Let's talk about Pot

[Lost Texan in NC]

:smoke:

I'm interested in the views of all you DUers on the legalization of Marijuana. Do you believe the governments official propaganda, or are you truly educated on the benefits of pot. I've done some study on the subject and I support complete legalization, taxation and similar laws as alcohol.

[whistle]

1. Here you go.....

<link> http://www.thehia.org/

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Pot is bad, m'kay?

(on edit: forgot thw winky-smiley - ;))

[Swamp Rat]

187. "Uh. uh-boys, ele- LSD is bad. Hmm..."

"Hey uh, who put all this cotton in my mouth?"



"Yeah! Baby! The world is so small. I'm free! I'm free!"

"Sweet, dude. Totally killer."

"That guy's totally tripping."

[carnie_sf]

3. Legalize it n/t

[smoogatz]

4. Talk about it, hell--let's fire up the bong.

I agree with you 100%. In fact, I'd go a step further and suggest that the so-called War on Drugs is really a war on pot--prices for all other street drugs have declined considerably in the past twenty years, while the price of an ounce of pot has increased by a factor of twenty or more. The War on Drugs actually created the crack cocaine epidemic of the 90s and the current boom in crystal meth use. It's also responsible, IMO, for the big upsurge in paint-huffing among young teenagers. To quote the Onion: Drugs Win War on Drugs.

[SHRED]

5. I covered it here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=218&topic_id=218&mesg_id=218



There are ways to allow for using marijuana without dragging commercial interests, law enforcement, the courts, and the prison system into it.

Allow for growth of 3 plants.
No sales allowed(price would drop down to weed levels anyway).
No commercial production allowed. This will keep the concerns of "being sold at 7-11" away. Haven't we learned our lessons with alcohol and tobacco commercialization?
Barter or trade only.
No driving under the influence. Which will require development of a "real-time" test.
18 or 21 and over.
Transporting of 1 ounce per vehicle allowed in locked area such as a trunk.

Anymore ideas?
Any political courage out there?

As far as the government not getting a tax revenue well that would be more than made up with the revitalization of our economy with industrial hemp.
http://www.naihc.org /

[FtWayneBlue]

25. I am not a current user, but

I agree with your ideas about legalization.

[SHRED]

36. Thanks

I say why make "legalization" complicated?

Tax revenue will come from industrial hemp growth and subsequent product production.
Pot would be a non-commercial system.
Besides, it is so damn easy to grow that the pot prices would fall to "weed" levels.

[suziedemocrat]

58. I have mixed feelings on this - But Holland seems to be doing OK.

On the "keep it illegal side"
1) I have an older brother who became a pot-head in college, and moved onto crack in his 40's. I have smoked pot and didn't feel it was addictive, but he became addicted. It ruined his family and his career. He is trying to turn his life around now - but it has been very tough. Of course, people become addicted to alcohol, and prohibition didn't work. Addiction seems to be more about emotional problems than about drugs.

2) I've been substitute teaching and I feel so sorry for the kids in 9th grade who brag about being pot-heads. I definitely feel it makes people lose their ambition and dulls their brain - and it takes years for the brain to bounce back. It is NOT benign.

3) God Forbid it becomes REALLY legal and they allow advertising!! The horrible Tobacco companies would have cartoon Rastafarian spokespeople singing a catchy reggae song and target young kids with advertising. They could genetically engineer plants to be super-potent and addictive.

On the "Legalize it" side:

1 ) I worked in Europe and traveled to Holland a lot. They allow coffee shops to sell pot and hashish. Yet, they sell to mostly foreigners. Dutch kids are no more likely to use drugs than kids in the U.S.

From: http://www.alternet.org/story/11343

snip:
In fact, The Netherlands' Trimbos Research Institute found marijuana use in the previous month by Dutch 12-18 year-olds tripled from 3 percent in 1988 to 11 percent in 1996, then fell to 9 percent in 1999. Teenage marijuana use also grew in the 1990s in the United States and other prohibitionist countries, where anti-drug education and penalties escalated. The U.S. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse found 12-17 year-olds' monthly pot smoking rose from 5 percent in 1988 to 8 percent in 1996, where it remains in 1999.

Allowing for slight differences in trend timing and age groups surveyed, it's a wash. Dutch teens use marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy at about the same rates as U.S. teens. Dutch teens use legal alcohol and cigarettes much more, as they always have. But use statistics don't matter. The important issue is that neither Dutch nor American teens show appreciable or increasing drug abuse. In both countries, teens under age 20 comprise only about 3 percent of drug abuse deaths, with the vast bulk of drug abuse occurring among adults 30 and older.

Thus, neither benign Dutch legalization nor draconian U.S. prohibition (billion-dollar anti-drug campaigns, tens of millions of arrests, skyrocketing imprisonment, military interventions) had any material effect on teenage drug decisions. In New York, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's police vans hauled away tens of thousands of roachclippers; in San Francisco, marijuana possession arrests declined sharply from the 1980s to the 1990s and private pot smoking is effectively decriminalized. The effect on teens? Nada. In The Netherlands and U.S., New York and San Francisco, teenage drug use and abuse patterns are identical. Obsession with every up-down tick in drug use surveys reflects the inflated self-importance drug-war combatants attach to their irrelevant squabble over whose policy would make youths just say no.

end snip:

I think Holland is an almost perfect country - and they seem to govern more by their intellect than their emotions.

[SHRED]

70. I understand your concerns

First off NO COMMERCIALIZATION period! <see my other posts>
I think it can be a demotivator but then look at those like Bob Marley. Was he lethargic? Hell no.
I disagree that it "takes years for the brain to bounce back". Not in my experience or anyone I know who stopped.

[suziedemocrat]

80. I think Ziggy Marley might be the hardest working in the Music Business.

He tours constantly!! I've seen maybe 5 of his shows and his band is so tight. You might be right that it doesn't take years for the brain to bounce back. And alcohol kills brain cells like crazy - and that is legal. Who knows really? It would be nice to have a sincere study of the effects of pot. Not a study done merely as propaganda - but a true, unbiased study.

[Pepperbelly]

6. my view on pot?

Less restrictive trade with Columbia.

Total legalization.

Good hash right next to corned beef hash in the grocery store.

"We Are the Champions" should become our national anthem. I know ... I know ... it was written by British guys but so's the other one. :D

:smoke:

[Must_B_Free]

7. No taxation

people should be free to grow this plant with no penalty.

The reason it is illegal is to create a price tag for something that is otherwise free.

[SHRED]

9. Taxes will come...

from industrial hemp. A far greater potential for tax revenue.
Leave pot to a barter/ 3 plant model like Holland. NO COMERCIALIZATION period. See my post and link above.

[K-W]

19. Taxing its trade is different than allowing you to grow your own.

You should indeed be able to grow it free, but if some company wants to package it and sell it commercially, I can definately see a tax being appropriate.

[Lost Texan in NC]

20. Be reasonable

:smoke:

Do you honestly believe the government would legalize something they couldn't profit from.

Which would you rather do, buy a 1/4 oz for $50.00 of who knows what, or a pack of 20 Columbian for $10.95.

[SHRED]

35. They would get more than enough revenue...

from industrial hemp production.
Far greater tax potential, by many times over, then pot.
Think about it...pot's value would fall fast because it is so easy to grow.

[chicagojoe]

8. 100% agreement.

There are SO MANY uses for that plant. Think of all the people who could be employed in the growing and processing. It's easy to grow anywhere. So many useful products would result. Economically sound:
cheap to produce; tax source.
WHY ARE SO MANY OPPOSED TO THIS?

[B Calm]

10. I don't smoke pot, but I feel it should be legalized and employers

be forced to stop drug testing employees.

[Lost Texan in NC]

17. Some are

:smoke:

I heard in the news about 6-8 months ago that Bellsouth was stopping their drug testing program because they had a hard time retaining good employees. Does anyone have the latest statistics on how many people in the US smoke pot regularly.

Also; a good book to read, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It. A judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs. by Judge James P Gray

[steelyboo]

178. I work for Bellsouth, if they stopped it, its the first I heard of it.

and believe me, I NEED to know :P

[Lost Texan in NC]

181. Local Media said

:smoke:

I heard it on the local Charlotte, NC 6o'clock news. It was one of those news stories you only hear one time. And, Do you think Bell south would put out a memo:

Dear Employees,

We will no longer do drug testing, Therefore you are free to get stoned whenever you want.

Sincerely,
CEO Bell South

I don't think so. But don't take my word, Find out for yourself. Maybe I was stoned when I heard it. Ha Ha!

[steelyboo]

183. Heh, i might have been stoned and missed it

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Legalize pot and industrial hemp

and you can solve half the world's problems.

Add to that realistic sex education and affordable, easily accessible birth control and that will solve the other half of our problems.

[acmejack]

12. I thought it would be legal long ago

But I've been waiting for 38 years now. I just as soon they ignored it, but the amount of money in the underground market would have a real impact on the economy if it were legitimized.

[DistressedAmerican]

13. Prohibition Is Senseless and Counterproductive Social Policy!

We should stop locking people awy at great cost to taxpayers, we should stop fighting the interdiction battle also at great cost to taxpayers. We should legalize, regulate and tax.

Who is better off making the profit? The American taxpayers or terrorists, cartels, street gangs and dealers? You tell me!

On Edit: Hey, put in these terms, the repugs should love the idea! More Tax Cuts For The rich!

[Mr_Spock]

14. Shoulda attached a poll ;)

Personally, I find it makes people lack motivation, have bad breath and fade in and out of conversations - fixated on the topic stuck in their head. For me, it makes me paranoid and dilates my pupils so bad I can't stand the overload on my eyes. I do think it should be legalized though - it's not that much different than booze - which I do enjoy from time to time. I think booze has more devastating effects with long term usage than pot too. That's my fully rational argument and I'm sticking to it! Legalize it!

[Lost Texan in NC]

81. Paranoid?

:smoke:

For the record, I don't think it is pot that makes you paranoid. Riddle me this. If pot were legal, and you could sit in your front yard on a beautiful spring day, fire up the grill and a splif, wave to your neighbor,the deputy sheriff, as he goes by on his way to work, and know the only thing he could is wave back, would you be paranoid then? I think not. It's not pot that makes you paranoid, it's marijuana prohibition.

