digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why is Marijuana Illegal?

blogs.salon.com — Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • iraq, on 02/01/2008, -23/+250It's called government control. It'll only get worse from here on out if things continue as they have been.
    • hipnotyq, on 02/01/2008, -4/+20TGIF, time to pick up :)
      • Coug, on 02/01/2008, -4/+7My guy is dry, do you know someone i could call?
        • Scarfy, on 02/01/2008, -20/+2Hey everyone, Coug just made it clear that he smokes weed! That makes him cool... right?
          • Sparkster185, on 02/01/2008, -3/+21Hey everyone, Scarfy just made it clear that he's a douche! That makes him a douche ... right?
          • MaybellineSP, on 02/02/2008, -6/+3Yes
          • gameforge, on 02/02/2008, -0/+15No, it does not automatically make him cool.

            Only if he shares.
          • Scarfy, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1Alright morons, I guess it makes sense that he should ask who to call to buy weed over the internet. He definitely wasn't just trying to sound cool.
      • bliztix, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1yea man...right on
    • narcofiche, on 02/01/2008, -2/+7What about medical marijuana? That's a major step in the right direction. I actually think it's headed in a good direction.
      • solistus, on 02/01/2008, -0/+20Correction: it WOULD be a step in the right direction. The federal government refuses to recognise medical marijuana, and the DEA has done numerous raids on medical suppliers and patients in California.
        • mchance27, on 02/01/2008, -2/+13Very true... that's why Ron Paul wants it decriminalized on the federal level so states can make that decision for themselves. Don't forget, its most legal in Alaska. You can own up to 24 marijuana plants before its illegal.
          • haydesigner, on 02/01/2008, -1/+9That's because the guys need something to blunt the reality that they live in Alaska
            (guy to girl ratio is 10:1)
          • kults, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Ron Paul could be assassinated by current idiots of the States, tobacco companies and alcohol companies.
        • fyngyrz, on 02/01/2008, -0/+17Actually, Ron Paul wants the government to obey the constitutions commerce clause, which says it can regulate trade BETWEEN states, but the government has, through some sophist and rather absurd reasoning, turned that clause on its head and now uses it to attempt to justify any action in any state. Go read the commerce clause - it is plain as day what was intended. Then look at how the government uses it. They are disingenuous liars and worse. If the government was obeying the letter and spirit of the constitution, they'd know they have no jurisdiction inside California in such a matter.

          But they don't - because they are out of control.

          But don't worry, elect Obama or Clinton and get another eight years of the same. The government likes a violent black market for drugs; and why shouldn't they? Look at all the people in the government it ensures employment for.
        • Tilon, on 02/01/2008, -0/+8fyngyrz is absolutely right. Just go look at what they justify with the Commerce Clause, and then you'll understand the problem we have here.
        • capiCrimm, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4Wrong. The federal government has recognized medical marijuana, and does distribute it. The government just also has a case of schizophrenia.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_Investi ...
          • nicholai, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Government hypocrisy at it's best.
          • solistus, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1No. The Federal Government states pretty clearly that it recognises no role for medical cannabis. The CINDP is only still around because of a handful of patients grandfathered in. They'd love to end it; they just didn't build themselves in the option to do so.
      • pkonink, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3So you consider a civil war a good direction? I don't see the federal government allowing states to strip away some of its most potent powers without a fight. Unless the states continue to cave to federal demends for more federal $$.
    • norman619, on 02/01/2008, -1/+8This documentary explains how and why weed was made illegal.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OTgm9B7cyI
    • ufia, on 02/01/2008, -22/+3Marijuana was made illegal by the oil industry to hide the fact that the Bush administration lied about WMDs in Iraq.
      • supermanred, on 02/01/2008, -0/+20Actually it was the Cotton industry to protect their market from the easier to grow and better product hemp.
        • Jlaugh, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2Couldn't they have just grown hemp? I've heard that one before it doesn't make sense. Land is Land a crop is the same as another crop.
    • ElbertF, on 02/01/2008, -2/+44I can legally smoke it every day. And I do just that.

      Netherlands FTW.
      • knickerbocker, on 02/01/2008, -8/+1For now. Isn't the Danish government getting pissy about things on that front?
      • tmyprod, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3You lucky bastard.
    • Gauthic, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6The problem is that if it's illegal it's NOT in the government's control as they can't tax it!
      If they legalize it, standardize it, and TAX IT (and only allow it in private homes as I hate the smell of it), this country would be a better place.
      • bacon_skoda, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4i remember a documentary where they talked about a gov tax/stamp for selling MJ, but to apply for this license, you need to prove you have MJ, and proving it would get you arrested. something like that. it was in the history channel where they went through all the illegal drugs that were once legal. MJ, cocaine, extacy, etc.
        • coviecarbine, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marihuana_Tax_Ac ...

          "In 1969 in Leary v. United States, this act was found to be unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.[5] In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970[6]. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act."
        • kults, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1I hate the smell of cigarettes. Public smoking is illegal here, but not enforced. How cool is that...
    • diggingaround, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7The question is why is INDUSTRIAL Cannabis illegal!?
      YOU CAN"T SMOKE industrial cannabis!

      actually the answer is simple... it is industrial lobby who have controls over wood production industry.
    • colberrep, on 02/01/2008, -1/+7wrong. it was made illegal to capitalize on racist feelings of the time.
    • Arkz, on 02/01/2008, -2/+7Iv never smoked a Doobie in my life, and i don't intend to.. but i think its daft that its illegal... are there any proven adverse effects?
      I'm 21 but i never drink.. i just don't like the taste of most stuff (except Advocaat/Eggnog ;) but drinking can really mess people up and causes deaths all the time.. what's weed do? make you feel good? wow yes then it should be illegal! cant have people feeling good n happy for no reason!
      • Scarfy, on 02/01/2008, -1/+5I like that you said "doobie."
        • Iwantawii, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4I like that he capitalized it "Doobie."
      • PURPLEDRINK, on 02/02/2008, -7/+1it causes those who are mentally ill to become pyschotic, which is not fun. It doesn't go well with some, it makes more normal people paranoid after awhile but not fully pyschotic, it isn't without its problems. however, on the whole, with it not being addictive, like cocaine, which REALLY causes major pyschosis in both normal and espcially the mentally ill. However, the question of legalizing weed doesn't bring up why its bad, because people will continue to smoke it anyway and still run into the said problem (I for one have bipolar and had a bad experience with weed laced with pcp). If it were legalized, the pcp laced problem would go away however, companies could be held responsible for things like this and could be sued for any damages caused from inducing pyschosis.
    • virtualme7, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3It's called lobbying. Cotton industry was one of the biggest reasons for it becoming illegal. Also I remember something about since prohibition had just been repealed they needed something to fill the gap. Lots of jobs in the anti-marijuana campaign. To this day people still call it marijuana (a derogatory term meaning "Mary Jane" in spanish to go with the hate of Mexicans at the time) when it is really cannabis. And the money in keeping the prisons full.
    • MusicalGenius, on 02/02/2008, -4/+2I'm sorry but it isn't government control.

      Very simple. It's just like Bush. I hate him, but do I think we deserve better? Not really.

      The day the U.S. gets off it's butt and impeaches those who do not listen to them.... that day, the people would fix things. Are we capable of doing this right now? Yes, so we have the control. No one will use it. (Or not enough will anyway.)
    • bigdoglj52, on 02/02/2008, -4/+1people would still buy it from drug lords who would now be selling it legally and for a lot lower price
    • cyclox, on 02/02/2008, -3/+1The #1 reason marijuana is illegal is because if it was legal we would all end up like pizzler sitting around all day looking for articles to put on digg.
    • samdu, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Actually, it's called "racism." Pot was outlawed because "black people (read: n-word) hopped up on dope will rape all the white women!" At least that's what the government was selling when it was first raised as an issue.
      • MaxPayne3476, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1... actually it was started by the Mormon church out in Utah opposing the Mexican farmers growing the crop. Had nothing to do w/ the ***** until later in the jazz era.
    • TheLastFreeMan, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Look, weed is illegal because you can't profit from it. Any idiot with seeds can have a small business growing in a few months. Alcohol requires you to buy grains and ***** which are taxable by the government. Between the two, alcohol kills more people and yet is allowed to thrive as a source of revenue.
    • evan2024, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Tyranny.
    • scimitar91, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1any hope for RP08 anymore?
      he was our last chance...
  • ReligionOfPeace, on 02/01/2008, -9/+131what a well researched article.

