www.thirdtablet.com/Question31/ucb-420-2006/ - the pictures being used - R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://dreadegos.com/serendipity/index.php?/plugin/tag/420+Day - Video goodness
- thestocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. ~Abraham Lincoln
What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike. ~Alfred North - dRuNk3nIrIsHmEn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@fkr
Jaywalking is a crime.
THOSE ***** CRIMINALS! - cyberpass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Canada has had one for years....Its about time the US got out of the 19th century...Hopefully they can make it out of 20th century sometime soon!
- brazen521, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0I think it's pathetic to even try this. Not only is legalization of marijuana a stupid, adolescent pursuit, but the website sucks. And I'm not sure if you learned this before you dropped out of school, but 12,000,000 isn't ***** compared to the 300,000,000 people in the United States. 12/300 is about... 4%. NICE! You guys can SO DO THIS if you can just convince 67% of Congress to smoke pot! Maybe send them free samples or something! Oh, and uh
... genocidal war? What the hell are you talking about... - dlbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When it comes to not obeying unjust laws we Americans are pretty notorious (think the American Revolution, when we committed treason against the British crown). That seemed to work out pretty well.
- dbanshe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Does anyone even go the speed limit? Or make a complete stop at all stop signs and before a right turn at a red light? Do you turn your blinker on the required amount of distance before a turn? We all pick and choose the laws we follow. In Alabama, the state I live in it's illegal to curse around women and children.
- Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ You can't pick and choose the laws you want to follow.
Oh really? Do you ever break the speed limit because I see a few hundred people doing it everyday. Do you ever cross the street while not in a cross walk? Ever copy a CD or download a song? Ever tape a song off the radio? Ever borrow something and not give it back? Ever use a chemical product in a manner other than its stated purpose? Ever go to church on Sunday without a shotgun? There are laws that you don't even know about that have been on the books for years and you choose to be ignorant of them and break them all the time. Don't come across as some ultra-authoritarian type until you actually know all the laws because you pick and choose which ones to follow all the time without realizing it.
@ Its illegal because its bad for you
Using legality as a measure for morality is a horrible thing to do. If the public health was the American government foremost concern, we would have a right to health care and housing but, we don't. The real reasons behind marijuana prohibition are greed and racism and if you had done any research on the topic you would already know that. Politicians in this country do not care about individuals rights as much as they to about their ability to collect millions of dollars in special intrest money.
@ Marijuana prohibition does not violate any one's basic human rights.
What about the right to have a decent quality of life? People who need to use marijuana for medical reason rely on it to help them maintain some quality of living. Without it, they would suffer unnecessarily. Does life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ring a bell?
Did I miss anything? - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6flkr2:
In Los Angeles, a man is legally entitled to beat his wife with a leather belt or strap, but the belt can't be wider than 2 inches, unless he has his wife's consent to beat her with a wider strap.
In Denver it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor.
In Devon, Connecticut, it is unlawful to walk backwards after sunset.
In Hartford, Conn., you aren't allowed to cross a street while walking on your hands.
In the England it is illegal to sell most goods on a sunday, (this law is mostly ignored), it is however legal to sell a carrot. It is also legal to sell it at any price and to give free gifts with it, such as anything else one might want to buy on a sunday!
It is illegal to say "Oh, Boy" in Jonesboro, Georgia.
In Gary, Ind., persons are prohibited from attending a movie house or other theater and from riding a public streetcar within four hours of eating garlic.
In Ottumwa, Iowa, "It is unlawful for any male person, within the corporate limits of the (city), to wink at any female person with whom he is unaquainted."
No one may catch fish with his bare hands in Kansas.
There is a Massachusetts law requiring all dogs to have their hind legs tied during the month of April.
It is illegal to take more than 2 baths a month within Boston confines.
In Clawson, Mich., there is a law that makes it LEGAL for a farmer to sleep with his pigs, cows, horses, goats, and chickens.
In Michigan, a woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission.
In Carrizozo, N.M., it's forbidden for a female to appear unshaven in public (includes legs and face).
In Greene, New York, it is illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards on the sidewalks when a concert is on.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle without the supervision of a licensed engineer.
The state law of Pennsylvania prohibits singing in the bathtub.
In Pennsylvania, "any motorist driving along a country road at night must stop every mile and send up a rocket signal, wait 10 minutes for the road to be cleared of livestock, and continue."
In Memphis, Tennessee, it is illegal for a woman to drive a car unless there is a man either running or walking in front of it waving a red flag to warn approaching motorists and pedestrians.
Texas law forbids anyone to have a pair of pliers in his possession.
Virginia law forbids bathtubs in the house; tubs must be kept in the yard.
In Nicholas County, W. Va., no member of the clergy is allowed to tell jokes or humorous stories from the pulpit during a church service.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're saying that all laws should be followed blindly and without question, all those people better follow ALL those laws, regardless of how sexist or racist they might be?
There are a lot of people that think Marijuana laws should be included in the above list, including myself. - LocalDocal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*Is incredibly amused that every single post of fkr's is being digged down, including the posts which says almost the exact same thing as other posters who are being digged up*
- CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pardon my French, but you're an *****! *****!
- kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not all laws are just.
Allowing RIAA to redefine copyright laws to make downloading for free from anybody on any media outlet they have for free was made illegal because RIAA couldn't handle the heat... The law was cowardly, and was so unjust that it showed how much corporations control the government.
Anyway making weed illegal is ridiculious. Not only does the media purposely miseducate the masses on the health effects of this drugs. They refuse to say the benefits. Saying it causes lung cancer even though the chemical it releeases in its smoke does the exact opposite... Anyway point being said. I'm tired of criminals being created, and I'm tired of seeing that 14 year old kid get shot in the head because he had a bag of weed, and the gang wanted that and the money.. I'm tired of hearing the violence, nad crime that surrounds it.
In order to end that violence and crime that surrounds the drug. We need to legalize it. Thus removing it from the black market. Of course people in general don't think rationally 24/7 so they think the opposite would happen, and that criminals would pop up everywhere, and everyone would get high even though most people don't even care for the drug, and since we don't see rehab working we don't think about how undeer funded it is, and other factors............
We never stop and think about stuff. We just talk from the gut. I'm tired of it. I'm glad to see a party being created because they are tired of it also...
- ElectricFuneral, on 10/12/2007, -43/+334:"Do you really think a party full of criminals will have any political leverage at all?"
- whyno, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8if nothing else it will put a face on the people the republicans will have to answer to in their lying fits of reefer madness; that isn't merely a bunch of advocacy groups
While I don't see a Marijuana Party candidate getting any kind of % voting wise, it will be someone else to raise these issues that need to be addressed- LucianSolaris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7COMMENT ABUSE - VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW:
Though MJ is outlawed, you should know that American courts are essentially international jurisdiction admiralty courts (take note of the gold embroidered US flag in the court room). They, like the US gov't, recognizes and employs the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). The only way this could exist as it does is that there are recourse and remedy sections that protect your COMMON LAW rights.
If you want to know what common law is, google it.
The provisions are under section 1-103 and 1-207/1-308 (depending on which version of the UCC has been adopted). When you reserve your rights, without prejudice, under 1-207/1-308 and know how to argue the sections, you can get out of ANYTHING that doesn't have a 'damaged party'. Under common law, the State cannot be a party of interest.
Look up "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" on google and look for some writings by Howard Freeman. Learn it well. It is vital.
Before you guys digg me down for 'comment abuse' and/or thinking I'm some kook to think we have recourse from ***** victimless crime laws at least consiter that unlike you there may be someone who is genuinely interested in knowing the above. Please don't censor this comment.
- LucianSolaris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7COMMENT ABUSE - VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW:
- scottfarner, on 10/12/2007, -15/+74C'mon guys, this is a hoax! Real users of marijuana would never be motivated enough to form a political party.
;)- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35They've got a better chance than anarchists, though.
- angrymobmusic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19NORML has anyone heard of it? National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws ... its been around since the seventies and more info can be found at http://www.NORML.org It is time to stop the victimization of normal responsible Marijuana users today.
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Nah, they're motivated. They just go to the polls on the first Wednesday of November.
- DigitalJesus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22We've got a marijuana party here in Canada.... and sort of another one as well, that is if you count the Green Party heh
- SPLASTiK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13NDP also supports complete legalization of Marijuana too I do believe.
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The Dems? if they do they sure are quiet about it
- LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's their stance on the issue - they aren't about to make a giant fuss over it though.
- analyze, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36Here are some campaign slogans for the new Marijuana Party:
1. Hey, America -- Let's Blow This Joint!
2. Just Doob It
3. Weed My Lips!- ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Come roll with me
Turning the White House Green
Ill bet if the party was put in power - they would go over and smoke out Kim Jung Ill
- ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Come roll with me
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51The Libertarian Party supports legalizing marijuana. Much of the Green Party does too.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -33/+3Im not sure cutting down forests to grow pot for recreational purposes is an ideal of the green party.
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Cutting down forest to grow pot????
seriously
or hemp saving forests? is that what you meant to say cause that might make more sense - schroeder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20ummm... you don't have to cut down a forest to grow pot... you can just grow it in your back yard like people in vermont and upstate new york do...
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5nestafett, learn to read/write. Your comment was just pure nonsense.
and shroeder, i think thats a valid point, but not everyone can grow large amounts of marijuana in their back yards. Its not exactly an extremely important issue, but I think the green party, while not banning it, would regulate the production of marijuana. - fuzzymallard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Indeed; and I am not surprised that most "alternative" political parties support this idea. This prohibition has cost us an obscene amount of money. But, until voters in the United States learn that the two major political parties are merely tools used by lobbyists to control people, we'll be stuck with policies that are not in our best interests.
- Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@drizek
Actually his comment made a tremendous amount of sense. Hemp would save a lot of forest because it can be used to make (better) paper. And while I'm at it, Hemp would also cut down on oil use because oil is used to make canvas and plastic, two things that hemp can make, except that hemp plastic is biodegradable. - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1See, thats why you both need to learn to read. Note the use of the word "recreational" in my post. You might be able to see it better if you didnt digg it down.