And as far as your eyes, wear sunglasses. Also I bet you don't have cataracts and oh yeah glaucoma too.

[XemaSab]

132. I lived in Arcata for a while

where pot is effectively legal, and it's not the fear of the cops that induces the paranoia, it's the drug.

But hey, if it makes you paranoid, just don't do it. It's that simple.

[K-W]

136. I think everyone has paranoid thoughts all the time

and pot just decreases some peoples internal skepticism.

[Mr_Spock]

190. Exactly - some of us have more self-deprecating thoughts than others

Pot really brings these thoughts out in many people - especially the kind of people I like to talk to. Whoever said it was because of fear of getting caught was clearly smoking something :smoke: :rofl:

[DS1]

15. Every time I see bushels of primo ganja being carted away by cops

A little piece of me dies :cry:

[Lost Texan in NC]

123. A little hope

:smoke:

Not all people in authority are Marijuana Prohibitionist. In my 30+ years I personally have smoked with 2 sheriffs deputies, 1 fire chief, 1 asst. fire chief, 1 probation officer, 3 Naval officers, 2 doctors, 5 nurses,1 CEO, and untold amounts of large and small business owners.

[Blue_In_AK]

159. This is very true.

I've smoked pot with some very highly placed judicial officials here in Alaska (I won't mention who to protect their privacy). Our governor is on a crusade now to recriminalize marijuana (smoking in one's home is a protected privacy right here at the present time, per a longstanding series of court opinions interpreting our state constitution), but the guv in his wisdom has introduced legislation to increase penalties. (This despite the fact that last year 43 percent of voting Alaskans voted to completely decriminalize the weed). Anyway, the two main opponents to this bill are a former commissioner of the department of corrections and a former state congressperson. I think many thinking people in law enforcement realize that chasing after pot smokers is just a huge waste of time and resources.

[Lost Texan in NC]

171. As in another post

:smoke:

A good book to read is Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It; A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs; By: Judge James P. Gray

This book should outrage all Americans on what has taken place in this country in the name of the war on drugs.

[steelyboo]

175. I literally just finished this book this weekend, and the poster is spot

on. This is written by a conservative judge from CA. It actually presents a plan, as well as destroys any notion that our currently policy is worth a shit. Highly recommended.

[Lost Texan in NC]

182. Thanks for recommend

:smoke:

When I bought my book, I bought 2 extra copies and gave them to 2 Conservative friends. We now have two more voices that are anti prohibition. And they never smoked pot before. Other than increasing Judge Gray book sales I feel proud I have helped. Do me a favor, Pass it on to a Conservative friend who opposes Pot. See if it works for you too.

Changing lives, one mind at a time.

[Discord]

16. one step at a time.

step 1: decriminilization

step 2: open for full scientific and medical study.

step 3: open for immediate industrial use.

step 4: federal legalization for medical uses.

step 5: legalization for social consumption bearing same or similar restrictions as alchohol usage.

[Dez]

18. We need to change the laws

by getting involved politically. If we all do our part, we can educate others on the evils of the war on drug users..
Check out this: http://usmjparty.com/

[SlowDownFast]

21. a good historical summary:

If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the greenhouse effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... and that substance is the same one that has done it before . . . CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA!
CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA is the only known plant that can be grown from the Equator to the Arctic Circle and to the Antarctic Circle; from the mountains to the valleys, from the oceans to the plains, including arid lands and everywhere in between. CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA is the healthiest plant for the ground out of the 300,000 known species, and the millions and millions of subspecies, of plants on Earth, because it has a root system that grows 10 to 12 inches in 30 days compared to one inch for rye, barley grass, etc. The roots penetrate up to 6 feet deep, pulverizing the soil and making it arable. After harvest it leaves a root system that is mulched into the ground, revitalizing the land and making it live once again. It is the KING KONG of the King Kongs of all plant life.

All of my information about CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA has been taken from Federal and State Department of Agriculture reports, articles from Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, Pulp & Paper Magazine, Scientific American, entries from encyclopedias and pharmacopoeias, and studies from all over the world during the last 200 years. This is all public information. The United States government is hiding the fact that 125 years ago, and even as far back as 4000 BC, 80 percent of our economy was based on the use of CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA for paper, fiber and fuel. Ten to 20 percent of our drug economy was based on CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA medicines, 125 years ago.

CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA was part of our everyday life. Virtually every farm and every plot of land in the cities and towns across the United States and the world, from 100-125 years ago and before, had a CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA patch growing. The U.S. government's cover-up of CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA outrages me and it should outrage you, too. I have been studying CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA for over 30 years, and I can't believe how the U.S. government, in 90 seconds in Congress, could outlaw "MARIJUANA" in 1937, without the people realizing they were outlawing CANNABIS/HEMP, the most perfect plant for the planet! They even got other countries to outlaw it, too, after the Second World War and beyond. From 1740 to 1940, 80 percent of all the world's CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA was grown (mostly by Cossacks, who were indentured servants), and then imported from, Russia.

I will again reiterate a few of the facts about CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA, which you already know from reading my book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes."

CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA was the NUMBER ONE annually renewable natural resource for 80 percent of all paper, fiber, textiles and fuel, from 6,000 years ago until about 125 years ago. Furthermore, it was used for 5 to 50 percent of the food, light, land and soil reclamation, and even 20 percent or more of all medicine. Everyone, from the educated to the uneducated, the farmer to the townsperson, the doctors and the scientists used CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA products and depended on them.75 to 90 percent of all paper used from at least 100 AD to 1883 was made of CANNABIS/HEMP. Books, (including Bibles), money and newspapers all over the world have been mainly printed on CANNABIS/HEMP for as long as these things have existed in human history.

One hundred and 25 years ago, 70 to 90 percent of all rope, twine, cordage, ship sails, canvas, fiber, cloth, etc., was made out of CANNABIS/HEMP fiber! It was replaced by DuPont's newly discovered petrochemical fiber (nylon) beginning in 1937. By comparison, CANNABIS/HEMP is 4 times softer than cotton, 4 times warmer, 4 times more water absorbent, has 3 times the strength of cotton, is many times more durable, is flame retardant, and doesn't use pesticides. Fifty percent of all pesticides are used on cotton, yet cotton uses only 1 percent of the farmland in the U.S! CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA is the most health giving plant on Earth and it doesn't require pesticides or herbicides! It is the healthiest plant for human consumption, and for the Earth itself.

Eighty percent of our economy depended on CANNABIS/HEMP for paper, fiber and fuel, 125 years ago. At that time, it took 300 man-hours to harvest an acre of CANNABIS/HEMP, but with the invention of the brand new HEMP decorticator in the 1930s, it only took 1-1/2 to 2 hours. This is equivalent to reducing the labor burden from $6,000 down to $40 per acre, in today's money. Keep in mind that the cotton gin, in 1793, reduced the man-hours from 300 hours down to 2 hours to harvest and clean an acre of cotton. CANNABIS/HEMP would have taken over the cotton market, as it is far superior to cotton, and pesticide free. The role of CANNABIS/HEMP should be determined by market supply and demand and not by undue influence of prohibition laws, federal subsidies and huge tariffs that keep the natural from replacing the synthetic. I repeat, CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA is the KING KONG of the King Kongs of all plants!

Of all the 300,000 species of plants on Earth, no other plant source can compare with the nutritional value of CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA seeds. It is the only plant on Earth that provides us with the NUMBER ONE source, and the perfect balance of essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, globulin edestin protein, and essential oils all combined in one plant, and in a form which is most naturally digestible to our bodies.

Prior to the 1800s, CANNABIS/HEMPSEED oil was the NUMBER ONE source for lighting oil throughout the world. Until 1937-38, even paints and varnishes were 80 percent CANNABIS/HEMPSEED oil. CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA is non-toxic and has been used to make high-grade diesel fuel, oil, aircraft and precision oil and even the NUMBER ONE vegetable oil. The U.S. Army/Navy standards purchasing specifications list HEMP OIL as the NUMBER ONE preferred lubricant for their machinery. CANNABIS/HEMP is the best sustainable source of plant pulp for biomass fuel to make charcoal, gas, methanol, gasoline and electricity in a natural way.

In 1850, 80 percent of all paper, fiber, fuel, and oil was made out of CANNABIS/HEMP in America and the rest of the world. This was before the discovery of coal and petroleum for energy in the late 1850s...before the start of the worst permanent pollution ever experienced on Earth... fossil fuel pollution (coal and petroleum)!!

As a medicine, the worldwide use of CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA goes back at least 6,000 years. Remember, 10 to 20 percent of our medicines used to be CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA based medicines. It has been found to be healthy and effective in the treatment of chronic pain, cancer, strokes, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, sickle cell anemia, AIDS wasting and many other illnesses, including simple nausea, appetite stimulant, anxiety and muscle pains, etc.

On September 6, 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration's Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, ruled: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man," and asked the Drug Enforcement Administration to reschedule it. The DEA refused, keeping it as a Schedule I drug, which they say "has no known medical use"! Thousands of studies have been done all over the world, documenting the medical use of MARIJUANA (England, Spain, Hungary, Holland, and the U.S., just to name a few). No one has ever died from MARIJUANA in over 6,000 years of recorded history... unless they were shot by a COP!

CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA was also used for land reclamation until 1915. CANNABIS/HEMP was planted or left to grow feral as ground cover and on riverbanks, and not intended for harvest. It is the NUMBER ONE plant in history used to prevent mudslides and loss of watershed, and river and soil erosion on Earth. It has been illegal to grow this NUMBER ONE plant in the United States since 1937.What disgusts me the most is how the U.S. government, as well as the people, knew about CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA and praised its value and then look what happened! In literally 90 seconds, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 passed in Congress. By using the unknown name "MARIJUANA" instead of the familiar name "CANNABIS HEMP", Congress was able to accomplish this because no one knew what plant they were talking about. CANNABIS/HEMP became illegal and was replaced by petrochemical products, coal and natural gas. They made it such a banned and forbidden plant that the words "HEMP" and "CANNABIS/HEMP" were not even taught in schools from the 1940s, 50s and thereafter.