    You can make any weed illegal, but you can't stop it from growing any place it happens to fall.
    • masterm1nd, on 02/01/2008, -5/+10Actually, you can, but that's beside the point.
    • Nougat, on 02/01/2008, -2/+57Someone should travel the nation, becoming Johnny Endoseed.
    • zeromancer, on 02/01/2008, -1/+7"You can make any weed illegal, but you can't stop it from growing any place it happens to fall."

      But they'll try like hell to stop it.
      • coviecarbine, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Spending billions along the way...
        • tektalk, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Yeah, see that taxpayer money at work?
    • TremorX, on 02/01/2008, -0/+19No, but they'll imprison whoever owns the property it happens to fall on
      • yubpro, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4What if it lands on the White House lawn? What a bind, what a bind.
      • ussoldier, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4agreeed, plant it on government property. there's more of it than you imagine. half the midwest is federally owned land. all those national parks and forests everywhere...
      • dasdef, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3yeah just toss a ***** load of seeds over to the lawn and walk away. Its a weed so it should grow easily.
    • Ivorydrive, on 02/01/2008, -1/+10Like in your closet.
    • rentmitchum, on 02/01/2008, -1/+14Here's how ridiculous the laws are. I'm facing a paraphernalia charge for owning a pipe I smoked LEGAL smoking blends out of. No lie. The lack of constitutionally protected liberties when it comes to our own minds and bodies in this country is just staggering.
      • Jakerius, on 02/02/2008, -8/+3Yeah, right.
      • MaxPayne3476, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2I reserve the right to call bluff w/o proof
      • rentmitchum, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Why oh why would I make that up? Does it help anyone to make up? No. It's just an unfortunate thing that has happened to me.
    • stackered, on 02/02/2008, -9/+3MARIJUANA KILLS.
      • slstudios, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1...not quite as much as ignorance.
    • Yetisquatch, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5April 20th... While youre all high and trying to figure out what 420 actually means, everyone who has saved any seeds from males or just crap weed should do as Nougat says above. Become Johnny Endoseed. Throw a few here and a few there. Good places to throw are parks, roadsides, government buildings, landscaping around malls, etc... Always try to make it public places so nobody loses their property later. Throw enough seeds and something is sure to come up somewhere.
      • codyodell, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2April 20th is my birthday. So is hitler's.
    • kledge, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Recently I read the exact text of this article on another website sure well researched
  • sicc, on 02/01/2008, -25/+42It's a tough argument really as it's a natural plant and compared to Alcohol it's a lot safer. But then again im sure even the most sensible user will know people where it's had somewhat a negative effect on the persons lives. Im in the mind it's making criminals out of a lot of people who arnt.
    Sicc
    • chinpo, on 02/01/2008, -6/+31"Study high, take tests high, get high scores!"
      -How High
      • empty521, on 02/01/2008, -3/+3what a quote! ty
      • hellotyler, on 02/01/2008, -6/+11Screw that. Keep education/work and drug use SEPARATE. You wouldn't tolerate a drunk at work, why tolerate someone who is stoned ? Unless you're working McD's or something...
        • Tilon, on 02/01/2008, -2/+12They ARE two different things, you know. It's not just one category, 'DRUGGGGZZZZZ!!!!11'

          Would you tell kids not to take tests on Ritalin?
        • rarson, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7"why tolerate someone who is stoned ?"

          Because some jobs are so menial that it doesn't matter? The Chinese used to give their workers opium because it let them do menial tasks for longer hours and get more productivity out of them.
        • Jlaugh, on 02/01/2008, -2/+10The software industry would slow to a crawl without weed.
          • GeneralFault, on 02/02/2008, -0/+10More like the software industry would not even exist without weed.
          • bullcutter, on 02/02/2008, -2/+4the gaming industry anyway.
      • slstudios, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1...surprisingly, this worked quite well on all my college courses except Calculus.
    • AlexGrant, on 02/01/2008, -15/+6Yesss... people become criminals because of smoking weed. That's a VERY dangerous thought you have there sir. Let's not hold people accountable right?
      • shinythingy, on 02/01/2008, -21/+1No, how about you open you eyes and stop looking at this from the biased perspective. It WILL effect people differently and there is a chance someone will do something illegal.
        • pontiac, on 02/01/2008, -1/+16But that has more to do with the individual than with marijuana. That's like saying playing violent video games has the chance of making someone commit a violent crime. There are just violent/crazy/criminal people in the world, we need to stop trying to blame it on all of this external BS. And back to the alcohol comparison, alcohol has the chance of making people violent as well. Ever hear of a "violent drunk" or a "mean drunk"? But not everyone is like that, so wouldn't it be preposterous for us to make alcohol illegal simply because it negatively affects some portion of the population.
          • GeneralFault, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6Have you ever heard of a violent or angry stoner (outside of the propaganda I mean). Have you ever met one? Me neither.
          • bullcutter, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6"alcohol has the chance of making people violent as well"

            actually the chance is far, far, FAAR higher!

            alcohol does make people do dumb ***** all the time. violently dumb *****, like drunk driving, fighting and being a loud, obnoxious *****.

            weed makes people do dumb ***** too, but its like going to McDonald's when you just ate Taco Bell or something.
        • dext3r, on 02/01/2008, -0/+9No *****, you can drink and do illegal things. You can be sober and do illegal things. When I enjoy smoking my herbal material*, I don't bother people. I go ride my bike and listen to music. ***** off with this illegal *****.
        • richbleak, on 02/01/2008, -0/+10There is a chance someone will do something illegal? I'll forgive you because you are obviously young, but lets look at the absurdity of this sentence. Caffeine WILL effect [sic] people differently and there is a chance someone will do something illegal. Sleepiness WILL effect [sic] people differently and there is a chance someone will do something illegal.

          Anyone who has any experience with Marijuana realizes that the preceding two sentences carry as much truth as yours. Marijuana DOES NOT affect judgment in any meaningful way. You don't "lose yourself" like you do when you get completely drunk. It affects the way you perceive stimuli and some people may have to concentrate harder to hold on to thoughts, but it isn't going to compel you to action that you wouldn't take otherwise. An upstanding citizen doesn't get high and then suddenly think robbing a bank would be a good idea.
          • twinklyJesus, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Didn't you see Reefer Madness? They all went crazy, robbed, killed, danced to jazz, got pregnant and got VD.
        • orangefly, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7"You always hear about a guy who gets drunk and beats up his wife. You never hear about a guy who gets stoned and beats up his wife. Gets stoned and FORGETS to beat up his wife, maybe...."
          -bill maher
        • rarson, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3There's a chance someone will do something illegal with a car, stone sober. Your argument is completely retarded!

          Let's ban silverware, because there's a chance someone might stab a person with a knife! Etc. etc. etc...

          The only thing weed "makes" people do is sit on the couch and eat junk food. ***** non-pot smokers think they know it all...
      • BadseedJR, on 02/01/2008, -0/+10I"m pretty sure he meant that they are considered criminals for using marijuana when they really aren't criminals....
    • Fr4nk2012, on 02/01/2008, -4/+17"are you smokin already? Don't you know that ***** will rob you of your ambition?"

      "not if your ambition is to get high and watch tv"
      • hellotyler, on 02/01/2008, -1/+7Haha. Nothing wrong with getting high and watching TV. Weed does kill a lot of peoples motivation and thats one of the reasons I dislike smoking with a friend of mine because he just gets all quiet and boring. I'd rather have some spirited conversation. That said, time and a place. It's the weekend, your day off, nothing to do.. Get high... What do I care?
        • ZxEfR, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2It may make some all quiet but not me I'll talk your frickin ear off....pondering the universe and such......lol
        • pkonink, on 02/01/2008, -1/+9That's pretty much a stereotype even though therein lies a seed truth. I think it doesn't make anyone act a particular way - rather I find it amplifies people's existing mood. So if you are feeling shy, tired, laconic, what-have-you, when you are stoned you will become doubly so and your friend will find you boring. If you are feeling nervous or have some background anxiety, then you become paranoid and such and then never smoke weed again because you freaked out.I think that is also a big reason why it is so fun to, to say politely, copulate ... on weed.

