digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

NH House Votes To Decriminalize Small Amounts Of Marijuana

chroniccorner.net — Ignoring advice from the House Criminal Justice Committee, the New Hampshire House voted yesterday to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • mekon1971, on 03/20/2008, -0/+130The feds just need to see the writing on the wall on this whole issue!
    • gonegoogling, on 03/20/2008, -0/+34and every other issue
    • EBFoxbat, on 03/20/2008, -5/+24New Hampshire: Live free or High
      • RpgActioN, on 03/20/2008, -2/+5Well, now it's live free AND high. Sort of.
    • pussieLicker, on 03/20/2008, -3/+8The feds need to understand that weed is proof god loves us and wants us to be happy.
      "in god we trust" right?
      • whiterice0, on 03/20/2008, -20/+2Yeah, dude. Like, smoking pot doesn't lead to harder drugs. Like, it just makes us more mellow and, like, able to be in tune with nature and peace and ... uh, I dunno. Anyways, let's all smoke a another joint and veg out in front of the television. Oh, man. Where's my bong?
        • Ihatenicks, on 03/20/2008, -0/+16'...lead to harder drugs'... NO

          PEOPLE decide to take harder drugs, full stop, it's got nothing to do with "gateway this or that".. people are just stupid in general.

          Don't be a media phear repeating drone, THINK for yourself, ass blanket.
          • Dubbsacc, on 03/20/2008, -0/+6Dugg for ass blanket, haven't seen that one yet.
        • emjaymj, on 03/21/2008, -1/+12Oh no! People might choose to put something in their own body that whiterice0 doesn't approve of!!! Stop the presses!!!!!!!!
        • suprememilo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Everyone I know who has done harder drugs said weed isn't a gateway drug and had said that hard drugs are bad at some point in their life...
        • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Since half of US adults admit to having used marijuana the fact that half the country isn't addicted to harder illegal drugs proves that it isn't a gateway drug...

          By the way, you do know that coffee, aspirin and pretty much every legal drug weather over the counter or prescription is a harder drug the pot right? as in they either kill a lot more people and are more addicting or just more addicting? and that no legal drug kills less then pot right?

          I will mention cigarettes and alcohol but those kill about a 26 and 5 times more people respectively than ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS COMBINED (those include heroin, cocaine, crack and crystal meth etc...) so they are by no means a fair comparison to marijuana which should be compared to coffee which is more addicting and kills more people the pot...
          http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm
          the above is a link to causes of death in US...
    • AKBryant54, on 03/20/2008, -1/+11K so, this makes Alaska, California, and New Hampshire that have lax pot laws, anyone know of other states that do?

      p.s. In Alaska it's legal to have up to an ounce in your home.
      • whiterice0, on 03/20/2008, -2/+14Not to mention up to 10 pounds of whale blubber.
      • mydigga, on 03/20/2008, -0/+11Ohio is a friendly state. Less than 100g (3.5 ounces) is a civil citation and up to a $100 fine... need 1000g+ for a felony.
        • The_Dude, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5Yeah but if you're driving, they keep you from getting insurance from a year or somethiing. At least that's what happened to my bro. I'm too old for weed now anyway. Just makes me sleep.
          • mydigga, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5Yes, that's a DUI or DWI. If they can prove you are high while operating a vehicle, or you have it in the car with you it's a possible 1 year suspension on your license. The same as alcohol.
          • gwinerreniwg, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2@mydigga: Here's an interesting twist to the Ohio DWI law: MJ intoxication is measured by blood test, so if you're cited and tested, even if you were not high at that moment, if THC were detected in a blood test, you could still be held for DWI.
      • JigoroKano, on 03/21/2008, -0/+10In Oregon small amounts of pot are only punishable by a fine and not a conviction.
        And if a Police officer sees a jaywalker and a pot smoker, he is to ticket the jaywalker first. Pot is among the lowest of their priorities.
        • illdourmum, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3HA!


          i'd get arrested twice in one day in Oregon... Jaywalking while smoking a joint
        • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Well jaywalking is a bigger health hazard so this law actually makes sense...
      • trogle, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1I have been wanting a break down on the laws for MJ in Cali. Someone knows!
      • KodomoNoJikan, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_
        decriminalized_marijuana_in_the_United_States