The role of CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA was erased from America's history (as well as most of the rest of the world's) after 1945. To prove it, think... what did you learn about CANNABIS/HEMP in grade school? High school? College? From your parents and grandparents? Nothing! (Unless it was from the underground press within the last 15 to 20 years.) The continuing suppression of this information by the U.S. government places us all in mortal jeopardy. I believe that, in order to save our planet, we must use non-fossil fuel energy. CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA, in conjunction with wind, solar, tidal and hydroelectric power, could save the planet by providing all of our energy, fuel, paper, fiber, and 10 to 20 percent of our medical needs, naturally. It would also reduce acid rain and chemical pollution, rebuild the soil, and reverse the greenhouse effect (no other plant can do this!). CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA was used to make over 25,000 products before it was outlawed in 1937.

Why does the U.S. government want to eradicate this seed, out of all the seeds on Earth? They want to kill the most perfect plant on the planet. We must stop this insanity and demand that the laws against CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA be one hundred percent repealed!!

Federal Attorney General John Ashcroft, Drug Enforcement Administration head, Asa Hutchison, and White House Drug Czar, John Walters, have been given all of these proven facts and yet are still set against the legalization of CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA and recognition of CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIUANA knowledge. For whatever personal reasons, they refuse to believe the facts and are willing to sacrifice the future of our planet and the health of our people by keeping it illegal.

The ban of CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA is so extreme and its intention is to hide the truth. The truth is that out of the 300,000 species, and the millions and millions of subspecies, of plants on Earth, CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA is the NUMBER ONE plant for our survival and quality of life here on Earth. Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government and Attorney General John Ashcroft have been calling MARIJUANA users "terrorists" and yet the government of the United States has been "terrorizing" MARIJUANA users for the last 65 years! There have been over 14 million arrests for CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA in the last 65 years, in the U.S. alone! 13 million were within the last 30 years!

The U.S. government has been lying to us since the early 1900s. Do economic interests and the police have more to say than the people about the future of our planet? How angry are you for being lied to by the U.S. government about CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA? Are you willing to make a stand right now? No one can dispute this information and knowledge.

www.jackherer.com

[Lost Texan in NC]

157. Some more info

:smoke:

In my research I have found a couple of bit. The Chinese used marijuana in the treatment for asthma for over 3000 years.

Also; the sole reason for the criminalization of pot was, in the 1930's, black musicians were getting to cocky and seducing white women with the "evil weed." This could not stand in racist white America. Make the "evil weed" illegal, problem solved. However the constitution protected the right to smoke pot, therefore, a law was passed. You have to have a tax stamp to grow it, but you couldn't have that stamp without a crop. Catch 22

[K-W]

22. Drug laws are blatently unconstitutional and should be dropped ASAP

Before we regulate pot, it needs to start from a base of full legality like it should have in the first place. This time congress should have to prove a public need to pass law one.

I dont really understand those people who support a cautious shedding of the current drug laws as if they were valid or had at any point been proven neccessary or useful.

[Pepperbelly]

26. Right on!!!! No one has been able to answer this simple question.

Why did it take a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alchol but none to prohibit other substances. They were all equally legal at the same time. How can they do that WITHOUT a Constitutional Amendment?

I do not acknowledge their authority in this matter as lawful nor do I accept the premise that any human, regardless of electoral status, has the right to prohibit another human being from ingesting anything they want, whether whiskey, horse piss, pot or poison.

[KharmaTrain]

23. 30 Years And Too Much Ground To Cover Here...

Some points...

There's too much money made in keeping pot illegal...from the massive payoffs to politicians, the large legal system that makes billions from this "industry"...even large corporations that abet in the production and distribution that profit from pot's illegal status that keeps prices artificially high. Also, since it's strictly black market, it's billions that go unreported...so much the better.

Pot smokers, like drinkers like anyone who enjoys something that is considered "sinful" by others, will look for every and any justification to proof what they do is right, while the other side will find justification that it's wrong...over time the sides divide and the real truth gets lost in the middle.

I draw the line on how pot is legalized...just like with any drugs. This is not a moral question as much as one of civil law and liability. While I prefer pot over alcohol and believe it's far less dangerous to the brain and body of the user, I wouldn't like someone stoned driving my kid's school bus. Again, this is a liability issue.

My hopes are this issue is handled on a state by state basis, and eventually a strong enough case is presented to the Supreme Court, that frames pot use in the same light as alcohol...in a "recreational sense".

In the 70's, I thought there'd come a time in my life when pot would be legalized. It seemed like everyone I knew in those days was getting stoned or didn't think it was such a big deal. How times have changed...the economic side is what determines this issue, and right now the big money wants it illegal, and illegal it will stay.

[Lost Texan in NC]

27. One thing you forgot

:smoke:

Most pot smokers in this country are anti government because of the pot laws. What better way to crush dissent than to keep pot illegal.

[K-W]

31. That was Nixon's logic.

And one of the main reasons we didnt get legalization, and instead got propagana and a ramped up drug war.

They used the war on pot to wage war on the anti-war movement and other dissenters and shut down progressive organizations and leaders.

[K-W]

29. Why do you think you get to draw lines on how it is legalized?

Your stance is just as unconstitutional as those who created prohibition in the first place. You dont get to limit peoples freedom because of your paranoid fear.

Actions should be legal until it is PROVEN that the exercise of that action places undue burden on the rights of others.

[KharmaTrain]

37. Not Paranoid Fear

This is a chicken/egg argument.

I come from a perspective that I favor legalization of pot along the lines of alcohol...and this is based not on civil liberties, but on common sense and public safety.

While most people can and do smoke pot responsibily (more so IMHO than alcohol), there are those, just like with any substance that will abuse it or have a reaction to it that affects the lives of others. Sadly, I've seen young kids who are getting high and really can't handle it...letting their school work drop and ruining their lives at a critical stage. Again, I don't think you'd want someone stoned, or drunk, or in any mind-altered state in a position of making decisions over you or other people.

This is an argument that is strictly law and liability, and IMHO, are local and state issues, not one the federal should be involved in. I have a good friend who moved to Oregon since he enjoys getting stoned and prefers that state's pot laws to the ones here in the midwest. I see pot becoming legal along the lines of gambling and prostitution and other forms of "vice". It will be milked for it's financial benefits to the poweful...and since that is really what drives this issue. If the large corporates see a need for pot to be legal and they can control it, you'll see mountains move.

[K-W]

38. Yes paranoid fear, you have no proof.

It is not in any way shape or form a chicken/egg argument.

To make something illegal you must PROVE that it places an undue burden on the rights of others.

You have proven nothing. Government cannot regulate behavior because it thinks it has a good reason, but doesnt want to bother proving it. Or at least its not supposed to be able, but far too many Americans dont care a wit about the constitution.

[KharmaTrain]

48. So You Believe In Drunk Driving Laws?

Again, this isn't about legality in a constitutional sense. If you were to read my previous posts, you see I agree this isn't a federal one and legalization of pot should be a state issue.

I bring in the question of living in the real world and a civil society...not a utopian world. While alcohol is legal, driving under its influence isn't and for a very, very good reason. This isn't about civil liberties...we both can agree that if a person wants to drink themselves crazy they should be able to...but when their drinking, or pot smoking, or any personal behavior crosses into the "public realm", then there has to be laws and enforcement...and responsibility.

If someone's stoned and it impairs their ability to operate a vehicle that results in a car crash, doesn't that place an undue burden on that person (if it isn't fatal) who could face a lifetime of pain and disability due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time? How do you square up with this side of human nature and living in a civil society?

[K-W]

53. Nobody is talking about utopia, stop making straw men.

We have scientific proof that alchohol impairs driving. We do not yet have scientific proof that marijauana impairs driving.

I fully support scientific inquiry into the effects, and if, as you suspect, it is proven that it impairs driving, then you would have PROOF, and would be able to argue validly that there is an undue burden placed on the rights of others, and thus smoking and driving should be illegal.

Your problem is that you are assuming that your opinion is true without ever bothering to prove it. You are making the same unconstitutional argument as the original prohibitionists made, assuming your evidence.

Pot should never have been made illegal in the first place, those laws have 0 validity. It should be totally legal until there is proof that its use in a given situation, or in general burdens the rights of others.

[KharmaTrain]

63. Legalize Possible Dangers? Interesting

Yep, there isn't clinical proof to your satisfaction that pot impairs a person's ability to drive an automobile, but I'll bet if I did some googling, I could find reports that say the contrary. I split the difference.

You're talking utopia. I know people who can't drive stoned and I wouldn't want to be driving with them or having them on the road if they're wasted...period.

I'd love to see you debate your straw man games with a law enforcement or criminal attorney...they'd have a lot of fun with your reverse logic and simplifications.

Again, read my positions as stated above. I favor legalizing pot. To say "it shouldn't have been illegal in the first place" is a straw man argument, too. It's currently illegal and shouldn't be. This is a moral and legal debate that has to be won rationally or expect it to be used to frame pot smokers as "hippies" and not the large number of people it really is...and covers all social and economic ranges.

What we're really discussing here is the hypocrisies of this issue...and I appreciate your thoughts.

[K-W]

68. I am not talking about utopia, stop putting words in my mouth

and making dishonest arguments.

I am talking about the US constitution, a document you appear to place no value in.

I dont care if you know people who drive stoned. Who on earth do you think you are? We dont live in a dictorship and you arent the dictator. You dont get to regulate others behavior based on your uninformed opinion.

By the way, go ahead and google it if you think I am lying. We are not talking about my satisfaction in the tests, the tests simply have not been done.

Saying it shouldnt have been illegal in the first place is not a straw man argument, and you clearly have no idea what a straw man argument is if you truely think that is the case. It should not have been illegal in the first place, that is a simple fact. The laws are unconstitutional. If you want to try to argue that they are, go ahead, but I am realy not sure why you think this is a straw man.

What we are really discussing here is that you support tyranny of the masses. As long as people think Marijuana is bad, it can be illegal regardless of whether it actually is or not.