          It is a mood and sense enhancer, not an agent of dumbery as you would imply.
        • Schnep97, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3So true, My first few experiences were paranoid filled because I was still nervous about it. After the first few, you get more relaxed around it, and that's when the fun conversations take place.
      • BigLLamasHouse, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1Samuel L. in Jackie Brown, how obscure, good movie though
    • crystalmath, on 02/01/2008, -4/+10Weed makes criminals? Uh...what?
      • FlagrantDrugUse, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4Yeah, smoking weed makes you a criminal, being high doesn't. Get the distinction?
      • rarson, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5No, what he's saying is that people are turned into criminals for nothing. That's why he said they aren't really criminals.
    • solistus, on 02/01/2008, -2/+21ANYTHING can have a negative effect on some peoples' lives. Movies, TV, video games, junk food, religion, you name it... For some people these things can be good (or at least harmless), whereas for others they can be destructive.
    • Terrk, on 02/01/2008, -2/+17But hey, no one has EVER committed a crime because of alcohol.

      • arplayer2k, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4You are soo right! Its usually those kids that kill other people while driving recklessly under the influence of marihuana!!!! Thats after the parties or bars they come from that serve marihuana.
    • JoeVet, on 02/01/2008, -2/+13That's how it got banned in the first place....by some idiot arbitrarily declaring it will cause harm. Do you have any evidence for you assumption or are you just making ***** up?
      • MrDiggDugg, on 02/01/2008, -3/+4I /think/ he meant (it's hard to tell - perhaps he toked up when he should've been learning to write coherently ;) that having anti-MJ laws is making people into criminals who are /not/ criminals. That is, they are now considered criminals by society directly because of the marijuana.
        • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1That's a possible explanation and if that's what he meant then I apologize for being rude.
      • dajernts, on 02/02/2008, -3/+1Making ***** up? Its called observation and common sense. I guess he just assumed everyone here had it. There are really no facts and stats either way no matter how many claims people make. The only way to think about this argument is take a second to look at the stoners around you and ask yourself, should people be allowed to do this to themselves, legally?...
        • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2What people do to themselves is their own business. As for the facts, a quick look at the scientific literature clearly establishes the safety of marijuana use. It is by far safer than the legally available alternative, alcohol. Really the only argument you are making here is that you object to these people so that in itself is a reason to pass a law. That is quite small minded and certainly a self righteous stance.
    • Bigskinny717, on 02/01/2008, -5/+7wow how r u getting dugg up for saying that weed turns people into criminals!! u r nuttier than squirrel turds!
      • pkonink, on 02/01/2008, -2/+7Reading comprehension: EPIC FAIL.
        • Bigskinny717, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4meh im blazed hahah :P
        • dajernts, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1r = are. I guess that was a little over your head.
        • pkonink, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Lol, I was referring to the fact that the original poster did not say that smoking weed turns you into a criminal. "Im in the mind it's making criminals out of a lot of people who arnt." He/she says that the laws make criminals out of pot smokers.
    • indiansfred, on 02/01/2008, -18/+0Compared to alcohol it's a lot safer? You are aware that smoking dope has a greater risk of cancer than smoking cigarettes - aren't you? Guess what the leading causes of death are? Guess... Next you'll probably argue that Ron Paul has a chance of winning. Geez.
      • MattB123, on 02/01/2008, -0/+8Gram for gram it may, but have you ever heard of anyone smoking 20 or 40 joints a day?
        • Mothrog, on 02/01/2008, -5/+1No. Let me know how that changes when you can buy a pack of joints for $4.
          • accelleron, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4You, sir, have never smoked weed...
          • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Doesn't matter if people do smoke 100 joints a day......there is no evidence that it causes cancer like legally available cigarettes and it is much safer than the legally available alcohol. There is no logical reason why more toxic substances are legal when safer nontoxic substance is not.
      • DocGlass, on 02/01/2008, -2/+11A.) Cigarettes are legal. Thus you can't use the cancer thing to justify criminalizing pot.

        B.) Bake the weed into brownies or turn it into butter and have it on a muffin. Problem solved.
      • CrackyJSquirrel, on 02/01/2008, -0/+10was the punch good? Because you obviously drank it. Put things into perspective and also read real statistics before you make dumb statements like that.
        People who smoke weed do not consume as much carcinogens as chronic cigarette smokers. Also, no studies have been linked to pot smoking and cancer. It has just been found that weed has carcinogens, more in a joint then a cigarette. But any real weed smoker will tell you that the amount of weed smoked in a day is no more then what a cigaratte smoker would intake carcinogen wise. It is even possibly less, because most do not smoke a ***** load of joints in one day, many just smoke a bowl here and there or small hitters. As well if you have weed with higher concentrated THC, you will actually smoke way less.
        Now, dont let me blow your mind here.. But popular belief among scientists is that the carcinogens in smoking weed are nullified by the THC in it. THC allows cells to go through their normal death process (also actually helps the process) which in turn allows cells to die properly when damaged, which is preventing cancer from starting. On the flip side, nicotine is an inhibitor to this process, hence the reason cigarette smoking is DEFINITIVELY linked to cancer.
        Schools out..

      • rarson, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4THC may actually cause a reduction in cancerous lung cells. And besides, the biggest pot smokers out there don't smoke nearly as much as many cigarette smokers do.

        Pot also doesn't have all that ***** in it that cigarettes do, like arsenic, formaldehyde, and reconstituted garbage tobacco.
      • misterRobot, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Yes, it is safer than alcohol. Let's do an experiment, you drink vodka all night and I'll smoke bowl after bowl. Don't worry, I'll call the ambulance for you in the morning.
      • arplayer2k, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3This guy is obviously a alkie. There is a study by the AMA, yes the American Medical Association (just take my word for it, they are much more informed than you in these matters), stating that if one smoked Marijuana from a vaporizer, they were talking specifically about the Volcano, then the carcinogens in the Marijuana would not be inhaled and the cancerous effects of Marijuana would virtually be absent. Google it bitch.
      • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1There is no scientific evidence demonstrating that marijuana causes cancer. There is a study that suggest it is but that study simply compared cigarette smoke with marijuana smoke and they made an inference that is not supported by studies of actual users. There are however studies that suggest that nonusers are scared of an irrational perceived threat that does not exist.
    • hellotyler, on 02/01/2008, -2/+8Uh, what you just said is a lie. Cannabis has higher amounts of tar but is not nearly as carcinogenic. Very few people get cancer from budsmoke alone. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but cigarettes are FAR worse.
      • vectorb, on 02/01/2008, -9/+0Um...actually...
        Other way round, sorry.
        http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_19073.aspx
        • Tilon, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7Got a word for you.