- pplant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27A Marijuana Party is nothing new.
I had a something funny to go with this but I forgot.- interg12, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39That could be the slogan of the Marijuan Party "I had something funny to go with this bu i forgot"
- intilli4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21We do need to speak up as Americans. We could gain so much more from legalization than we can with marijuana being an illegal substance. People need to stop looking at it like a DRUG and look at it as a RESOURCE! There is way to much evidence that this plant is very versatile and could bring so much more income into the USA. Hell we have a chemical that is legal that can make you die if you ingest too much so why can't we have a legal substance that makes you happy, tired, hungry and just down right laid back? Go make your voices heard. You Have That Right!!!
- gregduh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2anyone can grow marijuana in their closet so no corporations would be able to make money off it if they could sell it, because people would already have a supply if they wanted. how many people do you know that have the resources to brew their own beer? probably none, so the people need someone to make it for them
that's what's wrong with america these days, it's pretty much the government kissing corporate ass, let's make dro legal - Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anyone can brew beer but, not everyone can brew really good beer. The same goes for weed. I agree that almost anyone can get a pot seed to sprout but, getting good genetics, lighting, CO2 air mixture, hydroponics system, pH balance, nutrient balance and light scheduling are not something that you just anyone can do. Trust me. I have looked in the closets of alot of college students and had to do my best not to laugh at how they were trying to grow.
- gregduh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2anyone can grow marijuana in their closet so no corporations would be able to make money off it if they could sell it, because people would already have a supply if they wanted. how many people do you know that have the resources to brew their own beer? probably none, so the people need someone to make it for them
- selfprodigy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8*cough *cough This looks cool *bubble *bubble
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54Okay, show of hands, how many people clicked hoping it was an invitation.
- Vladamir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*raises both hands AND both feet*
- undersky, on 10/12/2007, -44/+2These marijuana articles are spam, please bury.
- Subvexer, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6YOU'RE a hooker!
- curunir, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3*You're* a towel.
- Vladamir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3damn it. wrong comment. bury me! or digg me up. frankly i dont care. im disowning this comment.
- Itazura, on 10/12/2007, -27/+7A party thats sole base is a plant used as a stimulant. Sounds more like taking lobbying to the next level. Why not have a Tabacco party, an Alcohol party, hell i'd vote for a Prostitution party.
Seriously, no matter how you feel about marijuana, basing an entire party's platform on a plant is just stupid.- Subvexer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27"Seriously, no matter how you feel about marijuana, basing an entire party's platform on a plant is just stupid."
The current U.S. presidency is based on a vegetable, so what's the problem? - maj0rm0j0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@itazura
It looks to me like a party that's sole purpose is to utilize their rights as Americans to oppose ignorant laws that could actually benefit people with medicinal purposes.
You've got to realize that we outlaw a plant that grows in nature and actually helps people. ---- How dare that plant grow on American soil! Ban it!
The problem is that it cuts into the legal drug industry's profit!
BS is what it is! - nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I dont think they really think they will win, I think they are just trying to push the issue and make people more aware and put some facts out there.
- xyc0n, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Marijuana is not a stimulant.
- Itazura, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Apparently no one here has studied politics, you are all still bringing up points that a lobbying group should be formed, not a party. Your party only has ONE issue, ONE goal, and ONE objective. There are plenty of things in this country that could help people, but you don't form a party for it, you lobby. Maybe if everyone that is so vocal about this issue actually listened and stopped acting like stoners you would actually get closer to legalizing it.
- Hoov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6And treating millions of Americans like criminals because they smoke some dube is also stupid.
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1@ maj0rm0j0:
"You've got to realize that we outlaw a plant that ... actually helps people."
Please support that statement with science. - Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@DaveV - uum why do you think doctors prescribe it? It actually does help people, believe it or not.
Now explain to me why cigarettes should be legal and not marijuana..
- Subvexer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27"Seriously, no matter how you feel about marijuana, basing an entire party's platform on a plant is just stupid."
- bluejet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Frito Lay will be their biggest lobbyist group.
- giveer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Has no one else found the humor in the fact that the title is "U.S. Marijuana Party" and 3 of the next 4 words are: "A motivated group" ?
- Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4is it hard to believe marijuana smokers are motivated?
Obviously they are motivated if they go out of their way to get an illegal substance to smoke... - Neodeusx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5LOL, no, what I found hilarious is your recycled stereotypical humor LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
- szembek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2pureeviljester: your comment bores me. It was a joke he was making. Smoking pot makes you lazy, so it's funny to talk about a motivated group of potheads.
- Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4is it hard to believe marijuana smokers are motivated?
- sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Who else here took *party" literally? What a let-down.
- wounded625, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i thought it was going to be a real party too :-(.
but then again, all those cheeseitz would be expensive.
- wounded625, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i thought it was going to be a real party too :-(.
- broomett, on 10/12/2007, -21/+2awwww, how cute. They are banding together to make it easier to laugh at them.