What we are talking about is a respect for the constitution and for the truth.

[KharmaTrain]

72. Sheesh...You Assume A Lot

For responding to a bunch of electrons on a computer screen.

You know nothing of me, and I of you. I'm curious of your views, but am tired of you making assumptions of my positions by twisting some words on a website and claiming I'm supporting tyranny and have no respect for the constitution. I wouldn't shoot charges in your direction and find the ones you're throwing around diminishing your arugement in what was (and is rapidly ceasing to be) a General DISCUSSION forum.

Since you have such supreme wisdom...go ahead and enlighten. Let's hear how your solution is. How you'd accomplish it. You've got all the answers.

[K-W]

75. I have made no assumptions, why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

I never claimed to know anything of you. I responded only to your argument.

You wrote your positions down, that is how I know them, there was no assumption involved.

I never claimed to have supreme wisdom. What on earth are you talking about?

Solution to what? I never claimed to have any answers. Have you even read a single word I have written?

This really couldnt be more simple, here in America, the government cannot regulate peoples behavior without proof that the behavior in question places an undue burden on the rights and liberty of others. Since no one has EVER proven that MJ usage produces such a burden, it is unconstitutional to regulate the behavior.

[Lost Texan in NC]

166. Lighten up guys

:smoke:

The fact is, it is unconstitutional, it is not that harmful ( more benefits than harm) and in my America, you both have the right to your own thoughts and opinions.

Read the post in this thread about the history of pot.

[firefox]

97. Driving while enhanced

Driving while enhanced is one of the phrases I am proud to have created. The assumption that prohibition is valid as policy because it might have a harm on the road is senseless. Alcohol kills people all the time on the road and it is not illegal.

Besides studies show that pot drivers are safer than regular drivers. Here is a whole list of such studies- http://cannabisculture.com/articles/4131.html Sure people can be high and do stupid things, but to equate the impairment that comes from alcohol use to the enhancement that comes with cannabis use is idiotic at best and misconstrues the effect of cannabis by associating it with demon alcohol.

There was never justification for the enactment of cannabis prohibition and there is not now a justification. We have a government that spends billions in search of harms, while ignoring the harms of prohibition itself. Most of the harms we are told are lies anyway as the one thing research has proven is the safety of cannabis use.

Now the question that needs a true answer is "How many more times harmful is cannabis prohibition than cannabis use?" I asked this question several times when I used to comment regularly at CannabisNews.com and never got anyone to answer. My answer is that cannabis prohibition is a million times more harmful than cannabis use, with the main factor to consider being that cannabis use has benefit, while prohibition only corrupts our government and tramples people's unalienable rights.

The little harm we get from smoking cannabis is still a result of prohibition as Free Cannabis For Everyone would bring stronger pot and hash and oil, and vaporizers and cannabis food. One great gift that cannabis use is going to give the world is vaporizers for tobacco use, and without prohibition the gift would have already been accepted.

Cannabis Prohibition is an outright fraud.

[CanSocDem]

104. Working in the trucking industry in the 70's....

...and early 80's, pot was prevalent. It was considered an "enhancement" and was traded openly at most truck stops.

I found it useful for its calming effects and its' ability to focus ones attention. Professional drivers focus on safety but a pot-smoking professional truck driver will also be considerate of a fellow motorists feelings....

I'm serious here. A stoner's insight, that some call "paranoia", is helpful in determining WHERE the danger is, but also considers the personal response of other people present, in this case, fellow motorists. A good driver doesn't want to intimidate a fellow motorist....another worthwhile trait of "the stoner".

Anyway, judging by the interests of the American government, I think HEMP is the real target of the Drug War.
.
.

[Cats Against Frist]

60. Whoa, whoa, whoa -- wait just one red second

I thought I've heard you lecture on "social costs" before, in opposition to my libertarian stance on some issues -- are you saying that marijana has no "social costs?" I completely disagree.

I don't care how GOOD marijuana is, or how much I like it, when many people smoke it, they get fucked up. Just like I don't want someone driving my kid to school after washing down a couple Endocets with a jigger of Jim Beam, I don't want people who are high on pot on the road, working on the cranes that are looming over my head, or removing my fucking gallstones.

Until there's a "real-time" test, as the poster suggests -- a very good possibility of social cost, in terms of lawsuits, injury and lost productivity are a reality. Same with all drugs -- but, with alcohol, you can prove someone's shit faced, and with narcotics, you can tell within 48 hours, or something.

I think pot poses a special challenge, in that sense. I'm on the fence, because I would really like to see it legalized, but, it's not a "personal responsibility" issue -- because I don't care how much pot someone smokes, as long as they don't have the potential to rob me of my life or property, because of it.

[K-W]

62. All I am asking is for you to prove your assumptions.

You cant make laws based on what you think is the case. You need proof.

You can not want people smoking pot all you want, but until you can prove that your fears are founded you dont get to tell me waht I can and cant do, because we have a constitution that protects me from people like you that would legislate my behavior based on your speculation.

[Cats Against Frist]

184. I don't "not want people smoking pot"

I want to smoke pot. I want people to use pot responsibly. What I DO NOT want is pot smokers behind the wheel of a car, pot smokers operating on me, and pot smokers driving my kids to school.

I think it should be de-criminalized -- the only thing that I can't stand is when people claim that there will be "no harm," or that marijuana is some kind of miracle substance.

I smoked pot -- sometimes heavily, sometimes recreationally, for the better part of seven years. I know what it does. I know how it makes ME feel -- and it's fun, but it's no miracle, and I AM impaired when I'm smoking it.

I just want there to be a real-time test. And I want it legalized, despite the fact that there isn't one.

[MrModerate]

24. Pot is NOT harmless!

But then again, neither are alcohol, tobacco, or any other recreational drugs.

The prime problems with marijuana come from smoking it: cancer and heart disease have been convincingly tied to the practice. For that matter, many health professionals will tell you that tobacco would never be legalized if it had just been discovered.

However, in my opinion, the danger from marijuana is the individual's right to risk. (Not including driving stoned -- that's not an individual right.) So pot should be legal, its production decriminalized (which would, unsurprizingly, get most of the criminals out of the business), and cops & courts spend their efforts on real crimes.

For those who say that it's not fair for society to take on the burden of caring for pot users who suffer health effects from its use, I reply if we're not taking away tobacco users' (or overeaters'!) health coverage, then we shouldn't threaten pot users with the same.

[Pepperbelly]

30. those that say that society costs stuff ...

had better not say it in front of me or the next time, society will be paying for the consequences of them having to get their fucking nose fixed. That kind of outlook infuriates me. It is like waving a red blanket at a bull.

I don't ask them for shit. Not shit. I work, make a living, and mind my own business. I would thank others to mind their own fucking business as well.

[MrModerate]

39. Chill now, 'belly . . .

Whether you ask or not, you get a whole shitload from society. I'm guessing you pay taxes, so you're also GIVING a lot. I'm guessing you have friends and family, live in a community, etc., etc., so you're EXCHANGING a lot as well. Minding your own business only goes so far.

If, however, you live -- alone -- in the woods, grow your own food (without fertilizers or forged tools), generate your own power (biomass? bicycle?) and have no manmade objects around that you didn't construct yourself from 100 percent natural raw materials(including the computer you're viewing this on), then I apologize profoundly.

And yes, people DO calculate the cost of delivering this or that societal benefit and they have to take causes (as in an individual's behavior) into account.

[Pepperbelly]

41. I meant exactly what I said ...

People do not get to control others because of this. I am a free man. If those folk were to try to tell me that they have a right to dictate my behavior because of some vague "cost", then the next time they'll sound different through their fucked up nose.

I have fought for everyone's freedom in society and I will God damned sure fight for my own.

[Dez]

45. Right on Pepperbelly!

We all have to fight for our freedoms on this matter. We have to make America free as it once was, before corporations took over our government!

[MrModerate]

49. If I were you, then . . .

I'd be sure I'm in fighting trim, because you're gonna be doing an awful lot of nose-punching. Cost-benefit analysis (which is what we're talking about here) affects:

* Traffic control laws
* Medicinal drug availability
* Medical care delivered or withheld (the concept of "triage")
* How drivers license forms are designed (to take it the the most mundane level)
* and whether you can buy pot or not

And thousands of other "societal choices" that -- in most cases -- we simply have to put up with.

Some of them are worth fighting against (say pot prohibition); some are not (say, traffic lights).

In any case, you need to pick your fights because you can't fight 'em all.

[Pepperbelly]

52. no that is not what we are talking about ...

What we are talking about is the usurpation of authority not granted to the legislature in the constitution and some asshole shooting off his mouth to me about what it might cost him at some future date so everyone gets to decide what I eat or smoke. Fuck the crooked bastards that passed those unconstitutional laws and fuck the asshole trying to mind my personal business.

[K-W]

56. You are ignoring the constitution.

Society doesnt get to choose to limit the freedom of individuals. It can only do so where there is proof of a conflict of rights.

[MrModerate]

66. Just to focus on the example at hand . . .

Are you maintaining that drug prohibition is unconstitutional? I haven't heard that argument, so please enlighten me.

With regard to people telling Pepperbelly what he can and cannot smoke (i.e., "limiting the freedom of individual"), I can think of two perfectly legal cases: 1) If he wants to get a job with a firm that says you have to pass a drug test to be employed or 2) if he wants to purchase health insurance that denies such insurance to anyone who uses pot.

Right or wrong, it's perfectly legal.

Last I heard, anyway.

[Pepperbelly]

69. I dare you to cite ...

the section of the Constitution that gives Congress that authority.

Remember, they had to pass an amendment to porhibit alcohol. There is no "marijuana" clause in the document that classes it differently under the constitution than booze. Please point it out to me.

[MrModerate]

101. The constitution is silent on the subject of marijuana

And alcohol and a lot of other things. The amendment to prohibit alcohol was repealed not because it was unconstitutional (that would be an oxymoron -- it was a part of the constitution when it was repealed), but because it was a terrible policy that the politicos didn't want anymore.

[K-W]

105. The constitution is quite vocal on the subject of prohibiting anything.

Or passing any law, including a law prohibiting people from injesting a plant because it is judged to be morally wrong.