          Vaporizer.
        • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I would hold judgment until I read the real article. This is a news piece written by a journalist. Journalists usually do not understand the papers or the results and more often then not get the findings wrong. All the studies I've seen show no correlation between marijuana use and cancer. We'll see what the paper says but the fact that you point to a news station piece and hold it up as science puts your knowledge of science into question.
          • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1For real science you can try reading:
            Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Oct;15(10):1829-34.
            "No association was consistently monotonic across exposure categories, and restriction to subjects who never smoked cigarettes yielded similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our results may have been affected by selection bias or error in measuring lifetime exposure and confounder histories; but they suggest that the association of these cancers with marijuana, even long-term or heavy use, is not strong and may be below practically detectable limits."
    • EdRosenthal, on 02/01/2008, -3/+10Weed makes criminals? The only way it makes you a criminal is because you break the law to obtain and consume it. I don't know if you've ever smoked weed but it certainly does not put the average person in the mood for a conflict, stealing, or aggression of any sort.
      Weed, sugar, alcohol, TV, video games, porn, violent movies, peer pressure, absentee Dad, absentee Mom, society and all the rest don't really make people into criminals, people just make bad choices. There is this really neat concept called personal accountability. If we could embrace it maybe we'd all get a break from the ridiculous laws enacted to supposedly protect us from ourselves.
      • brose1, on 02/01/2008, -0/+0damn skippy.
      • CrackyJSquirrel, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Um, you were fine until the second paragraph, because that is actually what he meant..
      • davidlow, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Sugar, alcohol, TV, video games, porn, violent movies, peer pressure, absentee Dad, absentee Mom.
        These things can all cause aggression, while weed REDUCES aggression.
    • CrackyJSquirrel, on 02/01/2008, -0/+10To the people who think he is crazy for saying "Weed is turning people into criminals"..
      Wrap your short sight around this.. He isn't saying smoking weed is making people criminals by smoking it and now you will go rob, pillage and rape.. What he is saying is by the substance itself being illegal (when it should not be), people who simply want to enjoy smoking can be arrested and put through the criminal justice system. And or, people who supply it to others are arrested and put in jail for distributing something that should be legally sold and regulated. So good people who enjoy weed can get labeled a criminal by society because they got busted with a sack. Or good people are being popped for distribution because they bought a couple bags for themselves and friends. SO, good people get made into criminals that otherwise should not be. Understand now?
    • joshgeek, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2You can't really make something illegal because it has a "negative" effect on people's lives? negative to who? If i go out and drink all night, it isnt illegal, but it may have a negative effect on my life. i know people who get off work, go straight to the bar till close and drink their lives away, but they can't get thrown in jail. ITS NOT ILLEGAL TO BE A DRUNK. why is it illegal to be a marijuana enthusiast? it's downright unfair and ought to be found unconstitutional. my rights to be as happy as I WANT TO BE are non-existant. this country is, in effect, no longer constitutional.
    • dajernts, on 02/02/2008, -4/+1Great comment. People don't understand the whole criminal thing here though. It's not that weed will make you a criminal, its that weed puts normally decent people out of their right mind which enables them to make decisions they wouldn't normally make. This could help you, like some have said, think outside the box...I guess, or it could cause you to react poorly to your kitchen catching on fire. The difference between weed and alcohol is that there is no breathalyser for weed. It would be harder to control if legalized.
    • samdu, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Actually, I know several people whose lives have been adversely affected by alcohol and not a single one whose life has been adversely affected by pot itself. My former roommate smoked pot every day. The most "adverse" affect he has ever encountered from his use was when he tested positive at work - a completely artificial adverse affect. What did he do when he was under the microscope? Drank wine every day. Which was worse for him? The wine. But since that leaves your system much more quickly and is not as stigmatized as pot, he stuck to wine until he changed jobs.
  • NikoKun, on 02/01/2008, -4/+61For a good lesson in history and the real reasons why Marijuana is illegal, Watch the documentary "Grass". Should be able to find it on Google Video.
  • kurofuneparry, on 02/01/2008, -70/+8The article isn't that well researched/written and rants like they're on it. People fight tobacco today because it is harmful and Marijuana is equally if not more so: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19626 ...
    • guither, on 02/01/2008, -2/+41You didn't really read the article, did you? Or look at the sources at the end of it? You just saw the name of the blog presenting it and decided it was a rant without reading.
      Regarding the New Scientist article -- the fact that any smoke has potential to damage lungs is not new, but marijuana smoke is nowhere near as dangerous as tobacco smoke (for one, it's been proven not to increase risk of lung cancer). And if you want to make it even safer, encourage people to use vaporizers or consume it orally -- all these are possible. Locking people up for it doesn't help anything, and just adds a whole lot of other problems.
      • bort901, on 02/01/2008, -16/+1Recent studies HAVE shown that marijuana does increase the risk of lung cancer. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTr ...
        • benvd, on 02/01/2008, -1/+5never source with american media
        • Blue_Eon, on 02/01/2008, -0/+14Even if it does cause lung cancer, it should be up to us to decide if we want to use it. Just like it's up to us to decide if we want to drink, or eat fatty foods, or have unprotected sex.

          Anyone in their right mind knows that inhaling smoke is bad, but EVERYONE does something in life that is detrimental to their health and well being. Why is pot, which is much safer than alcohol in the terms of its affects on coordination and judgment skills, singled out so much?

          It's because of government indoctrination that people think pot is so bad. The fact that D.A.R.E. even exists is proof of that. You don't need studies to inform people that inhaling smoke is harmful. Cavemen knew that. Yet, it should be up to us to decide what we put in our bodies, not some government who sees fit to choose what we can and cannot do to ourselves because they see something as "immoral".
        • Bakrain, on 02/01/2008, -0/+9Then why don't we outlaw cigarettes?
        • hellotyler, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5No *****, people are smoking BURNING PLANT MATERIAL. You think it's gonna clear up your caugh ? Of course not. They are INHALING SMOKE! It's BAD for you! Just because something is bad for you doesn't mean we don't have the RIGHT to do it. If you compare to the various other legal substances that are bad for you and still tolerated (alcohol, tobacco) it pales in comparison. People should really learn to approach things objectively.
        • 1of42, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2No, a single recent study has shown. A far larger, far more statistically rigorous UCLA study showed no link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer.
      • incizion, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4Obviously. Google's top 10 results (removing news/media sources) FULLY support your claim. Although, really, who can trust WebMD and Cancer.gov? They always have a hidden agenda.

        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&rls ...
      • samdu, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3People don't smoke pot like they smoke cigarettes. I go through a pack a day of cigarettes. Even the most avid pot smokers I've ever encountered don't go through more than a couple of joints a day. Yes, they're both bad for your lungs. But cigarettes are much worse because you tend to smoke a lot more of them. And pot isn't even remotely as addictive as tobacco. Hell, tobacco (nicotine) is more addictive than heroine. And besides, it's not the job of the government to "protect" me from either.
    • deadmoo, on 02/01/2008, -4/+14People fight tobacco because they are control freaks.
      • MusicalGenius, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3No, I just have the right to publicly live a life without people puffing down ANY smoke down my lungs. Smokers plague America and most people who don't smoke can't stand it.
        • samdu, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Then don't go to establishments that permit smoking. It's really pretty simple. If enough people stop patronizing places that allow smoking, the owners will be forced to prohibit smoking in their establishments. But it is NOT the purview of the government to tell property owners what they can and cannot allow on their own property. It is also not the job of the government to make your life more convenient. And that's what most of the complaints about smoking is about - convenience. Most people don't want others to be allowed to smoke around them because they "don't like the smell." It has absolutely nothing to do with health.
    • mauiwowi, on 02/01/2008, -1/+18Inhaling smoke from anything that is on fire can be harmful. It's not marijuana that is harmful, it's smoke.
      In fact according to the Physicians Desk Reference it's the most medicinal substance known to man.
    • JoeVet, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3That article compares cigarette smoke to marijuana smoke and makes an unsubstantiated claim of toxicity based on chemical count. Studies which compared actual humans, smokers versus nonsmokers, consistently finds no basis to suggest cannabis is toxic. There is conclusive evidence that cannabis does not produce cancer like cigarettes.
    • mozzep, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Yes, marijuana is harmful to one's lungs, but this is not a reason to outlaw it. If you think this is the case, then you are not thinking deeply enough. Many items or events either carry a definite harmful effect or have a potential to have a harmful effect, yet, we do not outlaw these items either because they give to some greater good or do not have a necessary harm. Consider the case of airplane travel, automobile travel, gun ownership, or other of the infinite possibilities capable of being presented as evidence of potentially harmful effects. Marijuana is potentially harmful if one chooses to drive while intoxicated. The problem with outlawing a substance because it is potentially harmful is just that: it's not necessarily harmful. It may be partaken in safely. Perhaps we may make a distinction here over the chance of potentially harmful effects. I doubt something that's harmful every time except once should be legal. However, marijuana is certainly not this something.

      Consider also the definite harmful effect of marijuana: cancer of the lungs, which is your main point. This is a necessary harm for every time marijuana is smoked it harms the lungs. Of course, marijuana can be ingested to achieve the high, thereby negating your two sentence argument. However, let us continue. Should something be outlawed because of definite harm to the partaker? There is one salient argument I wish to point out. Marijuana harms the partaker's lungs through their own choice and does not harm anyone else. Forbidding such a fundamental right of self-expression and individuality, insofar as these are components of democratic society seems bewildering. If we are to restrict people's right to experiment with their own body, why stop at marijuana? Why not continue along the line of Fast Food, cigarettes, alcohol, excessive computer time, color of clothing, choice of shopping options.

      The restriction of marijuana is ridiculous because of the fundamental assumption in democratic society that people have a right to individuality and experimentation with their own body as long as this does not interfere with this same right of other people nor other people's well being.
    • sasquatchcrotch, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Marijuana doesn't cause cancer.
      http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html
      http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/marijuana-unlik ...
      http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002491 ...
      http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20050710150925597
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
    • deaddoll00, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1And yet, I can't remember the last time I got addicted to weed, spent a sizable amount of money on it each month (though I suppose that depends on your tastes) developed lung cancer, or had a hard ass time stopping. Hmmmm...
  • lhbaker, on 02/01/2008, -11/+206"This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

    That's more than enough reason to legalize it right there.
    • TBoneFever, on 02/01/2008, -3/+47I was disgusted when I read that. WTF is wrong with this country.