        sorry it isnt whole but when i make it whole digg cuts part of it off with ...
      • gwinerreniwg, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Colorado has friendly medical laws and Denver proper has specifically decriminalized it for personal consumption.
        • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Well denver doesn't count since arrests increased after that ordinance passed...(mayor got tough on democracy)
    • Terrk, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2If drugs are made legal, how are they going to make any money?
    • goldenratio, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2It's "decriminalized" in the state of Oregon. IANAL but I believe it's a non-arrestable offense for possession under 1 oz -- you get a ticket for civil court.
    • avasol, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3In other news, U-Haul business in New Hampshire goes through the roof. Ice cream vendors project massive growth. NH Senator unavailable for comment, says he can't find the microphone through the green smoke.
    • KataLieb, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2YES!!!
  • Jade456, on 03/20/2008, -29/+8Never happen with the Repubs in the white house
    • Phrag, on 03/20/2008, -1/+27The White House doesn't control the New Hampshire Legislature. I have no doubt that they will use their funds (legally or illegally) to try to interfere, but from what I have experienced in NH it seems the people up there don't like outsiders meddling in their affairs.
      • dumpyhumpy, on 03/20/2008, -4/+1theyll be gone in due time
        • Phrag, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5Don't take that as a sure thing. I said Bush had no chance of reelection in 2004 and look what happened.
          • emjaymj, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3That was only because you're retarded. I hate Bush and it was still obvious that Kerry would never be elected.
          • dumpyhumpy, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I know, if anybody could ***** up such a sure thing, it's the Democratic party.
            (Im looking at you, Billary)
      • CryRightardCry, on 03/20/2008, -9/+4Actually the White HOuse has an enormous influence over the actions of the police, especially on a federal level.
        In case you weren't paying attention, California has exemptions for medical pot that the feds refuse to recognize.
        Since the GOP is the party of the "war on drugs", yeah, it really DOES come down to them.
        • Phrag, on 03/20/2008, -0/+10Notice how I said they don't control the state legislature. I said nothing about federal law enforcement officers who obviously are influenced, if not controlled, by the White House.

          In case you weren't paying attention, Harry Anslinger (one of creators of the American marijuana prohibition and racist anti-marijuana propaganda) was a democrat and served during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The war on drug is not a partisan issue. There are people in both parties that are for and against it. It really comes down to people using reason over fear.
        • unicronband, on 03/20/2008, -0/+8The White House has zero influence over the NH state and local police, who are the ones making the vast majority of drug arrests. Sure, they can send in the DEA, FBI, Secret Service, Federal Marshals... but they are after the big fish, not some college student with a dime bag. In California they are going after the suppliers and growers, not the people using it. Decriminalization just means that state law enforcement will not bother going after people with small amounts of pot. IF the White House really wanted to, they could go after those people, but I highly doubt with all the spying and such they are currently engaged in, that they would even bother busting Jimmy and his buddies smoking a doob.
          • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4To be fair, the feds are not above busting 'little fish' if they also happen to be politically active and getting attention.
    • kaelyiesta, on 03/20/2008, -3/+22http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/ta ...

      In case you want to be informed and not just blindly follow party lines, you should take a look at all the marijuana legislation. The republicans(albeit minutely) were less inclined to pass the legislation that arguably started the marijuana prohibition than their supposed counterparts in 1937.

      Neither side gives a ***** about you, and the sooner you realize you have been buying into the lies, the sooner you can pick and choose the few individuals from either party that actually do care.
      • khail250, on 03/20/2008, -1/+61937... outdated source. the definition of republican is waaaaaaaaaay different than what it was 70 years ago
      • egoherodotus, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5ummm.. you do realize that there was a major shift in the parties between the FDR and Johnson Administration, right? The Republican party of the 1930s is in no way similar to the GOP in 2008.
      • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5khail250 and egoherodtus, while the parties have changed a lot since the 30's, both sides have still upheld and increased the war on drugs. I believe that G. W. Bush's administration has made the most marijuana arrests while Bill Clinton's administration holds second place.
        • cmackattack, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2You could argue that this is due to population explosion and education; knowing that weed isn't as bad as the war on drugs spouts. So there are more people and more people do it on a percentage; naturally more will be arrested until there is a government change that catches up with most of the sensible society's outlook on the issue....
    • vault, on 03/20/2008, -1/+13Since when are Hillary and Obama trying to legalize it? All they support is medical marijuana and even that is not a guarantee, quite different than this.
      • AQMessiah, on 03/20/2008, -9/+2If you are expecting a full out legalization of marijuana, I can guarantee it won't happen. But legalization for medical purposes would be the first of many more steps to come.
        • rficwizard, on 03/20/2008, -1/+7I can guarantee it will. I just can't guarantee when or where.
        • vault, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6I think it'll happen one day, AQ, much like alcohol was once illegal and now isn't. The drug war is only getting more expensive, we can't keep throwing money at putting non-violent offenders in jail. Something has to give...stuff like this in NH is the first step, along with medical being legal federally, etc.
          • AQMessiah, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Right, but we won't see it fully legalized first. The first step is medical marijuana and THEN we can start the legalization. Apparently you guys mistook my comment.
      • PeppermintPig, on 03/20/2008, -1/+8It's doubtful Clinton will do anything about it, and Obama has flip-flopped on the issue of decriminalization. Something about how he didn't understand what 'decriminalization' meant... which suggests he's in favor of more government control.
        • vault, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Maybe Hillary will have an intern violate her with a blunt and have a change of heart? ;)
        • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1My question is, 'Have you figured out what decriminalization means yet?' How does not understanding what decriminalization means suggest that someone is for more government control of it?
          • PeppermintPig, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3If you are not for decriminalization, you are either for legalization (which can include regulation and taxation), or you support the status quo, possibly supporting harsher enforcement.