[MrModerate]

108. Moral isn't the issue . . .

Not the legal issue anyway (I'm sure the advocates of criminalization had their own "moral" take on the topic). It's public order. The constitution does not prohibit the making of laws to protect the public order.

[K-W]

112. Of course morality is the issue.

Marijauna has never posed a threat to public order, so Im really not sure what you are arguing.

Certainly people have made the order argument, it is a completely bogus argument, but morality has played a much larger role in the prohibition, especially in modern times when it is fairly obvious that pot isnt a threat to much of anything.

The constitution does indeed prohibit the making of laws that limit peoples freedom for no just reason, even if people lie and say it protects the public order.

[MrModerate]

116. Bogus argument? Yes. Protecting the public order a lie? Yes.

And arguments like that are what we need to be using to overturn these bad laws foisted on us through lies and misdirection.

Just don't try to hang an unconstitutional tag on it, or you won't get anywhere.

[K-W]

119. but it is unconstitutional, so what is your problem?

If I get thrown into prison for smoking pot, my constitutional rights have been violated. Why cant you see that? If I act in a way that in no way infringes on the rights of others, and the government imprisons me, I can go to court and get it overturned for being unconstitutional...

unless it is drugs, where the courts refuse to follow the consitution. The fact that they pretend that they are following the consitution when they do this doesnt make it constitutional.

[MrModerate]

134. Your argument is that your behavior . .

can only be legally bound where it infringes on the rights of others. Actually, your behavior can be legally and constitutionally bound for any number of other reasons.

However, according to the people who criminalized marijuana in the first place, such behavior DOES infringe on others' behavior in that it interferes with public order, which is their right to enjoy.

[Pepperbelly]

138. bullshit ...

It is not. No more than alcohol was and they clearly did not have the authority to prohibit it EXCEPT with a constitutional amendment.

[Dez]

146. The politicians do whatever they want

look at the power they gave shrub to invade Iraq! I mean, it's just a walk in the park for them to keep cannabis illegal, and make it illegal to begin with.

[Pepperbelly]

149. yep and that is one of their many, many ...

transgressions for which they should be held accountable.

[K-W]

139. You are wrong on both counts.

No, the ONLY way behavior can be legally bound is when it infringes on the rights of others. That is why there is the need for dellusion of a threat to social order. Because it is obvious that the action does not pose a threat to anyones rights, they invent a myth that the use of it creates a disturbance to the social order and thus endangers the rights of people who rely on that order.

Of course the people who criminalized it thought they were justified, that doesnt make it true. By your logic it is impossible for congress to pass an unconstitutional law as long as they think they have a good reason.

The whole point of testing the constitutionality of a law is to see if congress did, in fact, have a valid justification for passing the law.

For example, congress passes a law that nobody can critisize the president. They claim and believe that the threat to public order caused by dissent justifies restricting rights. A court decides that the law is unconstitutional because the right of dissent outweighs what little threat to order is posed.

[MrModerate]

148. Bingo!

The judges have NOT decided that drug prohibition is unconstitutional. These laws have been around for about 90 years (20s-30s, I think, for most of the state laws, and the federal register of banned drugs came in somewhere about that time), and none of them have been declared unconstitutional.

[K-W]

151. So your argument is that the courts are perfect?

Yes, the courts have indeed ruled against the constitution by buying into the myth of a threat to social order. In doing so they have allowed the drug war to persist and become one of the largest actual threats to social order in existence.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. If you believe that drug use, as such, poses no threat to the rights of others, you must logically conclude that prohibition is unconstitutional. The issue is that the judges so far have either believed or feigned believing that drug use does pose such a threat relying on the myth of a threat to social order by drug use in general.

So make up your mind. Either the law is constitutional or it isn't. If it is, it means that there is a valid reason for prohibition.

[MrModerate]

154. I have made up my mind.

There is no adequate justification for prohibition. They're bad laws, they do more harm than good, they're largely unenforceable, and they distract and waste the resources of law enforcement.

But the constitution has nothing to do with it. Constitutionality is a dog that won't hunt: bad policy is one that will.

[Pepperbelly]

160. But that is not what they rely upon for the authority ...

which, btw, does not exist in the Constitution --that is some amorphous clause about good order. It just isn't in there.

They relied on authority to regulate interstate commerce. Total horseshit but that is the basis upon which they relied.

[K-W]

164. interstate commerce relates to jurisdiction

That gives them jurisdiction to regulate drugs, rather than the states, it doesnt speak to the constitutionality of a given regulation, or in this case, prohibition. They need both jurisdiction, and a public interest(which would be someone whos rights would be infringed upon)

[Pepperbelly]

165. I know but that is what they relied upon.

They lied then when they asserted it because they have neither the power nor the jurisdiction. Fuck the scheming, foul-breathed popinjays.

[K-W]

168. Well they relied on two false assumptions.

The first of which was that drug use was covered by interestate commerce, the second of which was that prohibiting drugs was obviously serving the public good.

[Pepperbelly]

169. actually ...

there is no clause in section 8 that grants any authority for passing laws in the general good. The constitution was very specific both in the powers it granted and the general powers as well. The general powers found in section 8 relate to implementing the enumerated powers. These fuckers just took it upon themselves like little tinhorn dictators.

[K-W]

172. I didnt mean that there was,

but if the courts were ever to conclude that these laws in fact are not attempting a public good, they would have to rule them unconstitutional for depriving people of thier rights without due process. That assumption is neccessary for the myth of constitutionality.

[MrModerate]

170. Not exactly horseshit:

Regulating interstate commerce is central to the constitutionality of drug prohibition laws. Prior to the 18th amendment, the states and the federal government had wrestled with who had the right to regulate alcohol, and alcohol shipments.

But there was never any constitutional question whether government (state or federal) had the right to regulate.

The 21st overturned the 18th by specifying some aspects of how alcohol distribution were to be controlled, but never surrendered the right to regulate, or the states' rights to regulate.

So your earlier statement that alcohol prohibition would have been unconstitutional without the 18th, is just plain wrong. And hence, there's no support for your argument that drug prohibition is unconstitutional.

I think we both agree that pot prohibition is wrong. We disagree that it's a constitution issue: you consider it central, I consider it a red herring. Why this matters is because of strategy and tactics. To overturn prohibition, we have to pursue what's going to work. Fighting it on a constitutional basis is, IMO, a waste of time and energy. Fight it on the basis of bad policy. We're more likely to win.

The war on drugs is a failure. As the Onion said (someone cited this above), the drugs won. As a nation, as a society, let's stop fighting this stupid war and devote our energies to things that should be fought and can be won.

[Pepperbelly]

173. You are reaching for that one ...

and I have searched high and low and have found no case law on it.

Your attempt to link them FLAILING for a power that isn't there as being justification for your position is just plain fallacious. They would also hold that something can be regulated as interstate commerce when it is not involved in interstate commerce. Does that make sense? Of course not but they would hold it anyway just to usurp authority that is not there nor their's.

Your reasoning re: 18th amendment does not follow. Nor your ealier reasoning re: the 9th. Because they WANTED it to be so does not MAKE it so. The reason they passed the 18th (other than the fact that most of the men were tied up fighting WWI and the ones left were either outnumbered or chickenshits) was because they could not do it without the amendment or they would not have gone to the trouble. You earlier argument re: Volstead was also factually in error. Volstead was passed to IMPLEMENT the 18th, not vice verse.

[K-W]

167. Fine, but you really should get a better understanding of our legal system

because I can only try once again to tell you that you are completely wrong and are ignoring very simple completely valid legal arguments.

[Pepperbelly]

135. If that is so ... how does it differ ...

from alcohol which TOOK an amendment to prohibit it?

[Occulus]

118. Actually, it's not silent at all

The 9th Amendment says this:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It explicitly spells out that rights of the people not enumerated to them in the Constitution are nonetheless still the rights of the people. Therefore, the right to voluntarily imbibe, ingest, or inhale any foreign substance could be said to actually be granted by the Constitution, thanks to the 9th Amendment.

This would be why an Amendment was necessary to prohibit alcohol- the law would have been unconstitutional otherwise. Just like the drug laws are today.

[MrModerate]

131. If you believe that "others retained by the people"

Includes the right to smoke pot, then I can see why you'd say drug laws are unconstitutional.

However, none of the serious comment I've ever run across has suggested that drug laws are in this category. There are way too many other prohibitions on behavior that have never been challenged to automatically assign this exclusion to drug laws.

Following your line of reasoning above, there are NO rights the people don't have, because everything is either enumerated or retained, and therefore the state can't constrain ANY behavior.

I don't think it works that way. Amendment 9 was intended to prevent people from saying: "whoops -- it's not in the constitution, so you don't have the right." It doesn't say that the state can't make laws on other topics not in the constitution.

[Pepperbelly]

140. What are you talking about?

Possession of a substance.

Poison is a substance, arguably more deadly than pot.

Dynamite is a substance, arguably more deadly than pot.

Where is that power to prohibit the possession of a substance arise from? It is not in the enumerated powers of the legislature. It clearly does not fit under the elastic clause from Section 8 of Article 1 ... which specifically reads, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

It is a usurpation of authority.

[K-W]

143. The one correct statement in your post proves you wrong.

"Amendment 9 was intended to prevent people from saying: "whoops -- it's not in the constitution, so you don't have the right.""

which is exactly what you are arguing. You are arguing that because pot isnt in the constitution, we dont have the right to smoke it. This is precisely what the 9th ammendment says congress cannot do. It cannot take away the right to smoke pot, simply because the constitution doesnt list the right to smoke pot.

The 9th ammendment is why it is unconstitutional to prohibit any behavior unless it infringes on the liberty of others.

[MrModerate]

152. Interesting, but . . . naaah.

What I'm saying is that Amendment 9 does not prohibit the state from regulating pot. The criminalizers don't cite the constitution and say "it's not in the constitution so you don't have the right." They say "it's harmful to public order -- which others have a right to enjoy, so you don't have the right."