      "Blackies" .....wow.
    • MISDIREK7ED, on 02/01/2008, -2/+41Another gem: "You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
      • arplayer2k, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2ROFL. Just ask my brother... oh wait, he's dead?!
    • mrgreenjeans9, on 02/01/2008, -0/+19yeah, you caint have the white womens going after boys who smoke 'jazz cigarettes'

      pffff
    • Draxius, on 02/01/2008, -4/+1Priceless
    • jimmytootime, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Im neither Nergro nor entertainer. I guess a fall under "any other"


      WooHoo... Bring on the weed,


    • jesuswuzanalien, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Sorry I don't think "any others" refers to the userbase on Digg.
  • TwoXist, on 02/01/2008, -54/+11Why is there something like this on Digg two or three times a week?
    • diskit, on 02/01/2008, -31/+11They keep forgetting stuff like this is posted all the time due to drug related memory loss.
      • Sparkster185, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3yeah man smoking pot destroys your memories i totally forgot because im so high
      • doctorfungi, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Alcohol causes memory loss too. Hypocrites like you, however, will stand there on your 12th beer telling the world how dangerous marijuana is.
    • merripen, on 02/01/2008, -3/+40Because the issue hasn't been fixed yet.
    • bort901, on 02/01/2008, -3/+29I think its mostly because of the irrational reasons that it is illegal. Its no worse than alcohol and using marijuana is a victimless crime.
    • ronaldinho, on 02/01/2008, -1/+9So that I can keep showing my ignorant friends that pot is not any more dangerous than alcohol? I get mad when people keep telling me without good reason why alcohol is legal (i.e. less dangerous) and pot is not (e.g. more dangerous).
    • NikoKun, on 02/01/2008, -1/+7Because the injustices of Prohibition have yet to be corrected...
      And no matter how many people learn the truth, there is always way more who haven't...

      These articles will likely always appear on digg and other sites... Until we finally end Cannabis Prohibition.
    • trollhunter, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4Cos the price of freedom is eternal vigilance... Lawmakers represent us, the people. We're better served to keep them informed and aware of our choices as a collective. The bias is shifting from anti-pot to pro-pot. the laws need to reflect that shift.
    • Pedlya, on 02/02/2008, -3/+1Because pot it SO AWESOME /sarcasm

      I hate drugs, for medicinal purposes its ok, however you idiotic potheads all need to ***** die.
  • CTK14A, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6I've never been able to find primary source citations for the Anslinger stuff. Were those quotations taken from a newspaper? Anyone have links? I'm not defending the viewpoints, just wondering where he made those statements.
    • guither, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7Unfortunately, much floating from that era is secondary sources at best. You might try Andrew Garrett at the Reefer Madness Museum (www.ReeferMadnessMuseum.org) He's been working at collecting original newspapers, files, and more, and really trying to nail down the origins of many of these things. His site is a bit difficult to navigate, but he's got a lot of primary materials, and he's happy to send copies of many by email.
    • Bakrain, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4Some of the videos are hilarious. I saw the one where the kid smokes weed and then kills his mom with a cast-iron skillet, ROFL!!!
    • BoneheadFarker, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6If you watch the documentary "Grass", a lot of his speeches denoucing weed as dangerous were recorded. It's amazing the amount of racism that was used to justify making it illegal...
      • tektalk, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Even more amazing is how naive people in the U.S can be, even to this day... :(
  • thomoore, on 02/01/2008, -6/+23It's just a manifestation of government control. This is the sort of heavy-handed approach to medical care that is embodied in Hillary's health plan. This article
    http://www.scragged.com/articles/the-road-to-hilla ...
    explains the collision between Hillary's government-centered approach and people who get health information off the Internet. Imagine the collision between patients wanting to select their own treatments and Hillary's bureaucrats who don't trust us to choose our own cough syrup!
    • rarson, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2You have to be 18 to buy some cough medicine. I got carded today, actually (I'm sick).
  • Conwaysb0718, on 02/01/2008, -6/+71Short answer: "Reefer Madness" was created to sway the public into thinking it was far worse than alcohol. Now its mostly for tax reasons. They cant possibly tax what you can grow and ingest without their knowledge. That's just bad for business, er, I mean government.
    • RetlawST, on 02/01/2008, -0/+13Heh, I agree with you but I don't think tax is the reason they won't legalize it. You can grow your own green beans but people still buy them at the store.

      I just think most politicians are too stupid to see through the crap they've been taught for the last 60 years.
      • fyngyrz, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5If you want to know why they won't legalize it, look at the amount of money spent on anti-drug efforts. Just follow the money. You're talking about billions of dollars here, and the incomes of a *lot* of law enforcement persons who are NOT going to accept that their jobs just became a obsolete as the feds who used to chase people during prohibition.

        The government has set up a lucrative niche for a HUGE number of employees, and they've got a huge propaganda machine running to ensure it stays alive and continues to feed a strong black market.

        • CrazyDave303, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Use the money and people to fight meth and crack.
      • ch1ck3n3, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1You can grow your own tobacco.
        Look at how booming the tobacco companies are.
        side note: Look at how much funding tobacco companies grant to our politicians.
      • bolognium, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2also - check into asset forfeiture... that's partially why it's illegal. I've read that many of the anti-drug task forces get all of their income from asset forfeiture.
    • CrankyPants, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6What are you smoking? The government isn't taxing marijuana currently, why would legalizing it be bad for tax revenue?

      I can grow tomatoes and raise chickens too but I don't -- I go down to the Kroger and buy it pre-processed. Legalizing weed would produce the same consumer base and be a tremendous boon to our tax revenue.
      • Conwaysb0718, on 02/01/2008, -4/+2I'm saying they have no incentive to legalize it because they cant profit from it.
        • DraxusD, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7Why not? If they grow it and sell packs of joints in the store, taxed...lots of people will buy them.
        • rarson, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Yes they can, just like tobacco.
        • Jlaugh, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1How about they want to restrict our access to wealth (drugs being a form of hard currency), and monopoly capitals' commanding position would be harmed by a easy to grow high demand cash crop such as cannabis. ie they would have no control over who gets into their club.
      • bolognium, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2asset forfeiture + prison industry income..
      • Richandler, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Actually this is partially incorrect. In some states marijuana is a taxable item. However, the process of paying taxes on it is rather complicated seeing that it is illegal. I know. It's insane.
    • Otto, on 02/01/2008, -0/+18That's stupid. I can brew beer and ingest it and not pay taxes on that either. Oh no!

      Marijuana is no different than any other taxable product. If they were to legalize and tax it, not much would change in this world, except that cops would have more time to fight real crimes.
      • Conwaysb0718, on 02/01/2008, -10/+2You have to pay a tax in some form for everything to make the beer dontcha?
        • fyngyrz, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6No, you can grow most of it if you live in the right climate.

          Of course, they tax your land.

          But that applies to marijuana as well.
        • Conwaysb0718, on 02/01/2008, -1/+5like the land in your closet, where some people grow their marijuana.
          • fyngyrz, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2A supply from your closet won't last you long unless you're really not a significant consumer. Unless you're smoking stems (ugh) or leaves (eh.) In the meantime, you'd be able to buy quality *bud* at the store. Closet doesn't look so good anymore...

            And no, I don't smoke, haven't had a joint in 30 years. But I *do* know what makes good pot.
        • skankme, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3Uh - ever heard of a property tax?
        • Tilon, on 02/01/2008, -1/+10Since when should the Government get a divine right to take a cut of everything we ***** do, anyway?
        • Mothrog, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4Do you think top soil, property, or seeds are tax free?
        • HotSlag, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Hops - not too hard to grow
          Grains - not too hard to grow, but it takes quite a bit of land to get what you need.
          Malting the grain - not easy at all.
          Good luck growing everything for beer. Possible, yes. viable, not really.
    • w3weasel, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4It has nothing to do with taxes.

      Pick a link... any link:
      http://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+DuPont&ie ...

      Dupont held a patent for nylon (and soon after, many types of plastic), but only for the production method for creating nylon from crude oil. When they realized that you could make the same nylon (and various plastics) from Hemp Seed Oil (which costs a tiny fraction of what crude oil does) they started throwing more money into lobbying and they have never stopped. DuPont has spent more cash on lobbying congress than any other company in our history. It is not to protect us from ourselves, its to secure the royalty revenues for DuPont for perpetuity.
    • asauterChicago, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2I think this has more to do with uneducated people, there always will be at least person, even on Digg that will post "Your not legalizing drugs around MY children!!". Simply, people are misinformed and refuse to learn about or change their views.
    • rarson, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1This "tax argument" that I always hear is just ***** ridiculous. Anything you say about marijuana can be applied to tobacco, and yet they tax the ***** out of cigarettes. Hell, you can even buy a bag of tobacco and roll your own. And you know what? Most people don't, because it's a pain in the ass.