            More accurate to say Legalization is less regulation in one area (prohibition), and more regulation elsewhere (taxation, regulation).
        • PeppermintPig, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2To clarify, Obama supported decriminalization before he knew what it actually meant. Once he informed himself, he's retracted his support for decriminalization. We can readily assume he suppports some measure of regulation and taxation.
  • madmondo, on 03/20/2008, -8/+61I've always said that if they make legal then tax it and watch the hole we're in fill up with the tax money. That tax money needs to used for Schools and things like that.
    • FaithclubDotNet, on 03/20/2008, -1/+32It isn't so much the tax money we'd gain, but the people not put in prison.

      Also I think the biggest factor is that pot heads aren't a problem. Yet, people see pot heads as not a problem, and that they break the law... So once people get over the whole breaking the law thing, they can fall off the edge in a lot of different ways. If pot was legal, harder drugs would be scorned by legal drug users, but as is, you can typically get a large array of drugs from a pot dealer.
      • altgeeky1, on 03/20/2008, -1/+10>It isn't so much the tax money we'd gain, but the people not put in prison.

        BINGO!

        When I hear people say pot is the "gateway drug", and therefore deserves punishment disproportionate to the crime... I say "if you legalize it, it can't be a gateway drug anymore right?"

        Then watch their heads explode because you can see them making an argument that's equally applicable to the glass of single malt scotch in their hands, and they falter.

        • enntee, on 03/21/2008, -2/+10My favorite argument is to say, "Did you know that 99.9% of cocaine users experimented with caffeine first? The link is undeniable."
    • whiterice0, on 03/20/2008, -17/+2Better yet, we won't need to spend money on schools because our kids brains will all be mush from smoking drugs, so instead of wasting time on education, they can work menial labor jobs.
      • AgmLauncher, on 03/21/2008, -5/+1Yep. Exactly.
      • PeterODactyl, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Sounds like you've had your share already.
      • xXMetalJesusXx, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Yeah, that must be why I can't seem to...wait, nope, I'm in 3rd Year University, with a fiance, and a stable job to pay the bills...

        Looks like you're an idiot
      • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Riiiight... because no one who smoked pot ever did something like win a Nobel Prize or starred in an Academy Award winning documentary *cough cough* al gore *cough*...
    • bowe, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2It already is taxed, something like $10,000/ounce. When they can't charge with a felony, they bankrupt you for purchasing marijuana without paying the tax. That's why this law, might not help as much as it seems. You won't be fined, but the feds can "tax" you, so what is the difference?
    • oldgal, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5be great for the munchies industry too.
      • dorkino, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4No kidding. I'd invest heavily in Pizza companies and Frito Lay if this passed on a Federal level.
    • hoodrider, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4I doubt it would generate much tax revenue as the majority of it would be homegrown, it's a ridiculously easy plant to grow and i'm sure it would spread like a "weed".
      • hammburglar, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1thats why they dont want to legalize it. because its hard to tax and regulate. alcohol was much easier to legalize. you dont see tons of people with pot stills and breweries in their basements. regardless, it should still be legalized.
      • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4How many marijuana crops have you grown? I find the majority of people who say that growing quality marijuana is easy have never done so themselves. Its a lot more work than most people imagine.

        Also, what about all the people who live in cities where there is no land to grow outside. Do you really expect them to spend a few hundred dollars on indoor growing equipment when they can just buy some at at the store?
        • hoodrider, on 03/22/2008, -1/+0It is not as hard as you would make it seem. I'm all for cannabis legalization, but i'm stating the fact that it wouldn't generate much tax revenue. I'm sure that city dwellers would know someone who they could get it from rather than buy it from the store, with a single outdoor plant yielding 1/4 to 1 lb fairly easily i doubt the price of cannabis would be very high anyway. The economics of controlling and taxing the drug use of cannabis simply is not feasible.
  • thechr0nic, on 03/20/2008, -1/+71This is definitely a step in the right direction. More needs to be done to bring about sensible common sense policy regarding marijuana.
    Prohibition itself has been proven repeatedly to be much worse than the drugs they are prohibiting.
    • romistrub, on 03/20/2008, -10/+3No offense, but I think marijuana laws are the least of your worries right now.

      Nevertheless, I guess it's a step in the right direction.
      • NikoKun, on 03/20/2008, -1/+11They've been saying that for years and years... And ***** that... It's TIME NOW to correct the injustices... And end prohibition!
      • aidave, on 03/20/2008, -1/+16Decrim/legalization is extremely important. The Drug War is a root of many bigger problems.
        • romistrub, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3I think the root of most big problems in the states is the severe undereducation of the american populace. Maybe this will keep people out of jail for extremely petty "offenses", and allow the government to spend more money on education than they have been.