But I'm going to cut off responding to each of these posts a do a little digging on whether the 18th amendment was required to ban alcohol (i.e., as Pepperbelly says, it would have been unconstitutional to ban alcohol without the amendment) because that's central to my argument. I don't think so, since the Volsted Act was what actually banned alcohol, and not the 18th, but I need to find out. I'll come back in a bit.

[K-W]

153. Yes it does prohibit the state from regulating pot, you said so yourself

Congress cannot claim that we have no right to smoke pot, because that is a violation of the 9th ammendment. Congress has to prove that the law is legitimate based on some power granted to them by the constitution.

So they must prove that smoking pot poses a threat to the liberty of others, thus making a law prohibiting pot a valid law.

The courts claim they have proven this. If you agree, fine, but if you dont agree with the government that pot smoking poses a threat to the rights of others, you must conclude that the courts are wrong and the law is in fact unconstitutional because congress has not justified the restriction of the right to smoke pot, which they cannnot claim we do not have because of the 9th ammendment.

[Pepperbelly]

158. actually ... the prohibitionists relied on the ...

interstate commerce clause to pass the Controlled Substances Act in the early 70s which, for the most part, repealed much of the old Harrison Narcotics Act.

-snip-

In 1970 the U.S. Congress enacted the federal Controlled Substances Act (the “CSA”)(<8>) pursuant to the federal authority to regulate interstate commerce.(<9>) This Act repealed most of the earlier federal legislation, including the Harrison Act and the Marihuana Tax Act, and is the foundation of U.S. federal drug law today.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/dolin2-e.htm#1.%20%20Federal%20Law

Oddly enough, the government asserts that in order to regulate interstate commerce, they do not have a burden to prove that interstae commerce was involved. Talk about some upside-down, black is white, left is right reasoning, the useless fucks.

[Pepperbelly]

did you deliberately ...

misconstrue what I wrote for the sake of having something to say?

The point is that it TOOK an amendment to make it illegal in the first place and marijuana is no different. They usurped the authority.

[K-W]

73. Of course it is unconstitutional.

And it is fairly obvious at that.

The governmetn cannot limit peoples freedoms without demonstrating that the exercise of that freedom would unduly burden the freedom of others.

I cant kill people because that unduly burdens other peoples right to live. I cant drive drunk because that places an undue burden on other drivers and thier freedom to drive without being killed.

Nobody has EVER proven that marijuana places any burden on the rights of anyone.

I will avoid getting into your scenario simply because it would lead to a tangent discussion, but in short, I imagine you and I disagree on the constitutionality of unelected corporate leaders making social policy.

[MrModerate]

113. . . . putting tape on endless loop . . .

"The constitution is silent on" . . . unelected corporate leaders making social policy.

But let's be real. Unelected corporate/religious/tribal/activist leaders have *always* contributed to/made social policy. They are, after all, influential parts of society.

Do I want the chairman of Halliburton shaping energy policy? No. Do I want the president of the Sierra Club shaping environmental policy? Yes. Do I want either one of these people "making" laws without proper oversight and an opportunity by the people to be heard in the process? Hell no!

That's why Cheney's energy policy -- hammered out in a back room and kept a secret from everyone else, is wrong, perhaps traitorous. But it's also why MoveOn's vocal advocacy of any number of policies is necessary and healthy.

But those are my choices.

[K-W]

117. This is a discussion for another thread.

But I dont care that people have always influenced social policy, that doesnt make it right. What kind of an argument is that?

And influencing social policy isnt the issue. There is a difference between telling people you think they shouldnt do drugs and because of your economic position, being able to deny people the ability to feed thier families because they do drugs.

I dont think unelected people, or elected people for that matter, should have the ability to determine who and who does not get to work and feed themselves and thier families, but I guess im just a wakko.

[MrModerate]

144. Nah, not a wacko, just wrong in this particular case.

Question: does a company have the right to not offer employment to someone who refuses to take a drug test?

[Pepperbelly]

145. what does that have to do with the topic of legalization?

I wouldn't go to work for a company that piss tested. Swapping economics for human dignity. Fuck them. They can do what they want. I can never darken their doorway. It is a two-way street in that regard.

[K-W]

150. Well, we are on a tangent now.

And reaching the issue of corporate soveriegnty, and the horrible mistake that individual liberty grants non-governmental organizations and power holders the right to govern freely.

[MrModerate]

155. You go, guy! n/t

[K-W]

147. So you think that it is totally OK...

that I can starve to death because private citizens exercise thier right to choose not to employ me and allow me to work to feed myself because I wasnt lucky enough to be born owning enough land to grow food and must rely on employment to survive?

[Cats Against Frist]

186. Oh, and by the way -- I agree with you

I think that marijuana should be legalized. I just wish there was a real-time test. AND I'm a liberal libertarian.

[Cats Against Frist]

185. Are you a libertarian?

The idea of "societal cost" is basically one of the building blocks of modern-day liberalism.

[K-W]

33. And if it was legal, less people would smoke it.

I know the only reason I smoke rather than eat is the cost. Eating is less efficient. If I wasnt paying rediculous black market prices, I could afford to eat it and not have to inhale the biproducts of burning plants.

[MrModerate]

40. Not me . . . I hate the taste of cooked pot . . .

And it imparts a nasty gritty texture to food.

The taste of the smoke, however . . . mmm, mmm, good!

[K-W]

42. Well, if you cook it right, that isnt so much of a problem.

But Im guessing DU isnt the place to exchance MJ cooking tips. :)

[Pepperbelly]

43. sautee' with butter...

Then strain out the garbage if you want. Remember, THC is fat soluble so when you sautee' it in butter, it unlocks the good stuff and if you then use the butter as a sub for any oil called for in the recipe, then each and every bite will contain what is good.

I would still leave the garbage in thought. Superstitious. Not that i have any first hand experience or anything ...

:hide:

[firefox]

79. You don't know what you are talking about

One thing being lost on this thread is the issue of freedom. Illegal pot is a denial of freedom and for what reason.

[MrModerate]

106. Actually I'm pretty clear what I'm talking about

Freedom is not an absolute. The people who make the laws concluded that the public order was endangered by marijuana and they made it illegal.

Most of the posters to this thread, myself included, don't think the public order was endangered and don't think pot should be illegal.

However, no one has posted anything on this "constitutional" issue other than bald statements that criminalized pot infringes their freedom.

Sorry, that won't fly.

The argument we should be making is that -- like alcohol prohibition -- laws against marijuana are obnoxious, unecessary and damaging to the social order, since they criminalize an innocent behavior. That case is easy to make.

[Occulus]

122. We're talking about, at heart, a very basic freedom

The freedom- nay, the God-given right- to ingest any substance voluntarily.

Why should I be prohibited from ingesting any substance I wish, provided I'm not being forced to do so?

I'd say that's a pretty big freedom. Yet here are the drug laws, arbitrarily revoking certain subsets of that freedom. The 9th Amendment is crystal clear on this; the right to voluntarily ingest any substance we wish is a right not only of "the People" but of all humans and is explicitly protected by that Amendment.

[K-W]

125. You are ignoring valid arguments.

If there is no danger to the rights of others, the prohibition of a behavior is unconstitutional. Regardless of whether congress thinks or says there is a danger to the rights of others.

It is so simple, why do you keep ignoring it?

You are claiming that it isnt unconstitutional because congress doesnt think it is, dont you see how flawed that argument is?

[MrModerate]

176. I'm not ignoring, I just don't believe it's relevant

You keep trying to tell me that all laws regulating behavior are a black-and-white conflict between your rights and others'. If it doesn't infringe on others' rights, then it can't be regulated.

But many things are legally regulated where the impact on others' rights is much less direct. For example, prostitution, gambling and other "vices"; zoning and density ordinances; a whole host of licensing requirements covering just about every activity in modern society. And so on, and so on.

I don't think there's any question that the state has a constitutional right to regulate behaviors even if they don't immediatley impact other people's rights, but only impact tangentially or at a remove.

Additionally, by making the case that a behavior is harmful to society as a whole, the criminalizers DID bring in the issue of your rights infringing on my rights, and so are again on solid constitutional ground. However, you and I seem to share a belief that they were wrong in asserting this social harm, and so these laws should be changed.

To recap something I just wrote to Pepperbelly:

I think we both agree that pot prohibition is wrong. We disagree that it's a constitution issue: you consider it central, I consider it a red herring. Why this matters is because of strategy and tactics. To overturn prohibition, we have to pursue what's going to work. Fighting it on a constitutional basis is, IMO, a waste of time and energy. Fight it on the basis of bad policy. We're more likely to win.

The war on drugs is a failure. As the Onion said (someone cited this above), the drugs won. As a nation, as a society, let's stop fighting this stupid war and devote our energies to things that should be fought and can be won.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. I support legalization

the tax revenue could be quite profitable:)

[Zynx]

32. Legalization is okay with me though I would never use it.

However, I believe it should be taxed like crazy, no one should be able to drive while high, and under no circumstances may they smoke it in a public place.

[rock]

34. It should be legal

All drugs laws shoud be decriminalized.

[Igel]

44. Legalize it, and make the penalty for accidents or deaths resulting

use premeditated (unless, of course, there's good evidence that the "user" wasn't a willing partaker).

Get high, drive, and kill somebody, or just maim them, accidentally step off a curb and hit killed by a car ... treat it as legally intentional. Premeditated murder, mayhem, or suicide.

I have the same attitude towards alcohol use. In both cases, you willingly decrease reaction times and judgment, and therefore willingly perform any stupid actions resulting from the decreased reaction times and judgment.

[K-W]

50. Please remember that for all the assumptions,

science has yet to draw a solid conclusion on the effects of marijauana use and driving.

I am certainly not saying I dont suspect that it does in fact inhibit driving, but it needs to be scientifically determined first. Something that should be fairly easy to do if marijauana werent prohibited. So far some studies have been done, but not enough to draw definate conclusions.

I do question, however the extra penalty logic, why is it more wrong to kill someone because you smoked up than it is because you chose not to get enough sleep the night before driving or because you chose to get in a car after a deeply emotional argument and couldnt focus on the road.

[Igel]

103. Not logical, just pragmatic.

I may have stayed up late last night for fun or because I had to work late, or I may have had insomnia or my plane may have been delayed.