- fogurt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1hahahahahaha, true that!
- filemeaway, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9They stand for:
Legalization! ... Personal choice! ... Privacy! ... Bad Graphic Design! - gabeN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"If they grow big enough, then one of the two major parties has to absorb them and thus the issue gets handled."
I think you're thinking of parlimentary politics. In American Politics, the large one issue parties just take votes that would go to the lesser of two evils, call me jaded, I'm all for the issue being raised, and I'm all about an elevated discussion on the issue, but please don't do it at the risk of giving the White House back to the republicans!- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"but please don't do it at the risk of giving the White House back to the republicans!"
by not voting for who you really want to and instead voting against who you don't want you are the perfect example of why we essentially have a 1 party system in this country.
dont let people scare you when it comes to voting.
vote for who you like.
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"but please don't do it at the risk of giving the White House back to the republicans!"
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2These people should be for the legalization of all drugs...
And what's wrong with supporting the Libertarian Party instead of trying to create yet another fringe group?- Azio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"And what's wrong with supporting the Libertarian Party instead of trying to create yet another fringe group?"
Because Libertarians are crazy.
- Azio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"And what's wrong with supporting the Libertarian Party instead of trying to create yet another fringe group?"
- sickanimations, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I went to a marijuana party once.
And damn this 'Check Spelling' button being where 'Submit' should be :( Anti-intuitive to the max.- rpgguy1o1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hit that check spelling button all the time....
on a side note we've had the marijuana party in Canada for years now, theyre pretty cool...
are the above two statements are sheer coincidence.
- rpgguy1o1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hit that check spelling button all the time....
- Spamiclese, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Decriminalization of marijuana in other countries has resulted in drastically reduced "hard" drug use. Marijuana is one of America's largest cash crops. Just taxing a few pennies on legalized marijuana would bring in billions of dollars. Our prisons would not be overcrowded with people. The list goes on and on. It is time for change.
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0..oops
- compucomp2, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3Stupid digg libertarian potheads. If this country were run by you fools, it would be in the *****.
- xXAzraelXx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah, great job btw :) I'm glad coke head draft dogding nepatistic cycles prevail. Seriously, 'cause I'm from Canada and we eat little bits of your soft underbelly when you're not looking ;)
Power, peace, love, unity, respect, responsibility. - eerbin13, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@compucomp2
The country already is a *****, mainly because it is filled with ignorant assholes like yourself. - Hoov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh you mean much like the ***** we're in now?
- Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1and both Clinton and Bush admitted to smoking pot so your point would be......
- xXAzraelXx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah, great job btw :) I'm glad coke head draft dogding nepatistic cycles prevail. Seriously, 'cause I'm from Canada and we eat little bits of your soft underbelly when you're not looking ;)
- daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2good luck
- vpankov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3http://www.glenwoodsmith.com/hemphistorian/facts.html
- Spampy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2OK seriously, how long do you think it'll take for the bury brigade to arrive?
- vpankov, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12DuPont and Co., during the mid-1800s, intensely studied the entire cannabis hemp plant. By the 1920s, they owned the patents for nearly every synthetic resource that cannabis supplied naturally (synthetic fibers, paints and varnishes, plastics, and even medicines). Suddenly articles about a “new” violence-causing drug, marihuana, began filling the nations’ newspapers. With the discovery of Nylon, the world’s strongest synthetic fiber, secret plans were made for hemp’s prohibition. Congressional leaders were assured that new synthetic supplies could replace the “insignificant” ones about to be taxed out of existence. With the testimony of one man -- Harry Anslinger, director of the FBN and nephew of Andrew Mellon, a former secretary of the U.S. Treasury, large interest holder in Gulf Oil, and the owner of Mellon Bank (one of only two of DuPont and Co.'s financial backers)-- the entire hemp industry -- agricultural, industrial and medical -- was outlawed on the grounds that “marihuana is the most violence causing drug known to man.” This testimony wasn’t based on scientific or medical fact, but on scare tactics, racial prejudice and lies. This same year, 1937, DuPont and Co. patented Nylon and the process for making paper from wood!
For full story click on the link above.- Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Historically accurate post.
Prohibition of MJ is based on discrimination against Hispanics.
The War on drugs, especially the recent focus on MJ users, is a fool's errand.
Americans like to change their consciousness, if you haven't noticed. Demand is great. We do more cocaine than any other country.
MJ dries-up... so now people abuse prescription opiates. Another unintended negative effect of all these misguided government drug policies.
Let's elect someone that will truly understand that prohibition and cramming the jails with non-violent drug offenders is crazy. - DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The only problem is that the plants grown for hemp have almost no THC, while the plants you want to grow and smoke have lots of THC.
Kind of like tobacco companies breeding tobacco plants to increase the amount of nicotine. - EndersGame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0DaveV, that just backs up his statement that marijuana was outlawed for the wrong reasons. Why are even the hemp plants with almost no THC and clearly couldn't be used as a mind altering substance illegal as well? Its because when this country outlawed hemp it didn't care about the drug uses at all.
- Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Historically accurate post.
- unruled, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5the laws of alcohol in the US are far more rediculous than those on drugs...
the idea that you have to be 21 to drink is just un-enforceable.... who knows someone thats 20.9 and has never had a sip of beer?
I would recommend to get that changed down to 18..... so it actually reflects reality somewhat. Then, you maybe can start thinking of legalizing mary jane.- selfprodigy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Mary Jane is no where near as dangerous and destructive as alcohol. Think about how many families and lives it's ruined, how many people grew up abused because of that drunk/drunks in the family. Then imagine how many people die every year from overdoses, and drunk driving.
No, i think this issue should be addressed first. - eerbin13, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12What I'm not sure about is why we can kill for our "country" at age 18 and start legally killing ourselves with cigarettes (which is still SMOKING a PLANT, just one thats not as nice), you know, to take the edge off all that killing, but we can't ingest alcohol yet, or be trusted to rent a car, and the very idea of a person smoking cannabis to regulate their appetite, or relax after a hard day at the office is appalling to the average American. What is wrong with this picture?
Cannabis can make paper (cheaper and faster than using trees), can make fuel (ethanol), can make plastic, can help solve world hunger (a handful of cannabis seeds has a persons daily protein intake), and it is by far the strongest natural plant fiber, and hemp clothing is stronger and more comfortable than wool or cotton.
Cotton, paper, and oil companies have fed the public the lies about cannabis for DECADES now, in order to gain more profits.
Put that in your pipes and smoke it, America! - mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2I dont think Pot should be legal, because the fact is that would encourage a lot more use. Lets not kid ourseleves here, booze is the number 1 abused drug because it is legal. I dont see a reason to add to our problems. And yes, drug use does cause problems.
Dropping the charges for small amounts down to summary offenses is fine with me, like a traffic ticket. It would still be enough to keep most people from doing it, but not totally screw up the lives of those that do and get caught. Dealing should be a much more serious offense.
What I really dont get is laws that prevent booze from being sold on sunday, and after 2 AM in bars. What the hell sense does any of that make? If its ok at 1 AM, why not 3 AM? - ultimatekiwi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@eerbin13
I'm not so sure it would cure the world hunger problem. In fact, I think it would agitate it exponentially: 6,525,170,264 people, all with the munchies AT THE SAME TIME?! But your point is taken, that nutritionally it would be valuable ;) - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@mike17032,
Booze was the "number one abused drug" back when it was illegal too. Making pot legal will not increase the abuse of pot dramatically. Are you going to abuse it when it's legal? I thought not, and neither will I, though I will partake in a responsible manner. Making pot smoking into a crime makes no sense, and is an offense against humanity. And you can put that in your pipe and smoke it. - Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Thanks for making me feel like a jerk because I actually did wait until I was 21 to drink.
- mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"Booze was the "number one abused drug" back when it was illegal too. Making pot legal will not increase the abuse of pot dramatically. Are you going to abuse it when it's legal? I thought not, and neither will I, though I will partake in a responsible manner. Making pot smoking into a crime makes no sense, and is an offense against humanity. And you can put that in your pipe and smoke it."
I love how libtards like you ignore the facts.
Yes, a lot of people still drank when booze was outlawed. But overall usage still went down. Yes, it really did. And if you think usage wont surge the minute its legal, you are a true idiot.
Making pot smoking a crime makes plenty of sense when you dont ignore the effects of using it. I know people like yourself arnt big on facts, but thats not my problem. Luckily most people dont want it to become legal, so there is no real threat. None of the laws trying to make it so have even come close to passing. - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@mike17032,
Let the record show that while I was civil, you resorted to name calling, therefore I win the argument. You are wrong and you know it, else you wouldn't be calling names.
You also twisted my words, another indication of the weakness of your argument. I said booze was the number one abused drug when it was prohibited. That's pretty much indisputable. I also said pot _abuse_ would not increase dramatically when it is legalized. I didn't say that mere _use_ of pot wouldn't increase dramatically. You'd probably say I'm just splitting hairs, but the argument here is not about responsible use, it's about _abuse_.
- selfprodigy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Mary Jane is no where near as dangerous and destructive as alcohol. Think about how many families and lives it's ruined, how many people grew up abused because of that drunk/drunks in the family. Then imagine how many people die every year from overdoses, and drunk driving.
- vpankov, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1http://www.glenwoodsmith.com/hemphistorian/main.html
- friedclyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the article is not really factual, i have watched quite a few documentaries about the illegalization of marijuana, during the world war, most of America was growing cotton.
While hemp was a better material, "canvas used for ships" comes from cannabis was used to make sails, the oil from the seeds, the seeds could be used for food, paper could be made from it
of course not to forget the spiritual high the plant provides on consumption, it can be used for a lot of other supplies as well,, rope for the ships anchor was far stronger than ropes for cotton,
this would be a major drawback and to win the war america made hemp illegal around the world and for a brief period of time encouraged certain states to grow hemp.......
as far as i remeber.......i toke "spoke" too much !
- friedclyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the article is not really factual, i have watched quite a few documentaries about the illegalization of marijuana, during the world war, most of America was growing cotton.
- Zerachul, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6A lot of people have a misconception about Marijuana. Yes, many people misuse it to get "high" for whatever reasoning they may have, or so the media portrays its main use.
Unlike the negative perception most people know, Marijuana also has many positive, medical uses. While Marijuana may not cure any diseases I know of, it is an important drug that could benefit many people. People who have Multiple Sclerosis, many forms of Cancer, and many other disorders can use Marijuana to gain a more comfortable life style than what the disorder takes away.
In fact many states have already legalized Marijuana for such medical uses. Sadly, even those states have to hide the locations where the Marijuana is grown from the federal government.
The laws that Marijuana use are examples of laws that were poorly thought out to push an agenda. The war on drugs.
Another example of poorly thought out laws to push an agenda would be a series of laws in southern states that make sexual acts that are not the missionary style of sex, illegal. These are very old laws that are mostly ignored. This pushed the agenda that sex should only be commited in the style that the church (roman) designated many centuries ago. The same church that accepted prostitution many centuries ago to allow men to relieve sexual frustration.
Lovely what history teaches us.- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Multiple Sclerosis, many forms of Cancer, and many other disorders can use Marijuana to gain a more comfortable life style than what the disorder takes away."
Please show peer reviewed studies that confirm this statement. - Azurensis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://ucsdguardian.org/viewarticle.php?story=news04&year=2007&month=02&day=26
"A recent UC San Francisco study focused on patients with a painful nerve condition in their hands and feet. The condition, called peripheral neuropathy, is characterized as a constant burning on the bottoms of the feet and hands. In the double-blind study, half of the patients receiving marijuana cigarettes with tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, reported a 30-percent drop in pain, twice that of patients on the placebo, a cigarette with no THC. UCSD reviewed the proposal from Donald Abrams, the study's lead author, and provided the funding." - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@DaveV,
If you would read the news every once in a while, you would be kept abreast of these things. It isn't anyone else's responsibility to spoon feed you information you could just as easily get yourself, and in case you hadn't noticed, you are in the small and shrinking minority of people who want to keep marijuana illegal, so we don't really need your help anyway.
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Multiple Sclerosis, many forms of Cancer, and many other disorders can use Marijuana to gain a more comfortable life style than what the disorder takes away."
- goettel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Prohibiting people from any personal behavior that doesn't harm others is as addictive as any power. Righteousness, superiority, it's a rush. The price doesn't matter, any number of billions of your tax dollars to just get that rush: you're better, you're right.
Ignorance is bliss.- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2You mean like the rush of getting high by smoking a joint?
- spencewah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5We the people don't believe in higher resolution jpegs.
- macirish, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1A motivated pot smoker.
Now there's an oxymoron.- eerbin13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You're a towel!
- MotionAesthetic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Pot smokers still best fat people when it comes to motivation.
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2- a self informed macirish
- a well informed macirish
- macirish the non-ignorant
are some more examples of oxymorons - chijim70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4When I was in my late teens I dealt a lot of weed and mushrooms in the Summit County Colorado area. You would not believe how many wealthy and executive types bought from me...
I don't smoke anymore for years now but I still know TONS of corporate types here in Chicago who put in constant 12 hour days etc. in very important positions requiring extreme intellectual ability that smoke on a daily basis. I even have a very close friend who runs 3 businesses, speaks 3 languages fluently, and goes to school part time finishing a second Masters degree who smokes throughout the day in his car, when he gets home, etc. Him and his wife are also very skinny as are many I know who smoke often. All your presumptions and generalizing is ignorance.
If you are lazy and stupid it isn't marijuana that does it... it's because you're just lazy and/or stupid.
- darkmule, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Though I don't fully see why Marijuana is illegal, when other substances of equal nature are legal, I do not personally think that legalizing marijuana is at the 'top of the list' in terms of problems to fix in todays world. We need leaders who can do more than one task than just lobbying for certain situations.
I suppose this is what representatives are supposed to do, if only the members of congress actually represented the people who elected them. Thats the current flaw in the system.- goettel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, if you consider the billions of dollars wasted on trying to stamp out drug use, you might want to flip your argument 180 degrees and say: "I do not think prohibiting marijuana is at the "top of the list" in terms of problems to spent billions of dollars a year on".
- goettel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's getting to the stage the even the Netherlands needs a political party to protect people's rights to use whatever they please. The number of busts on marijuana production fascilities has increased a lot, and the media is taking the blatantly pedophile anti-pot lobby's side. Dark times.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What we need is anti-grandfathering of laws, i.e., make all laws expire after two years. That would automatically do away with the problem we have now of having too many laws on the books, it would keep lawmakers busy, and it would eliminate laws people didn't care enough about to make the effort to renew every two years.
- mattxb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Dude, Im gonna totally veto that
- ott6er01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5For anybody interested... Republican Ron Paul from Texas is a promising presidential candidate, who is for decriminalization of all drugs. The war on drugs is as laughable as the war on terrorism. As Bill Hicks said it's not a war on drugs it's a war on personal freedom, just like the war on terrorism.