          Anyways, like I said... it's a step in the right direction. I shouldn't have said "it's the least of your worries". There are probably far more inconsequential things out there :P
          • emjaymj, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3The vast majority of studies have shown at best a very weak correlation between education and drug use. Living in a large city and knowing people from all walks of life, my experience agrees with these results. The only difference I have noticed that more highly educated/intelligent people are more concerned with - and better at - keeping their use discreet.
    • Knucklecallus, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Oregon has decriminalized marijuana, up to an ounce. Many other states have.
  • Phrag, on 03/20/2008, -3/+78If you are from New Hampshire and are for this, please take some time to contact your state senators and governor and let them know that you vote and want this measure passed. Everyone should consider making a donation to one, some or all of the groups linked below that help make bills like this happen.

    http://nhcommonsense.org/
    http://granitestaters.com/
    http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
    http://www.mpp.org/
    http://norml.org/
    http://ssdp.org/index.php
    http://www.votehemp.com/
    • grungegbunny, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Where i the link to email some NH power people that says you will visit the state and bring tourist money? If it passes.
      • Firehed, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Why would you? People are going to smoke whether it's legal or not, wherever they want to. I don't smoke and wouldn't if it was legalized, and I certainly know plenty of people that do smoke regardless.

        I'm in support of these kinds of bills passing, but thankfully I'm not so stoned to think that legalizing pot would in any way, shape, or form bring in tourist money.
        • senatorpjt, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Why do people go to bars when they can drink at home? A lot of the appeal of going to a place like Amsterdam is that you can smoke at a hash bar.
        • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4To be honest, if I were going to the beach and had a choice of a beach where I could smoke pot if I wanted and a beach where I could not smoke pot, I would choose the one where I could. People aren't going to go to NH to simply smoke a joint and then head back home, but if people are already planning on doing some traveling, then they may be more likely to travel to or through a place where they can enjoy their choice of recreational substance with out legal worries.
    • altgeeky1, on 03/20/2008, -5/+1
      Fatal error: Call to undefined function drupal_goto() in /home/nhcommon/site_settings/all/modules/coral_defender/coral_defender.module on line 36
    • dorkino, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Or better yet, make a donation to your senator. That's how the work gets done.
      • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Assuming your Senator is in favor of this, yes that is a good idea too.
  • dumpyhumpy, on 03/20/2008, -6/+70I don't know if I like this. It's been proven that the devil's weed will lead you to bang on a piano with crazy hair playing "jungle music", and then shoot your friend's girlfriend. Luckily, the side effects will wipe away your guilt though, as it's totally reasonable to think that if you shoot somebody while you're high you won't remember it the next day.
    /reefer madness
  • zephyr42, on 03/20/2008, -9/+22THIS WAS A TRIUMPH
    • hadiz, on 03/20/2008, -3/+9I'm making a note here: huge success.
    • whiterice0, on 03/20/2008, -15/+1Yeah, man. They should make coke legal too because, like, that doesn't lead to harder drugs either. Right?
      • zephyr42, on 03/20/2008, -0/+7nice name whiter ice... crackhead trolls get no diggs
      • emjaymj, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Tell me whiterice0, why are you so concerned with what people want to do to themselves in the privacy of their own home? Alcohol is one of the "hardest" drugs there is.
      • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Bush did coke and didn't move on to harder drugs, unless you include the abuse of power and authority to be 'hard drugs'.
    • violentvinyl, on 03/20/2008, -0/+4The spacecake is a lie.
  • khail250, on 03/20/2008, -4/+20As it should be! The only reason i started an optical factory is because of all the amazing ideas and theories I came up with while smoking "tobacco". This is the reason that people sing the way they do, or create wonderful art, or in my case design some of the worlds most advanced optics.
    • oldhick, on 03/20/2008, -1/+16I don't think its "the reason", but it certainly doesn't hurt the creative process! Cheers.
      • aidave, on 03/20/2008, -1/+7It is "one of the reasons" though, and that makes it valuable.
    • birdly, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4Testify, brother!
  • TJ11240, on 03/20/2008, -1/+31Today just got a tiny bit better.
  • Jexie, on 03/20/2008, -0/+10Hopefully the rest of America takes note and follows suit when, inexplicably, NH doesn't get struck down by god's wrath!
  • iceman0113, on 03/20/2008, -1/+15How much is a small amount?
    • Carv, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5Less than 1/4 ounce.
      • SpookyPig, on 03/20/2008, -0/+6*****... i've got that much in my pocket right now.
      • cambob76, on 03/20/2008, -4/+7Wholly ***** dude. A 1/4 ounce is lots... oh wait you probably don't smoke B.C. bud. Snuche to the nuche!
  • wishninja, on 03/20/2008, -3/+30"however it would still remain a misdemeanor for possessing marijuana in a motor vehicle and a felony for selling marijuana."