But last night had I drunk too much and then driven home, it would have been completely voluntary. I don't think I've ever been involuntarily incapacitated, and getting drunk "for a good reason" winds up requiring an odd meaning for "good reason". I've done it, but acknowledge my "good reason" had to do more with my mental state than something external to me that actually required my attending to it.

As far as the effects of pot on driving, I've known lots of folks who have do silly things when high and/or drunk; it messes up their reaction time and their judgment, and I have trouble believing that the effects vanish as soon as they get behind the wheel. True, I'm unaware of rock-solid scientific studies, and I'd want them before I acted to legislate the penalties; I'd like to see them otherwise, even if to determine the amounts of THC (or other chemicals) necessary for varying levels of impairment. I do remember reading a while back that reaction times are slowed for 24 hours or more after being high, with appropriate mg of various compounds/kg body mass (I'm not sure the research covered the after-effects of alcohol), but I didn't follow up with the study and see if anybody pointed out methodological flaws or failed to replicate the results.

In any event, afterwards the people I knew that acted foolishly ducked responsibility and passed it all off as a matter of course--what can they do, they came home drunk or high. In a sense, they're right: it's like holding male teenagers responsible for the late development of the prefrontal cortex responsible for inhibition. On the other hand, teenager's aren't responsible for how their brains develop.

[Kazak]

46. *puff, puff, pass*

Freedom is NORML!!!

In all seriousness, I truly believe that the "evil weed" has the ability to transform, and indeed SAVE, our very civilization.

[Cats Against Frist]

47. Okay, I have controversial pot beliefs

I believe, of course, that it should be de-criminalized, because I'm a libertarian, foremost; second, because it's not worse, in terms of health and social costs than alcohol or cigarettes.

That said, people who treat it like it's going to save fucking humanity, or are fixated on it, have a problem. I also believe that many people think that marijuana has no poor side effects, but if you've lived in a flophouse with chronic pot smokers, who never leave the house, and play "Tony Hawk," on the Playstation, all day -- you know that "psychological addiction" is a reality.

If you've ever took a compass and scraped weed out of the cracks of the coffee table, or smoked resin -- you know that psychological addiction is a reality. And to some extent, since the mechanisms of the brain are biological, I would say that the "psychological" is just bullshit, and that it's just plain addiction.

And, being a former heavy user, myself, who had to sober up when I got pregnant with my first child, I remember sitting in the car, in the early days of sobriety, in the rain, staring out the window, in a full-blown depressive episode, thinking, "Good lord. What do people do when they're not high? What do they think about?"

People who are obsessed with pot, anymore than say, orange juice, in my opinion, should not be the advocates, or poster children for legalization. It is the naivete of most pro-marijuana advocates -- and the same hard-headed refusal to deal with reality, i.e., the very real and very dangerous side-effects of marijuana usage -- that characterizes the anti-marijana advocates, that keeps pot from being legalized. I think it ruins it for the rest of us, who would like a sane discussion of the drug, so we could just blaze up in our front yard, every now and again.

[Dez]

51. People can be hooked on anything

no reason to make things illegal, cause some people can't handle it. But that's not why it's illegal. Corporations are behind it remaining illegal.. and corporations are only concerned with profits, not people.. nothing democratic about a corporation!

[Kazak]

55. Facts you should know about hemp (link)

http://www.masscann.org/hemp/

[SHRED]

78. Thanks for that link!

:toast:

[K-W]

61. You should stop making drugs a behavioral scapegoat.

Remember that drug use is just a behavior like any other, just as likely to be an effect as a cause.

And the people pushing for legalization arent pot obessed maniacs. As you well explained, people who smoke compulsively dont do much of anything.

[Mend]

54. Pot now is different from the pot of the 60's

or so I have been told by an addictionologist friend. In our day apparently pot had 4% THC and now it is being made so that it is 27%. If this is true, many of us oldies who no longer smoke but remember it fondly as a mild drug may need some re-educating as to its current effects. This may be like drinking grain alcohol instead of having a beer. I am for real studies and then legalization if it is found to be safe.

[Pepperbelly]

57. that's a bunch of lying horseshit ...

Your friend is full of crap and believing the propaganda put out by the drug czar. Would if it were but true. :smoke:

[Lilith Velkor]

98. Whence this lying horseshit came

I started hearing that all the time in the 80s, and it came from the need for parents to institutionalize their kids for doing the same thing they did when they were kids. Not all parents, mind you, just the parents of most of the kids with whom I was locked up.

[Dez]

59. 27% ?? No way!

How can you believe anything the government says about pot.. there's a bloody war on, eh? The lie, cheat and steal in this war.

[Mend]

65. It wasn't the government, it was a recovering alcoholic who

is now an addictionologist who is saying this...I will talk to him about his claims. It does seem to me that people who smoke it seem unhappier but that is not a scientific study, just an anecdotal observation. I think that substances ranging from food, cigs, alcohol, pot, oxyrush, etc cover up deeper emotional issues that perhaps need to be worked out...again, my just my thoughts but I do think it should be up to the person, thus legalized.

[immoderate]

92. Best pot I ever had was in 1969.

Don't believe your "addictionologist."

--IMM

[K-W]

64. Heh, dont worry, nobody is getting any higher now than in the 60's.

They just have to smoke less plant matter to get the same effect.

And since when should activities be illegal until proven safe? What kind of assbackwards logic is that?

[Mend]

67. there were reports of increases in schizophrenia

in teenagers using pot vs. non-users...that's what I meant about safe. Informed, educated people who make choices. I no longer eat canned tuna, wish I had known about the mercury sooner. Alcohol is legal but can be deadly....as are cigarettes, just let people know what is what.

[Dez]

71. Alcohol causes insanity

what's your argument about? And I don't trust any info the govt. puts out about pot, they've been lying about it for a long long time.. just new lies is what they tell us.

[K-W]

77. Yes, fact based education is absolutely vital

And the reports do not show that pot causes Schizophrenia, only that it can exacerbate or bring early onset. People with schizophrenia in thier families should be extremely cautious with pot, certainly.

There is no medical evidence that supports prohibition, a fact that has been determined in study after study and ignored.

[Lost Texan in NC]

74. I agree with Pepper

:smoke:

I have smoked RESPONSIBLY for more than 30 years, and I can tell you first hand. The pot we used to get in the 70's was much more potent then the stuff we get now. unless you want to pay the outrageous price of $100 an 1/8 for kind bud, which is what we used to get for $10 an oz, the average stuff is far less than the early pot.

Propaganda is powerful stuff. I still remember the signs posted on the mess deck of my ship when I was in the navy. Pot makes you have deformed children. Funny thing about that is, after 15 years of smoking, my daughter was born, not only NOT deformed but much smarter than me and her mother. She is now 26 and married to a wonderful man,who both support my right to smoke, and has a great career in animal training and her husband is an engineer.

[Blue_In_AK]

121. If the pot is more potent, you just smoke less... n/t

[JVS]

177. Not if you're cool. Cool people use that ot get higher

[Blue_In_AK]

180. Hey -- who you calling not cool????? n/t

[LdyGuique]

76. Canada's Report, Sept 2002

Canada conducted major research into all of the issues that surround marijuana -- growing, importing, and using. The Senate Committe on Drug Use released a substantial report in the fall of 2002 -- and it posited a list of recommendations that bordered on decriminalization and focusing on "at risk" or "excessive use" groups.

Due to U.S. policies and political pressure, Canadian Parliament did not follow the recommendations of the Senate committee.

CANNABIS: OUR POSITION FOR A CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY

REPORT OF THE SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL DRUGS

<snip>

Even if cannabis itself poses very little danger to the user and to society as a whole, some types of use involve risks. It is time for our public policy to recognize this and to focus on preventing at-risk use and on providing treatment for excessive cannabis users.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada adopt an integrated policy on the risks and harmful effects of psychoactive substances covering the whole range of substances (medication, alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs). With respect to cannabis, this policy should focus on educating users, detecting and preventing at-risk use and treating excessive use.

A regulatory approach to cannabis

The prohibition of cannabis does not bring about the desired reduction in cannabis consumption or problematic use. However, this approach does have a whole series of harmful consequences. Users are marginalized, and over 20,000 Canadians are arrested each year for cannabis possession. Young people in schools no longer enjoy the same constitutional and civil protection of their rights as others. Organized crime benefits from prohibition and the criminalization of cannabis enhances their power and wealth. Society will never be able to stamp out drug use – particularly cannabis use.

Some might believe that an alternative policy signifies abandoning ship and giving up on promoting well-being for Canadians. Others might maintain that a regulatory approach would fly in the face of the fundamental values of our society. We believe, however, that the continued prohibition of cannabis jeopardizes the health and well-being of Canadians much more than does the substance itself or the regulated marketing of the substance. In addition, we believe that the continued criminalization of cannabis undermines the fundamental values set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and confirmed in the history of a country based on diversity and tolerance. Summary Report Continued

[lonestarnot]

82. Hey just diagnosed with glaucoma which "is 'nicely' controlled with drugs"

Suppose I could some medical marijuana legally at my local pharmacy now?

[Dez]

84. Not in our state.

It's a red state, and they will do what they can do to ruin your life for medicating your glaucoma .. I hope the herbs takes care of it for you.

[lonestarnot]

86. My guess is not in any state! and thanks for the well wish! n/t

[shanti]

179. in california

yes, you can.

[lonestarnot]

188. Well I can't move just to get high damn it! LOL

[Lost Texan in NC]

83. I'm encouraged

:smoke:

by this forum. so far most all of you are in favor of legalization. Again for the ones of you that disagree with the taxation issue, see my be reasonable post.

[K-W]

85. DU is a very special place.

And thank god for it.

[tabasco]

87. I made a vaporizer.

You can wire a dimmer switch into a soldering iron, which gives you a soldering iron with a temperature control. Use your imagination to make a vaporizer which does not burn the weed, only vaporizes the stuff you need. Easier on the lungs.

I made a mini-hookah too for when I get tired of the vape.

Oh yeah - legalize it and tax it, baby ! Much less harmful than alcohol in a number of respects.