      Growing marijuana can be fun, but if you just want to get high, it can be a real pain in the ass. It takes a long time to get a good quality plant to mature. A lot of care and time goes into growing a marijuana plant... I would think even more than a tobacco plant, but I'm not sure. I don't know anything about growing tobacco.

      If you think that the majority of pot smokers out there are going to grow their own, you're deeply mistaken. People pay for convenience.
    • virtualme7, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Exactly what these fine people said. You could make your own liqour, too, like people did during prohibition. When you make it legal crime goes down and they tax it. For the consumer it would be cheaper than going to your dealer. Fact is they make more money with it illegal.
    • addiktion, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Brewing is a much harder process then growing a weed plant in my opinion but I think alcohol is far worse then weed imho. short term memory loss is a beotch though. Wait what was I saying??
  • banq59, on 02/01/2008, -15/+7http://digg.com/food_drink/A_Brief_History_Why_is_ ...

    Here is the original that was already on the front page. Buried for dupe even though it is a great article.
    • Herostratus, on 02/01/2008, -0/+11I was gonna say the same thing, except I was going to Digg it despite it being a duplicate. More people need to see this and read it. Excellent article. Should be page 1 every month untill prohibition ends.
    • Fr4nk2012, on 02/01/2008, -1/+7thank you dupe police!

      "Making the front page safer one bury at a time!!" or "If your not here everyday then ***** you!"
      • tyme, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4"If you're not here everyday look back a few to see what you missed."

        If they didn't want people burying dupes, they shouldn't have given us the ability to do so.
  • thezanman, on 02/01/2008, -4/+32Its illegal because conformity, fear, and hate are all MUCH easier then being open minded and accepting something that has the possibility to create widespread change (in the economy, government, way of thinking, etc). America has to keep its status-quo.
  • chinpo, on 02/01/2008, -3/+30I don't know about you guys, but one thing I found by chance with weed is that if you browse digg after smoking it, you will likely laugh out loud at some comments. Specifically, the more dugg down a comment is, the more you will laugh. For me, I could actually understand the point the commenters were trying to get across, but I also could tell where they slipped up and the meaning got lost.
    • krnldmp, on 02/01/2008, -0/+13This is one reason governments really don't like marijuana today even if the original reasons argued for banning were a little more specific. Good marijuana makes you like people and question "society".
    • CrankyPants, on 02/01/2008, -18/+1Let's begin our test with your comment.

      -1
      • bdawg123, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4Oh, the irony!
        • slapded, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2oh ***** that was funny! ROFLOLOL!HAH IM CALLINGMY BBFFF AND goin on yahoo answserrs!
    • Phatt138, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2"You ever seen the back of a dollar bill...on weeeed, man?"
  • INDOAZZ, on 02/01/2008, -2/+21It shouldn't Be. Have you ever been to a place where everyone is smoking pot and a fight breaks out? Now add Alcohol and that story becomes different.....
    • MrMooski, on 02/01/2008, -1/+9agreed.
    • kravex, on 02/01/2008, -16/+8Have you ever been to a place where everyone is smoking pot and get of their arse and get a job? Society today couldn't handle marijuana no matter how safe people think it is.

      Down I go....
      • amoro99, on 02/01/2008, -1/+15Not sure I know too many people on pot that don't work. How would you pay for it? In fact, dope smokers out of a job have one more reason to get one.
        • UnWeave, on 02/01/2008, -7/+3Yeah. Their new-found (non-physical) addiction. What a great way to get people to work.
          • amoro99, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4You can't buy schwag with food stamps
          • fyngyrz, on 02/01/2008, -1/+11It isn't your place to decide whether other people's motivations are adequate, any more than it is theirs to judge yours.

            So piss off.
      • Bakrain, on 02/01/2008, -2/+10You assume people who smoke it are stoners who do nothing but smoke it all day long. I go for months without it. It's NOT addictive.
      • hellotyler, on 02/01/2008, -2/+10Kravix, that's such a completely stupid generalization with virtually zero basis in reality. I don't even know why you bothered posting ***** you know to be false. You have to know people who smoke weed, they are normal people like anyone else. Most of them have jobs, some of them don't, some of them are rich, some are poor, black, white, asian, whatever. You can't just shove an entire group of people into a box and say "everyone is this way". It's simply not true.
      • sodade, on 02/01/2008, -2/+13I'll betcha that my stoner ass makes 2x what you do. Stereotypes FTL.
      • EdRosenthal, on 02/01/2008, -1/+5Quite a weak generalization about pot smokers earning a wage. I know many casual pot smokers who are in the top 3% of wage earners in this country. And besides, a free market like ours would adapt and change around people who decided to check out and just get high all the time. It would make more room for the eager achievers to fill the gap.
      • Fryth, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1Yeah, my workplace...
  • fr0ng, on 02/01/2008, -1/+21Several reasons which include:

    1. Wanting to get mexican workers out of whiteys town so they wouldn't take all the work
    2. Lumber lobbyists (hemp - its serious business)
    3. Personal vendetta against drugs
  • strafefire, on 02/01/2008, -7/+1Am I the only one wondering why this is the blog section of Salon, vice the actual site?
  • 711Security, on 02/01/2008, -15/+29The top 3 benefits that I can think of if pot is legalized:
    1) The government gets a crap load more tax money (which it desperately needs right now)
    2) We can save water growing hemp for fabrics production
    3) People can high legally
    Everybody wins. That's why Ron Paul is our man.
    • BadseedJR, on 02/01/2008, -1/+17Ron Paul won't legalize it, he will let the states decide. I'm sure a ton of states will not decide to legalize it.
      • terminal157, on 02/01/2008, -1/+13Yeah, but the people in those states would have a greater chance of influencing their State government to legalize it than influencing the Federal government. And if it was really important to them they could move to a State where it was legal.
      • asspants, on 02/01/2008, -0/+12Also those states that do legalize it -- a ton of people will move there.
      • fyngyrz, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7But some will. Then you can choose where you want to live based on your alignment with the people around you. Which is an important benefit of state's rights. The commerce clause: It does NOT give the government authority to intervene in intra-state commerce.
      • rarson, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Yeah, but number 1 would still go in effect just by ending the ridiculously expensive "war on drugs."

        Legalizing it AND taxing it would be like a double whammy of cutting spending and creating more tax revenue... that would probably be a first for our government.
        • fyngyrz, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1It isn't that simple. It would also put huge numbers of law enforcement officials out of a job, shut agencies down, make many government buildings empty without purpose, stop funneling money into the economy via all the industries that support the drug war... you have to understand that there is a HUGE economic incentive to keep this thing going that has nothing to do with winning, and everything to do with a continuous, unwinnable effort.
          • rarson, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Right, so essentially, it would get rid of useless jobs and useless industry. Sorry, that's not a bad thing.
    • 1kewldude, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4There would be less traffic on the roads is another benefit - because the only people driving would be food delivery drivers
    • joshgeek, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2also, mj pumps out more oxygen than most plants. it would help offset carbon in the atmosphere to have large fields of hemp. talk about going green!
  • mooseontheloose, on 02/01/2008, -4/+16I have no clue why it's illegal. It doesn't even make sense that the government wants to ban it, since they could legalize it and tax the ever loving crap out of it. Tobacco companies would love to sell it. I can't see anybody who loses if it's legalized.
    • zongamin, on 02/01/2008, -2/+12you could always read the article, stoner.
    • Gabberwok, on 02/01/2008, -3/+8The Republican philosophy on this is that if you smoke pot you become a hippy, and hippies vote for Democrats.
      • MrMooski, on 02/01/2008, -0/+8yeah republicans do coke and meth
      • joshgeek, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1lol. short and sweet. but really, plenty of republicans smoke pot. believe it.
    • MrMooski, on 02/01/2008, -1/+9You forget it is a cash cow for law enforcement. They make tons of money and are able to control a large segment of our population with bs charges fines jail time and drug forfeiture laws for low level possession.
      • amoro99, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3It costs more to enforce the prohibition than any fines that result from it. I don't need a damn source.
        • fyngyrz, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Yes -- but you've missed the key fact here: Law enforcement doesn't have to earn that money. They just take it from the citizens in taxes. So it doesn't matter HOW much it costs, it only matters how much they get to spend and distribute among law enforcement, propaganda, and political entities. If the drug war went away, then those monies would not be spent on the same people, consequently. those people would have to look for new jobs.
        • Jlaugh, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1It's an excuse to expand police power without you being so alarmed by the creeping police state. It doesn't matter how much it costs to them, you can't put a price on control. Besides you and I are paying for it.
      • hellotyler, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Yeah, you do. It may cost the city money but it pays the cops salary. It's a machine. They don't profit themselves from it (the government) but they pass along the spoils to all the people working with them. (law enforcement) Basically I have to pay for some donut sniffer to bust teenagers having fun in the park, instead of having him go after say - real criminals such as car thieves and other violent offenders that have the potential to wreak real havoc on the general population.
    • frishack, on 02/01/2008, -8/+1My theory is that by having a harmless drug like Marijuana be illegal, that will be the 'off limits' dangerous thing that most kids will be rebellious and try. no harm done. However, were it to be legal, the first taste of the forbidden side might be cocaine or meth - seriously addictive drugs that will ruin your life.