"I believe that drugs have done some good things, and if you don't believe that do me a favor and go home, and take all your albums all your cds and burn them. Cuz all those great artists who have enhanced your lives throughout the years...reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaalllll ***** high on drugs." - Bill Hicks (don't knit-pick the quote, I'm ***** up)- Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"It's a good idea, but unfortunately America is full of hypocritical "Christians" who will do what ever they want in private, but then persecute someone else for doing the very same thing."
Guttertrash...You are not talking about hypocrites like NEWT GINGRICH are you? - mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Talking about legal pot is one thing, you can make a good argument for that, but its a pretty stupid idea to say that all drugs should be ok. Ya ya you think everyone should be able to do whatever they want we know, but lets face the truth here that a whole lot of people arnt smart enough to make those choices correctly. Take a trip through a drug ravaged ghetto sometime and see the proof of that. You wanna make more areas like that?
- Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the idea is that prison is not rehab. I don't know anyone who thinks that all drugs are ok for everyone to use. Obviously some people abuse some drugs. The point is that criminalizing these drugs does not stop abuse. Throwing drug addicts in prison does not stop abuse and does not help an addict get clean. If we take the money we are wasting on the war on drugs from the crimal justice system and put it into the medical system as a war on addiction/abuse, we might actually have a chance at helping people.
- mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It cuts thier use, by a very large margin.
I agree that throwing people in jail for using is a waste of time. Treating it like a traffic ticket would still accomplish the same thing, keeping a lot of people from starting drug use. - Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If the possibility of going to jail now doesn't stop millions of people from trying it, then why would a ticket stop anyone? There should be no fines or imprisonment for people who are of an adult age that use marijauna. If you can be considered responsible enough to go to war, drive a car and vote, you should be considered responsible enough to handle a joint. If you want to fine people, then go after idiots like those two who were caught on tape letting a couple of children smoke it.
- Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"It's a good idea, but unfortunately America is full of hypocritical "Christians" who will do what ever they want in private, but then persecute someone else for doing the very same thing."
- guttertrash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's a good idea, but unfortunately America is full of hypocritical "Christians" who will do what ever they want in private, but then persecute someone else for doing the very same thing.
- darthdallas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1amen...
- Templeofjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5We can go back and forth on this for days and find no resolve. So sit back and have a bong hit...just a little binger to brighten up your day! =)
- frosted, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Personally, I have little to no problem with the use of that substance. My only problems are related to other people, I, for example, do NOT want to be forced to ingest any drug that isn't prescribed for me by my doctor. Don't smoke it, and I don't care. And please, don't drive while doing drugs, I have already been hit by someone who was distracted by his pot whilst driving.
- Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8490 diggs and counting. Does that tell you something about the prohibition issue?
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Yeah. That there are at least 490 (now 800+ ) pot smokers on digg. Digg is not representative of the U.S. population.
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Yeah. That there are at least 490 (now 800+ ) pot smokers on digg. Digg is not representative of the U.S. population.
- railsroad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I saw someone alude the fact that "NDP also supports complete legalization of Marijuana too I do believe."
Does anyone have an official source for this? - Ammo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"Medicinal Marijuana" has no medicinal value at all. It seems to me, people who favor medicinal marijuana legalization, just want lax marijuana laws so that one day they too can one day use marijuana be it for medicinal reasons or not. The fact is, we have prescription medications that give the same effects that marijuana would. What makes these medications more appropriate for medical use is that they are more easily controlled by doctors and drug companies. Also, the potency and doses are more easily controlled. THC content from marijuana can differ from strain to strain and from plant to plant. Also potency may differ depending on how much of the marijuana is inhaled and how much is burnt off. So potency may differ each time the medicinal marijuana is used.
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5" 'Medicinal Marijuana' has no medicinal value at all."
Some links perhaps?
And then maybe I'll read the rest of you post. - Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So you have AIDS right? You must because you act like you know better about the medical properties of marijauna than the people with AIDS that I care for. Oh you don't have AIDS? Then you must have chrones disease right, because I care for a person with chrones who can't eat without medical marijuana and she has tried every other drug that the doctor can give her. What, no chrones either? How about cancer? You must have gone through chemotherapy and have wasting syndrome like the other people I care for would would die within a month if they were denied access to medical marijauna. Not that either? Hmmmm, then you must just be another internet troll then who talks about stuff that you know nothing about. Please keep your stupid comment to yourself when it comes to people's medicine because unless you personally suffer from these things, you have no idea what it is like and have no right to tell people like me what does and does not work.
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5" 'Medicinal Marijuana' has no medicinal value at all."
- govsucks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5People, I agree that pot should be leagal, I mean if oak leaves got people stoned would the govenrment run around and chop all the oak trees down? I imagine they would. I don't think ANY drug should be illegal, I don't have the right to tell you what you put into or do with your body. Now thats my belief, most other conservatives I know think they can tell you whatever they want about your body.