[Dez]

88. *wishing I had a vaporizor* n/t

[K-W]

90. There are failry inexpensive models.

If you arent the handy man type.

[Dez]

91. just a glass tube?? n/t

[K-W]

94. link for you

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizers.html

The inexpensive models are basically just glass tubes that you heat with a lighter.

[Dez]

95. Hey, thanks K-W :-) n/t

[seabeyond]

89. i dont care about the legalization, i care about the characterization

saying, i can give it be illegal. fine. whatever. i can see it for a handful of different reason. i want rationality to come back to law. i grew up in calif in the 70's 80's with pot. five finger bag. bong shops.

if you were found with a bag, was no bigger a deal thatn a speeding ticket if the cop chose to site you. it was so not a big deal.

the doctor should be able to see the reasonable ness of suggesting pot to a patient. even know someone he can direct her to in order to hook her up, without repercussions

i also think they should be able to look at a person, sitting next to the school with all kinds of things, selling htis drug to children, to pass out to all the other 7th and 8th graders and prosecute the person

people are so afraid to trust themselves to law ourself, we are asking government to take over for us. silly idea. i dont need govt, i should be able as an adult to sit down and see reasonable problem solving.

you all should read the oldie pot smoking thread a month, a couple weeks ago. started by mopaul. was a blast.,

[Zorra]

93. I don't smoke herb anymore but I have a natural born right

to smoke it if I want to.

[not systems]

96. Legalize it don't criticize it...

it is much safe and milder than the drugs that
the mental health and alcohol industry sell.

[jpgray]

99. Less dangerous than aclohol in most respects

Have you ever heard of someone who smoked themselves violent? Or smoked themselves to death over a four hour period? :)

[pissed_American]

100. Pot is NOT a DRUG !

I feel that pot, marijuana, cannibis, mary jane whatever you want to call it is NOT a drug, unlike alcohol, cocain, heroin, etc. A drug must be manufactured/processed - cocain, heroin, alcohol must be manufactured/processed unlike marijuana. You just put a seed(s) in the ground, and with proper water and sunlight can, and will grow like a weed - hence the name.

Our own country was founded on the production of Hemp. It used to be the prefered material for producing paper - Some were chastised for NOT growing it.

I have never heard of someone being "HIGH" on pot and getting on the freeway going the wrong way and crashing into a car, killing a whole family - I have on the other hand heard of a drunk driver doing this many a time do to the legalization of alcohol.

It will NEVER be legalized. If it were legalized, they government would not be able to generate enough tax revenue from it, being that MOST people would grow their own - because it is NATURAL. The same can not be said for any other mainstream "drug".



Medical discovery is now finding out that it does have benefits for heart patients.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4417261.stm


just my opinion

[Lost Texan in NC]

109. Growing Pot

:smoke:

Throughout this thread many of you have posted that if it were legal, everyone would just grow their own. This is not necessarily true. There many of us out there that can build a house, produce exquisite art, or do other wondrous things. However, when we touch a plant, it dies. My wifes thumb is green. Mine is black. Also the vast majority of this countries pot smokers either live in the inner cities or the sprawling suburbs. As for me, I long for the convenience of going down to the local tobacco shop and picking up my carton of KB100's for the reasonable price of only $79.99. A full months supply of cool, intoxication Marijuana.

[RedCappedBandit]

102. I remember a commercial

Some anti-drug propoganda. Claims that if you bought pot, you were supporting terrorism.

Lets even assume that this is true ( far fetched, I know )
If it were legal to grow pot here in our country, we would no longer be "supporting terrorism!"

:hippie:

[Dez]

110. Yea, let's stamp out terrorism

grow your own! :-) overgrow the government.

[Blue_In_AK]

107. I support complete decriminalization

I think you might have some problems with the taxation and whatnot, though. It's just too easy to grow the stuff. Government should just get out of it 100 percent. It's no different than growing lettuce or tomatoes. I think part of the reason it remains illegal is because the powers that be KNOW it can't be regulated. There's far more money to be made through keeping it illegal. Think of all the money the pee-checkers would lose.

[Dez]

114. yea, repuke pee checkers. n/t

[Lost Texan in NC]

115. There's a problem

:smoke:

with that theory. People today grow lettuce and tomatoes in home gardens all over this country, but you can still go the grocery store and buy all of these you want all day long. Face it the rest of the world is right. Americans are fat and lazy.

[K-W]

120. Look how much smokers will pay for cigarettes, they arent growing tobbaco

although they certainly could do so.

[Blue_In_AK]

126. I think tobacco is 'way more complicated

because you have to do all that curing and stuff afterwards. All you have to do with your pot plants is just dry out the buds. Big difference.

[K-W]

127. Nope, you can just smoke it raw.

The curing is for preservation and taste improvement. But you can cure homegrown tobbacco anyway.

People constantly buy things they are capable of producing themselves

[Blue_In_AK]

128. Hmm, I did not know that.

Learn something new every day. :)

[K-W]

130. my source for that information:

http://www.coffinails.com/curing_tobacco.html

[Blue_In_AK]

137. I don't smoke cigarettes

but that was informative. There are so many things we can do for ourselves if we just take the time.

[Lost Texan in NC]

133. Not really

:smoke:

I live in NC, the heart of the tobacco belt. You can drive down the road and see barn after barn with stalks hanging upside down come harvest time. Alot of the old timers have smoked all their lives and never bought a pack of cigarettes.

[Blue_In_AK]

124. That's true...

Decriminalization, nonetheless. I guess they could tax whatever they would sell in the stores, but people should still be free to grow it if they can without fear of government intervention. Plant it in your garden or with your houseplants, whatever. It's just plain silly for it to be illegal, in my opinion.

[Lost Texan in NC]

129. There's another problem

:smoke:

Growing as a house plant is good, but, suppose you have a 1 acre garden, you plant your peas, carrots, lettuce, tomatoes and your pot. That lazy punk kid down the street doesn't have any money to buy his own, so he'll just steal yours in the middle of the night. There will always be the criminal element in Marijuana, but not like it is now.

[Blue_In_AK]

142. Yeah, that's true.

Damn those punk kids anyway. But they do make lovely houseplants -- or so I've been told. :evilgrin:

on ed. - I didn't mean the punk kids make lovely houseplants, although it might be worth a try.

[amazona]

111. I support legalization

But we need tests that are fair to drivers, because I don't want to smoke pot for temporary pain or at a party and 3 weeks later for unrelated reasons I'm in an auto accident and I end up being charged with a crime because traces remain in the system so long.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[OxQQme]

161. The pharmaceutical companies

and the forests industries and the cotton growers were behind the criminalization.
Follow the money.
Lousiana-Pacific, Weyerhauser etc's lobbyists lumped together MJ and Hemp under the same spun umbrella and benefitted by having the only resource, ie; wood fiber.
The pharms profitted by removing a 'natural' cure for ailments.
As to the benefits of jeans made of hemp, have you every worn any? Much softer and tougher than cotton.
The physcological and 'societal' costs are a smoke screen, so to speak.
"Cause them to fear and they will seek protection"

[bush_is_wacko]

141. I believe marijuana should be legal.

I actually think marijuana and a whole lot of other drugs should be made legal. The availability of those drugs certainly isn't going to make me want to try them. I have no desire, but it might give our overburdened law officers a break from chasing down drug addicts so they could spend their time finding REAL criminals.

Pot does have some benefit to ill people but I will tell you I am not an advocate of it's recreational use. I tell my kids the truth about it. As a recreational drug it is every bit as harmful as any other mind altering substance (I think it is a little more powerful than alcohol, but probably not as addictive) I don't care if others want to use it as long as they do the same thing we tell people who drink alcohol to do. DON'T DRINK OR SMOKE POT AND DRIVE! I would like to add to that list the fact that there are also many DR. prescribed medications that alter your ability to drive a vehicle and SOMEONE ought to be considering lecturing those patients that take those drugs NOT to get behind the wheel of a vehicle.

My only concern is that by legalizing ANY drug we will allow a few idiots to believe they are capable of driving while under the influence of these drugs and cause others to be hurt and/or killed. If we legalize them we have to be willing to enforce the same sort of DUI,DWI system we have with regards to alcohol!

[Pepperbelly]

156. If the Founding Fathers had known these kinds of laws would be passed

they would, no doubt, have included the right to BOOGY in the constitution. Clearly, it never occurred to them that the Puritans would gain such a foothold on the body politic.

[bamacrat]

162. I am for complete legalization, and education about pot.

There are too many people in America that still think it will make you crazy and want to kill people. IF it were legalized i believe we would see a drop in violent crimes, especially domestic ones.

[Arwennick]

163. Who is leading this parade?

The only politico I have seen openly campaign on a "Hemp Stump" is Wayne Sowell of Alabama.He garnered a half million votes in his campaign against Sen.Shelby.He lost by that many in the "Heart of Dixie".Wayne ran with a non-existence budget and with zero help from local,state and out of state Democratic party leaders.I havn't seen any big time Democrats venture into this subject.I guess they are on our side but are scared (or practical),knowing his opponent will paint him soft on crime.
Until the movement has a "Standard Bearer" for at least deciminalization then all this "Legalize Now" is just pissing in the wind.
I did my part here on the "Redneck Riviera",I exposed myself by letters to the editors,interviews on local TV,all supporting Wayne Sowell and the movement.I campaigned,raised funds and in the process opened myself to persecution and rejection.
Because there are so many problems in the United States that need to be addressed before this one,local politico's accused me of being a "one-issue loony".They said I didn't see the big picture.I asked them what was more important,the big picture or the big tent?He wouldn't answer.
I don't think I'll see federal de-criminalization in my lifetime,but I think it will eventually come.

[Lost Texan in NC]

174. "Hemp stump"

:smoke:

There was one "Standard Bearer" although he did not publicize much in the 04 Presidential election. Denis Kucinich. His stance was decriminalize now, federally. But no body gave him a listen or a snowballs chance in hell. President Kucinich, Want to burn a splif with me?

[HeeBGBz]

189. Legal Eye Zit

[ernstbass]

191. Legalize it