      btw, I don't smoke, drink, or do any kind of drugs.
      • mooseontheloose, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4That's the stupidest reasoning for banning something ever
      • 1of42, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3Your theory is incorrect.
      • dementedd, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3That is very, very silly. Do some research.
      • rarson, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4You're absolutely right, people only do drugs because they're illegal.

        /sarcasm
    • joshgeek, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2the cartels who fill our cities with crappy, dry, moldy commercial schwag would lose out. we could possibly have a real war on our hands if mj was allowed to be commercialized.
  • NickSpinner, on 02/01/2008, -2/+39"marijuana makes darkies think theyre as good as whites" -henry j. anslinger, the guy who made it illegal
    • pancak3s, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3True words. He also mentioned that if a white woman smoked a joint they'd suddenly be attracted to a black male. Lovely how everyone believe that *****, eh?
    • joshgeek, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2you can tell from the type of rhetoric used that he was telling the voters/representatives what they wanted to hear. they needed a scapegoat to focus all the angst voters had about racial diversity. america was becoming worldly and that scared a lot of the anglo-european voters (the majority at the time.. and still). anslinger played on that and struck a psychotic chord that still resonates, unfortunately.
  • Gabberwok, on 02/01/2008, -1/+10When marijuana first made it to the United States, it was associated with African-Americans and Mexicans. So obviously it was a dangerous drug and had to be outlawed to protect the virginity of white daughters everywhere. A little cocaine now and then was perfectly acceptable, however.

    Because of this legacy, it has been illegal for most of the time it has been popular in the United States.

    P.S. Why is it that Ron Paul supporters are only for taxes when it comes to legalizing pot?
    • rficwizard, on 02/01/2008, -0/+11It is better to have pot legal and taxed than illegal and untaxed. Most Ron Paul supporters are not the annoying idealogue type that seem to congregate on digg; most just want to make things better. Legal, taxed marijuana is better for society than what we have now.
      • ronaldinho, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4Not to mention that we won't have to flood our prisons with way too many people who didn't kill or steal or rape. Tax it and profit off it, and leave more prison room for those who committed actual crimes instead of housing too many people who simply wanted to get high on their own and nothing more.
    • capiCrimm, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7I'm not for taxes with pot. However, to answer your question, Ron Paul isn't against all taxes. Income tax he is dead set against. He proposes tariffs and sales tax all the time, though. The government does need some money to keep going(not *that* much though).

      I think it's also an easy representation of how legalization is better then having an uncontrolled black market.
    • pkonink, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3I am certainly not against taxes, however, I firmly believe we pay too much taxes to the federal government. I base that not on my own self-interest (ie I want more money) but rather on their actions of these past several decades. This blog article being a case in point.

      I still support paying tax to the federal government, but I think it should be performance-based. As in, "What you invaded a country for no good reason? Oh, and you lied as well? Sorry, no tax for you." Or, "Remind me again why I pay tax to you when I have to watch Blackhawk helicopters every summer looking to arrest my friends and neighbors for growing a plant that I think is beneficial to society? I think I'm going to keep my tax money this year, sorry." Isn't that essentially what the American colonists did 150 year ago? This goes beyond Ron Paul or supporting him, it's more about shared values than backing a political racehorse.
      • pkonink, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Oh geez I meant 250 years, lol. Even though I could've sworn that Abraham Lincoln was the captain of the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria when he brought the pilgrims over from Denmark and then freed the slaves with Spartacus.
    • trollhunter, on 02/01/2008, -0/+0Yep, cocaine, morphine (and other opiates), LOTS of alcohol, speed etc etc... Our great great grandparents were super-uber-fiends, groovers. Bless em. ;)
    • whatthehell9, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1don't mind paying taxes for things i use. just don't want it wasted by bureaucrats on themselves or things i don't.
    • zeuslgn, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1We're against the Income Tax, not all taxes. Income Tax is a tax on your labor i.e. what you produce with your toil and hard work. When you work you are performing a service or creating a product. Because you own yourself, you should also own the fruits of your labor. If you work all day at the factory or on the farm or even a nice cushy office, all that hard work was done by you and therefore YOU should be the reaper of what you've sown. If you were standing there holding your pay from all that hard work and some guy came up to you and said "Gimme 27% of that." you'd tell him to stick it. But if a politician (just another guy) gets together with other bureaucrats (just more people) and writes a "law" and tells yet more people called The IRS to do this to you, most people seem to accept that. The thug on the street telling you to give him part of the rewards you received from *your* labor is the same as a bunch of people calling themselves "authority" and using "the law" or guilting you into "paying your fair share" are fundamentally the same. If you are *forced* by law, threat, violence, or whatever to give up some or all of the rewards you received for your hard work to someone or someones who did nothing to deserve a cut, well, if you have to give it up that makes you a slave and that's why we disagree with Income Tax. Services, Fees and Tariffs are another story.
  • Malevolant, on 02/01/2008, -2/+21It's illegal because the "legal" drug industry doesn't want the competition.
    • Bakrain, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4The alcohol lobby is against it as well, people will use less of their product. I sure did.
      • juventus1, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1i actually started using tobacco because of mary jane. gots to roll the spliffs and the blunts you know
    • fyngyrz, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Not outright disagreeing, but what, in your view, would marijuana compete with that the drug industry is currently selling?

      I know it can act as an appetite stimulant and relieve pain a little, but there are many options already on the market for those things, so that can't be what you're thinking of... so what do you have in mind?
      • dinsy, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1prozac, zanax, or any of the other happy pills
      • 1of42, on 02/01/2008, -0/+0Marinol, dronabinol - any of the cannabis substitute drugs. Also many analgesics, especially those used for chronic cancer-related pain, since marijuana would both get rid of the pain, as well as stimulate appetite.