However, if you lefties around here think that the government is going to A) Run socialized healthcare and B) Allow you to smoke dope and ciggys you are crazy. Hell, I imagine that if the government takes over healthcare you'll see eveything from M&Ms to a big Mac eventually become illegal. The degradation of freedom doesn't stop with Doctor choice in socialized medice. Just like that commie ***** prince of England said the other day "The big mac should be illegal". Hey doesn't the UK have a socilaized health system? Whats that I see on the horizon? Less freedom. I imagine the average UK citizen will eventually have his diet strickty limited, well except for the muslims in the UK, as a protected group they will probably be allowed to eat and do as they please out of some leftists fear/guilt/stupidity of stepping on their culture in some way.
Nanny state has to make sure you take care of yourself and that you don't put to much of a burden on the system with bad habits. I could even see socialists mandating a exercise period for everyone each day. Hey, its all about the common good over individual choice....right.- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You know if you mellowed out a bit and chilled out on your name calling, and just generally get a control on that anger of yours, you'd sound a lot more convincing.
Sometimes smoking a joint can help you out with these issues.
(no charge for this advice, completely taxfreesies) - govsucks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Inf69
first of all, you are correct. I could reduce the name calling. As a 6 foot 4 kentucky injun, I've always kinda said whatever I felt like. Also as the son of a "hair dressing" mom, I know a "*****" when I see one, but we'll just call him a commie, to me thats much worse than anything else and is fairly accurate.
Control of my anger has long been the bain of my existance. I thank you for your reasonable, correct and polite suggestion.
Do you really think a guy born in bum fart kentucky doesn't know about smokin herb. Its the only thing that keeps me from turnin into Mr. Hyde. You should see what I did to the last street democrat that tried to rob me in downtown Atlanta GA, unfortunatly for him, I was a BIG un-stoned libertarian punk rocker with a chain for a belt. - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Hi There!
Thanks for telling me about yourself.
Although I might not agree with ALL of your political point of views, I always thought that less gov. is better gov. (for most issues, like this one.)
I think I would enjoy getting to know you. I've never met "a 6 foot 4 kentucky injun" before. :-)
Now please don't take that comment as some kind of commie/***** thing. - Todalion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just making sure you Do realize that Democrats = Big Government as Republicans = Less Government right??????
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@todalion
What you say is traditionally true, but GW and his buddies have changed that.
Patriot Act = Very Big Gov. InMyFace, wouldn't you say? - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Surely todalion was being sarcastic.
- michak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Socialism is the worst attack on civil liberties.
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You know if you mellowed out a bit and chilled out on your name calling, and just generally get a control on that anger of yours, you'd sound a lot more convincing.
- Audiophile27, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Rock On Mates
- nj10ii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I thought they were talking about organizing a Marijuana party on May day.
Damn! - thinkstoomuch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ahh you people crack me up. Why even argue with the nay sayers? The entire concept of this site just makes me laugh because no one ever takes weed heads seriously - not that i disagree with it at all. So just be entertained with the fact that someone created a weedhead political movement and stop debating the fact, i mean you all know that these same douche bags on this forum that are bashing it as "immature" and "disobedient" and "counter productive" go home after work or on the weekend and drink a BEER. With that being said - chill out people...
- DeathToAmerica, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7The war on drugs is used to Create Criminals, the War on Terror is used to create Terrorist. I think the U.S. may of bit off more then it can chew (afford) on the latter. Enjoy your police state folks.
- thinkstoomuch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Deathtoamerica = douche bag
Your right bro, we live in a police state. Your totally right, soo right. Douche bag. Ah your just so right, where do you come up with such insightful and profound statements? Ah god its just refreshing to here someone say something different and original. - Todalion, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@ death to america...
Go finger yourself.
- thinkstoomuch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Deathtoamerica = douche bag
- Pazuzu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@fkr2
If there were more people like you, we’d still have slaves, alcohol would be illegal, and women would not be able to vote. I can tell you’re a real original thinker, you probably have a government issued pamphlet that tells you how to wipe your ass.
Did you ever hear this before? “Question everything.” - DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Bwahahahha.
This is so funny. "a motivated group of Americans who are tired of living in fear of their government because of marijuana prohibition." As if pothead are motivated to do anything but smoke and eat. Well, and maybe to make new bongs.
I bet they are too hight to actually go out and vote.- goettel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A zillion other fools beat you to this comment.
- lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Maybe you're HIGH to spell correctly. Ha Ha.
- Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah. Its not like we just elected two consecutive Presidents from opposite parties that admitted to smoking weed or anything... ;)
- goettel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A zillion other fools beat you to this comment.
- unruled, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@mike170321:
weed is legalised in the netherlands. Weed is used twice as much in america compared to the netherlands. (Im talking percentage-based). In other words, your approach doesn't work! just look at alcohol... that 21 law is just a remnant from the era of prohibition..... its a model that failed... yet you continue to put it to use in this modern day...with the 21 limit..- mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree, 21 is a stupid limit. 18 is a lot more reasonable.
But the last thing we need is yet another drug that is ok to use.
- mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree, 21 is a stupid limit. 18 is a lot more reasonable.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by