    So you can't buy it or have it with you as you drive or ride in a car. I have to say it is a symbolic victory but a hollow one. The small amount is only a quarter. I would vote for it but I sure wish it was something really signaling the end of prohibition or an end to the drug war.
    • bjs3171, on 03/20/2008, -2/+6who carries around more than a quarter?
      • cmackattack, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2The same type of people and reasons why these people shop at Sam's, Costco, etc...etc...? Cost break? Less trips to the store? Less gas used? Less time around retarded people (be it the average citizen or a dealer)? heh... just for an example....
      • thechr0nic, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1I carry around more than 7 grams all the time.
        I grow a lot of my own, so its not uncommon for me to have over a pound of the finest chronic you can find anywhere.
    • Myonosken, on 03/20/2008, -2/+10a) Why would you need more than a quarter at any one time?
      b) You're complaining about not allowing it in your car? No offence, but going around with open beer cans in your car isn't generally too smart either.
      • itspuddingtime, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3but you can carry beer in your car... in the trunk
      • dorkino, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Well how the hell are you supposed to get it home to smoke it?
        • centerblack, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2You grow it yourself.
        • Myonosken, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Once its legal, why would you use a dealer?
        • cmackattack, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1growing amount > 1/4 oz. amount, right? right...
      • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3a) For the same reason that people show at BJ's/Sam's Club/Costco. I hate shopping so I find ways to do it as infrequently as possible.
    • absurdist, on 03/20/2008, -1/+11You'd rather still have a quarter be illegal? You seem to think that nothing short of legalization is a victory. This isn't about one battle, it's about a war against the forces of ignorance that have been pushing their agenda since the 1930s and Harry Anslinger. Gradual efforts like this will slowly let the public know that marijuana isn't the demon weed it's been propagandized to be.
    • emjaymj, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I think not allowing it in your car is a very acceptable concession. Alcohol may be one of the most destructive drugs, and while I am a strong supporter of the legalization of drugs in general - the government really has no right to tell people what they may do to their own body - I absolutely feel that people driving under the influence of a substance should be illegal. In practice though, alcohol has two advantages to other drugs, including marijuana.

      First, there is no equivalent of a breathalyzer test for marijuana. There is simply no way to reasonably prove that you are high at a specific time - at best, tests can show if it's been used recently. Secondly, because alcohol is almost always produced commercially, it is possible to tell if containers have been opened as well as if any alcohol is missing from the container. These things are simply not possible with zip lock bags. Unfortunately, most stoners I know believe that it's perfectly acceptable to drive high, and prohibiting it in motor vehicles may be the best way to curb this kind of behavior.
      • ccheath, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4ever hear of a field sobriety test?
        • emjaymj, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1You can refuse to take an FST, and it's usually recommended that you do so, because studies have shown that a cop's judgement can be very poor indeed, and many people have difficulty passing even while sober. You're usually legally required to take a breathalyzer test (unless you want an automatic DUI), but in most places, complying with a field sobriety test is not actually mandatory.
  • Carv, on 03/20/2008, -0/+7This article has some more info:
    http://www.wmur.com/news/15632503/detail.html

    I love my state.
  • wreckosaurus, on 03/20/2008, -1/+43I don't live in new hampshire or smoke pot, but I celebrate this victory anyway. One more step in the right direction.
    • rockdawg, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6I agree.
      In my personal opinion I think that if they ended the "War On Drugs" that would strip a lot of power that a lot of dealers and suppliers have because it's no longer underground so to speak.
    • jesuswuzanalien, on 03/21/2008, -7/+1"I don't live in new hampshire or smoke pot" -- Oh yeah im sure you dont.
      Here is some of wreckosaurus's other comments reguarding his outstanding and habitual marijuana use:
      "I'm 110% for the legalization of pot" --03/19/2008
      "I think pot should be legalized" --03/16/2008

      As you can see I have fully debunked wreckosaurus's claims that he does not smoke the ganja.
      That's all for tonight folks. Myth Busted.


      • DrPaul2008, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3You're an idiot.
      • erasedgod, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4No you haven't, you've just proven that you're the lamest human being alive. So he's said "pot should be legal" three times in five days... how does that prove anything?

        I haven't smoked in five years and I'm very vocal about my opinion on the matter. Are you going to tell me that I smoke pot, too?
      • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1So anyone who is for legalization is also a pot smoker by default... won't that mean that anyone who is against legalization has never smoked pot? Well that can't possibly be true since both Clinton and Bush smoked pot and they haven't pushed for legalization yet. I guess you are just making false connections.
  • batshitcrazy, on 03/20/2008, -2/+33Live Free or Die!
  • jcastillo81, on 03/20/2008, -0/+9Wooohoo go Free Staters!
  • IQis87, on 03/20/2008, -0/+8"Gov. John Lynch has said he would veto the bill if it reaches his desk."

    http://www.wmur.com/news/15652017/detail.html
    • toxicshok, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I think digg's marijuana conissuers might be celebrating a tad early
      • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Passing the house is a good thing, even if it doesn't become law. Every little step forward counts and should be celebrated.
  • PeppermintPig, on 03/20/2008, -0/+8Like always, law enforcement interests cried about how it would be bad to decriminalize Marijuana. This time, however, something promising has happened.