        Oh, that too - appetite stimulants, anti-wasting drugs. All these things are potential competitors whose market share would be hurt by an easily growable plant.
      • dementedd, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1As 1of42 stated, cannabis substitute drugs. However, the entire range of cannabinoids present in marijuana cannot be synthesized, so these drugs are much less effective and much, much more expensive.
  • ozymandias2012, on 02/01/2008, -1/+92Meanwhile alcohol is killing 100,000+ people per year in the U.S and kills 6½ times more youth than all other illicit drugs combined. Go figure.
    • UnWeave, on 02/01/2008, -11/+11Because more people drink alcohol than get stoned? Learn to understand statistics.
      • ozymandias2012, on 02/01/2008, -4/+15You missed the point smarty pants. Now go get drunk and drive home *****.
        • sbgskl, on 02/02/2008, -8/+1You potheads are so ***** stupid. Coincidence? I doubt it.
        • bryik, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1"Now go get drunk and drive home"
          Are you instructing someone to drink and drive?
      • wookiekiller, on 02/01/2008, -2/+11Still, no ones died from smoking marijuana.
        • dust11, on 02/02/2008, -6/+1Cannabis contains twenty times the ammonia (a carcinogenic toxin), five times more hydrogen cyanide (causes heart disease) and five times more nitrogen oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke. People still die from smoking weed.
        • bryik, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1Why is dust being dugg down?
          • fyngyrz, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Because the statistics don't back him up. Certainly weed contains lots of things. The effects of those things aren't as simple as saying "it's got X in it, X is bad." It depends on the specific chemical compounds, the ratios, whether they act alone or are bound to other compounds, what is going on in your own body, and so forth. I know that the propaganda has made it seem like things are that simple, but they really aren't.
      • doctorfungi, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1So if we made marijuana legal, let's pretend 10x as many people would use it (just a rough number). 10 x 0 deaths is still 0.
    • fyngyrz, on 02/01/2008, -1/+14Oh, but remember, alcohol was subject to it's own drug war called "prohibition." It went the same way; created a huge black market, excessive violence, dealers and speakeasies and so on, tons of money was sunk into counter-efforts, it never had any measure of success whatsoever, and eventually, it was overturned. Eventually, this will be overturned as well, but it will probably take another fifty to a hundred years. If the country lasts that long, which I frankly doubt.
      • ozymandias2012, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6The lessons of history are almost always universally ignored.
    • Budgraphix, on 02/01/2008, -3/+1You make an excellent point. I work for an alcohol company and know for a fact that they donate money to aid in crop destruction and help sway politicitions to keep it illegal because people trade vices...if someone buys a $20 bag of pot, that's 1 less 30 pack that is purchased. There are many reasons why it is illegal but GREED is the main one.
      • rarson, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2I know a lot of people that get drunk AND stoned... sometimes even at the same time!
    • stackered, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2I heard that over 70% of Americans have tried pot as well [citation needed] - which is very interesting considering it seems like more than that is against it....
  • weside, on 02/01/2008, -37/+8I'm glad it's illegal. Now we just need to work on outlawing cigarettes.
    • fr0ng, on 02/01/2008, -2/+7Why are you glad if it's illegal? Did someone who was high rape your little sister or kill your mother?
      • doctorfungi, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1"Cigarettes killed my father, and raped my mother!" - Family Guy
    • Fr4nk2012, on 02/01/2008, -4/+9Then alcohol, Then Islam, Then Judaism, Then anything else your christian beliefs tell you is wrong
      • weside, on 02/01/2008, -7/+2I'm definitely down with the alcohol, too. Way to assume I'm Christian, btw :P
        • Fr4nk2012, on 02/01/2008, -4/+2in my experiance only christians are that close-minded.
        • Bakrain, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4What about high cholesterol foods? Mc Donalds, down you go....
      • BingoPower, on 02/01/2008, -0/+7Christians don't like alcohol?

        *****, they better get rid of Jesus as one of their icons then, as his habits of turning perfectly healthy drinking water in to alcohol, could give them a bad name.
    • empty521, on 02/01/2008, -2/+5"I'm glad it's illegal. Now we just need to work on outlawing cigarettes."

      then ppl like u
    • dinsy, on 02/01/2008, -3/+3laws don't really solve anything.
    • dementedd, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4Wow, just wow. You are exceedingly un-American.
    • ggfobster, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2weside = fascist
    • NikoKun, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Oh? OK then why don't we just go and outlaw YOUR favorite recreation as well!
    • doctorfungi, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Or we could just let people do whatever the hell they want with their own bodies as long as they're not harming others...
  • radink360, on 02/01/2008, -29/+8Am I the only one that thinks drugs are just stupid to begin with?
    • ozymandias2012, on 02/01/2008, -2/+14Just because something is "stupid" doesn't necessarily require it to be illegal.
    • Spire3660, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4Well first you would have to define the term drug. Is it all drugs? street drugs? pharamceutical drugs? The term drug is loaded with meaning so you might want to clear up your statement. Drugs is an umbrella term sold to you all your life, when really you dont know what it means, only the way its been marketed. Caffeine, alcohol, aspirin are all drugs too. So what makes you think Marijuana deserves to be in a special class separate from alcohol?
      • fyngyrz, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4It's a matrix with states of legal / illegal, recreational / medical. So you get:

        Legal, medical
        Illegal, medical
        Legal, recreational
        Illegal, recreational

        It should be in the same class as alcohol as far as I'm concerned; legal, recreational. Goes for most recreational drugs, for that matter. It isn't drugs that should be regulated. It is your actions. You do something stupid, we make sure you are held responsible for your actions. None of this "I was high / drunk" nonsense. You want to have a nice recreational experience, see to it that your environment and companions are such as to ensure you do the right thing. Otherwise, we hold you responsible.
        • dementedd, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Marijuana has valid medicinal uses as well, it should be in both categories.
          • fyngyrz, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1As does alcohol. Good point. Dugg you up. Still, I think the four classes are definitive for our society.
      • dajernts, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I think anyone with a shred of common sense knows what drugs he's talking about.
    • leftyslament, on 02/01/2008, -3/+4Yes.
    • rficwizard, on 02/01/2008, -3/+6No. I don't use alcohol or nicotine at all, and am learning to avoid caffeine. Oh, those weren't the drugs you were referring to?
      • dajernts, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1No, I think those were included as well. I wouldn't have a problem giving up any of those if they were made illegal.
        • rficwizard, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1So you are OK with the idea that someone else gets to decide for you how you treat your body, your most intimate and enduring material possession? The only way people could infringe further on your freedom would be controlling your thoughts.
      • hellotyler, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Giving up any of them would be completely insane if they 'worked' with you, just because YOU choose not to indulge does not mean you know what is best for everyone else.
        • rficwizard, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I agree. I was pointing out that when most people talk about drugs, they are buying in to the artificial distinction between legal and illegal drugs. There is a sort of circular "they are illegal because they are bad"-"they are bad because they are illegal" reasoning. I am not assuming that radink360 falls into this category, BTW.
    • Fr4nk2012, on 02/01/2008, -3/+4Yes
    • UnWeave, on 02/01/2008, -7/+3Note the witty devils who said "yes".
      Also, no you aren't. Digg seems to be full of pot heads who will valiantly argue for its legalization... Over the internet. It's just pathetic. Get our there and DO SOMETHING about it.
      Anyway, that makes two of us.
      • salomejones, on 02/01/2008, -2/+6A lot of us are doing something about it. You're making some pretty rash assumptions there, cowboy.
      • jack_of_knaves, on 02/01/2008, -3/+2This makes 3
      • dementedd, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3Look up NORML and other such organizations, kkthx.
      • dajernts, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1This makes 4
        I completely agree. If they want it so bad why don't they do something about. If they've already tried and failed then they've finally realized that--and here comes the shocker--no one else cares. See, most people in the world don't need pot to function unlike all the people on this forum and, what seems like, the majority of the Digg community.
      • hellotyler, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1Yeah, go get involved with some organizations that are actively investigated by the police and illegal! Future careers and privacy be damned!
    • terminal157, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4I do associate them with escapism, which I have little respect for, but I'm for total legalization of drugs. The two issues aren't related.
      • salomejones, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4I associate weed with being able to see out of my right eye. Some of us do not exactly fit your association.
      • hellotyler, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2I agree, cannabis is escapism. Alcohol is escapism. A good movie is escapism too.
    • hellotyler, on 02/01/2008, -1/+5Nope, that's perfectly fine. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it should be illegal. I actually think it's good to have a different opinion. You don't want to use illicit drugs because they may cloud your mind ? Great! Just don't tell other people what to do with their own bodies. I respect people who choose to say no.
      • dajernts, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1I don't want it to be legalized because I don't want to get hit on the highway by some stoned out kid. People, no matter the age, seem to think they can drive while stoned and as there is no immediate test a cop can give to find out for sure I would rather people not be allowed to do it smoke period.
      • hellotyler, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Actually police can do a retina test on you to test for illegal drugs then judge from how your pupils react, saying that they cannot test for it is not true at all. Not to mention the mouth swabs being employed in Britain now that can detect the recent presence of THC. Alcohol kills far more people per year then cannabis, and it actively messes up your reaction time. Studies done with cannabis and driving (stupid, people who drive while intoxicated at ALL are complete idiots in my book) have actually shown increased adherence to traffic regulations and less accidents. It also does not effect your reaction time NEARLY as bad as alcohol, which has a tolerated 'limit' of reaction time disparity. At .07 you WILL have delayed reactions, period, just in an 'accepted' limit.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/99032 ...
    • dinsy, on 02/01/2008, -4/+3food is a drug
      • dajernts, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I think food is just in the category of food.
    • doctorfungi, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Most drugs lead to intoxication, which has been naturally sought by living beings for centuries. Your caveman ancestors were eating the mushrooms that made them hallucinate, I guarantee it.
  • papavb, on 02/01/2008, -2/+20who are these "people" that assume such *****? oh that's right 2/3 of th