    Of course, once you understand the interconnectivity between prohibition and the creation of "crimes" and a violent police state, you'll find half-measures like this to be absurd.

    Don't compromise your liberty or the liberty of others.
  • Lucas123, on 03/20/2008, -3/+10"Live Free or High" (obligatory)
    • Hananda, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1That's an anti-cannabis legalization slogan, if you, y'know, read it.
      • Lucas123, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3I'm so not savvy. Here I thought I was just making a play on words. There's a whole anti-cannabis slogan thing going on.
  • BillDoE, on 03/20/2008, -0/+26"The House vote gives New Hampshire residents hope that their state may be the 13th state to decriminalize pot."
    13 Free States. What a concept.
    • zephyr42, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Woah. 13'th state?!? I had no idea there were that many!! (seriously not sarcasm) There was an initiative here in texas that would have decriminalized possession of "small" amounts( less than 1oz ). Sadly it was shot down. In place of that my city is now smoke free in public indoors.
    • freestatelover, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Only 1 free state to be and that is New Hampshire. Want liberty in your lifetime? Move to New Hampshire to make it happen, http://www.freestateproject.org
    • isaactwito, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1To anyone who doesn't know, they are mistaken when they say there are 13 states like this. Decriminalized, in all other states, means that it's just a misdemeanor for possession of under a certain amount and you will probably only have a small fine. What this sounds like is that it'll be legal to possess small amounts, which is cool as *****.
      • cosmictap, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2that's incorrect. in many states it is not even a misdemeanor to possess. see norml.org.
    • Gndoab, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I think he's refering to the original colonies...
  • dylanmcdonald, on 03/20/2008, -2/+7Freedom wins.
    • whiterice0, on 03/20/2008, -9/+2Our children lose
      • toxicshok, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4why? The current system doesn't stop our oh so naive children from buying pot.
  • cam0man, on 03/20/2008, -1/+6that's awesome news, but doesn't compare to out here in California where I can legally grow as much as I want under a 10'x10' tarp in the back yard....
    • PeppermintPig, on 03/20/2008, -0/+9Unless the Feds come and raid you. Seriously, what good are state laws if the police aren't willing to protect you from the federal goons?
      • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3I'd rather face the feds than the feds and state.
  • curbstompery, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3I'll smoke to this!
  • floridiot2, on 03/20/2008, -3/+16MARIJUANA KILLS
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbsBj8NRufw
  • mlirblur, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4As someone who grew up in southern NH, I am extremely proud to hear that this bill actually passed the House. I sent NORML's email about the bill to six state reps from my town, and was met with a downright ignorant statement comparing pot posession to murder from Rep. Al Baldasaro, whom I had met with personally and also know personally to an extent (I went to HS with his son). I was pessimistic, as another one of my reps had also responded negatively (although much more respectfully). Good to know that the clueless congresspeople in my particular town were shown what the real direction we should take on this issue is. NH needs to decriminalize now, or else we continue to compromise our state's motto.
  • jetblackz4, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2Everyone but our politicians seem to get that legalizing it would have a positive and not negative affect on society. People that do not smoke weed will continue not to and people who currently smoke weed will have access to higher grades and lower prices. Not to mention how much this would free up our judicial system.
  • Reaktor5, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4It's great to live in New Hampshire.
    • altgeeky1, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5Yeah, I like NH now. When I was a kid, everyone was so backwards, and they'd snort at Mass folks with their fancy pants tech jobs and "college". Then NH lured these people and the employers in and modernized the state. NH has a nice balance of liberal ideas and fiscal conservatism that works very well. Even the people who complain still about liberals and Mass people... they're not bad. What passes for right wing in NH isn't as mean spirited as what you get in states where evangelicals run the schools.

      I should also add that NH has some of the greatest selections of beer in the USA, after Mass, Nevada and California. There are 3.2% alcohol limits, no stupid sunday beer laws... NO CAPS on alcohol at all (a lot of states allow wine sales in supermarkets, but not beer unless it is Bud Lite or less). We also got a new airport, low traffic.

      About the only place that could lure me away is Raleigh, NC (Redhat + related...)
  • fotbr, on 03/20/2008, -14/+2And here come the digg potheads....Enjoy your victory, and good luck with the rest of the US. You've got a lot of fighting left to do.
    • fotbr, on 03/20/2008, -8/+2Wow, buried because I congratulate the potheads on their victory. Reading comprehension hits a new low, even for digg.

      Go light up, eat some cheetos and enjoy your victories when and where you can.
      • BabaRamDass, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6Even though everything you said is correct, you're getting buried because you came off as condescending and sarcastic.
    • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3There are many people against marijuana prohibition that are not potheads.
  • OiPunk, on 03/20/2008, -1/+8Being from NH, I was absolutely thrilled to hear about this.
    However, we have a long, hard battle: governor Lynch has already stated that if this gets as far as his desk, he will flat-out veto it without any consideration.

    So much for will of the people, hmm?
  • isiz, on 03/20/2008, -1/+9Next step: Legalization.
  • Intercon, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3This issue isn't just about potheads smokin the herb. Legalization of hemp and its constituents will have far reaching economic impact across business sectors, everything from textiles and paper to fuel oil to medicines and food. Not to mention alleviating our overcrowded jails. Wake the ***** up, America. The positives outweigh the negatives to an enormous extent. Hemp for Victory, indeed.
    • tbom, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1be my guest, go smoke some hemp then. :)
  • Shaman760, on 03/20/2008, -0/+6Man made beer, the universe created cannabis. Who is more trustworthy?
    • whiterice0, on 03/20/2008, -4/+4Really, the universe made cannabis? That's so existential. And like, "if" is the middle word in life, dude. Take another toke.
    • cambob76, on 03/20/2008, -2/+4But the universe created us who created beer. And where would the universe be without us to experience it? The universe is nothing without us in it. Beer is also an expression of the universe that depends on us to realize it. Cannabis is like our brother, beer is like our child. Smoke the beer and drink the cannabis. It's all the same to the universe. We are the cannabis and the beer. Uncle and nephew.
      • Dubbsacc, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Deep.
      • toxicshok, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2you have single handedly convinced me to start smoking.
      • trogle, on 03/21/2008, -1/+0I disagree, the fact that man augmented his/her environment to make alcoholic beverages, puts an extra step between motha nature and the booze. Whereas the "wild weed" would be, in my opinion, closer to her bosom. Who cares though, no one wants to smoke that outdoor crap, hydro or die! Burnin GDP is the way to be? If you know what to do, you will rip the goo? I might be able to keep spitting out dumb ***** but my view is blocked by a cumulus cannabis cloud.
  • HaoTian, on 03/20/2008, -1/+6Decriminalization is not the same as legalization, unfortunately. Decriminalization is worse than full on prohibition in many ways.
    1) It changes the law from a criminal incident (which is costly) to a summary incident (which is as easy as writing the ticket and handing it to the person). Police will be far less likely to let you off when they bust you if they can write you a sizable ticket and still take your cannabis.
    2) It provides nothing for the supply, which keeps the money in the hands of organized crime.
    Legalization and education are the only way to completely "win" the war on drugs.
    • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Please feel free to write to my friends who are currently in jail for marijuana and tell them how much better it is to be imprisoned than it is to be fined. The idea that imprisoning people for pot is better than fining them because a fine is harder to fight is moronic. Spend some time in prison and then try coming back and telling me that it was better than paying a fine.
      • HaoTian, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0You seem to be under the impression that the fine would be a small amount.
        In Canada, the proposed legislation was $400 for a first time "offense". I don't know about your friends, but many of mine would be unable to pay that fine and would end up in prison anyway.
        And my point was that legalization is the only way to have this become a non-issue in terms of organized crime and the impact on users lives... not that we should keep locking up non-violent drug users of any type.
  • jpl7986, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2that would be the 13th state(26%) to have decriminalized marijuana in small amounts. a lot of them still have laws and penalties still somewhat harsh on personal use though, but things are looking better. Ohio's penalties seem to be the most lax, Possession and cultivation of less than 100g is a minor misdemeanor carrying a $100 fine and no other penalties, same with distribution of less than 20g (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6331). statewide decriminalization has been occurring since the early 70's, however since just after 2000 it has increased dramatically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_decr ... Hopefully one day all states will have decriminalized it and will continue to further decriminalize it.
  • DjOverEZ, on 03/20/2008, -2/+5For the first time in my adult life, I am truly proud of my state.

    Correction: I've always been proud of my state, but now I'm especially proud!
  • jakej26, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Great news! I hope NY does this too!!!
  • StopTheLie, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3This is a 15 minute excerpt from the documentary "American Drug War." It includes an admission (by the former head of the DEA - Robert Bonner) that our CIA smuggled cocaine into the United States to help finance its operations. http://joeplummer.com/government_drug_running.html
  • kokoshka, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2Decriminalization is a small, and very good, step towards legalization. That said, it remains a terrible policy. Marijuana use is a harmless activity that should in no way be punished, yet relaxing the laws affecting users will in turn create an increase demand. Without a legal channel get pot, prices will increase, dealing and producing will become very appealing, and the drug trade will skyrocket. Billions of dollars will change hands, untaxed by any federal or state governments, and drug dealers will continue to peddle pot (and other, harder drugs) to underage kids.
    • patch5, on 03/21/2008, -3/+0I call *****. It's my belief that the only reason pot's got a reputation as a "gateway drug" is because people are willing to try something else when there's a shortage of it. Decriminalize pot, the channels clear, and the demand is met, reducing potential for use of anything available just to get a high.
  • CleoQKazoo, on 03/20/2008, -10/+1: / I honestly dont think most people are responsible enough for the legalization of drugs. Drunk driving is bad enough but imagine driving while on acid or herioine. I believe if you wanna do it yourself and your not encouraging minors to do it thats up to you, but how many Americans are that responsible?
    • AgmLauncher, on 03/21/2008, -6/+2Amazing how you get dugg down for posting something which is common sense eh?
      • erasedgod, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5How is that common sense? Do you really think that people who obey drug laws will break DUI laws?

        "Gee, now that acid is legal, I can get all ***** up and go drive around town."

        The fact that you agree with his comment, in spite of the obvious ignorance behind it, does not make it common sense.
        • AgmLauncher, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1Right, because people are capable of making perfectly rational judgments when under the influence of drugs....

          Unless you think responsibility goes hand in hand with being ***** up on acid?
          • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3In case you have not tried acid yourself, it does not instantly erase your ability to make rational decisions. A person who is responsible while sober will remain responsible while on most drugs.
          • CleoQKazoo, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1The question is, how many people can be responsible in the first place?
    • BabaRamDass, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4You assume that the only reason people don't use drugs is because they're illegal.

      But anyway, most people aren't responsible. Period. That's why we have laws that take our freedoms away; with freedom comes responsibility, and it's not that people don't want freedom... it's just that they REALLY don't want responsibility.

      How should that affect the policies? Legalize all victimless crimes. The responsible people won't miss a beat, while the irresponsible people will die off due to natural selection. That's what freedom and evolution are all about.
      • AgmLauncher, on 03/21/2008, -3/+2But doing drugs DOES create victims. Someone who doesn't know what's going on because they're too high to think straight gets in a car and kills someone.

        A parent overdoses by accident, killing himself, and leaving his kid to grow up in foster care or broken homes. Or maybe he loses his job because he under performs because his brain is wasted. Kid grows up in poverty.

        Drugs DO affect people around the people who use them. That's a FACT.
        • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3What you are describing are the effects of ignorance and abuse, not the effects of drugs. People who don't know what they are doing hurt others all the time. To fix that you need to more education, not more prohibition.
          • AgmLauncher, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2Ignorance and abuse exaggerated by the mind altering chemicals in drugs.....

            Please stop trying to argue that drugs don't affect you, your ability to think, or your ability to make rational arguments. They do. That's a fact.
    • heyblue, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Nobody is talking about legalizing drugs. We're talking about decriminalizing marijuana. Big difference.
    • Phrag, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2The majority of people who drink are never in a car accident caused by alcohol because the majority of people are responsible enough to know not to drive while drunk. The majority of car accidents are caused by sober people yet we don't ban driving. We educate and punish when it is appropriate. Complete prohibition of anything because of the abuse or misuse by a minority is a flawed, unjust and unsustainable policy.
      • cmackattack, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1That's a democracy for you...not a republic...
  • The_Dude, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Yeah, but you still have to buy it from someone. So not a huge help.
  • AgmLauncher, on 03/21/2008, -9/+1Fantastic, now all the drug lords and drug peddlers will come to NH :)

    JUST what everyone needs....

    Making possession legal, without making sale legal, causes more problems that if both were illegal.
    • AgmLauncher, on 03/21/2008, -4/+1I love how I get dug down for this, yet people who are saying the EXACT same thing above me, get dug up. Amazing.

      Definitely lots of pot heads in here...
  • BabaRamDass, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Does anyone know if the Free State Project had anything to do with this? I know they've been working towards it. In any case, way to go NH!
  • ProjectGSX, on 03/21/2008, -1/+9I have never smoked pot before and probably wouldnt even if it was legal. That being said, I think the drug laws covering natural products (pot, shrooms, etc) are absolutely ridiculous. Especially when you consider the legality of things like tobacco and alcohol. Its just ridiculous.
    • digitinfinity, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3It's a rare thing for someone who has never tried these naturally occurring substances to see the ridiculous nature of laws prohibiting them. I certainly commend you on your open-minded view of this.
  • natedigity, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2LEGALIZE THIS *****, PLEEEEEEASE!??!?!!?!??!!?!?!?
  • fatTJ, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4if you smoke marijuana, you WILL be raped by a large, angry, black man. Still think it's cool?
  • haobaba1, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1ahhhhh, I can't wait.
  • littlebylittle, on 03/21/2008, -1/+7Look into how it was ever made illegal in the first place. Look into the history of it. What a joke.
    • digitinfinity, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Very true. Almost all illegal drugs were made illegal thru racial profiling.
  • asherchang, on 03/21/2008, -1/+7I can't wait for the day when all 50 states decriminalize marijuana and just by sheer de Facto force, overturn federal law.
  • smotpoker1, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1***** A
  • zmedico, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)
    http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEdzZaXwf8o
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E48guWoQGa4
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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