COMMENTS: 118
America's Schizoid Pot Culture -- 4 in 10 Have Smoked It, and Millions Are Still Getting Busted
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Drugs headlines via email.
Fully 80 percent of Americans approve of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and fewer than one in five favor locking up non-violent adults who use pot in general. But since the inception of the disastrous “War on Drugs,” politicians from across the political spectrum have found that being a dedicated drug warrior is an easy way to appear “tough on crime” without much political risk.
The result of that divide is a truly schizoid patchwork of laws regulating the use of cannabis. Several states have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of weed -- most recently Massachusetts this year -- and 13 states have legalized medical marijuana. Yet each and every year we continue to lock up three-quarters of a million Americans for possession of marijuana and waste an estimated $14 billion on our misguided prohibition of a cash crop that’s worth more than wheat and corn combined.
The Obama administration has sent markedly mixed signals about whether it would continue the most regressive element of the “Drug War” -- Bush’s policy of going after medical marijuana providers in the states that have legalized the industry.
Bush turned federal law-enforcement into a de facto White House veto over state-level drug laws (and, often, over the will of the people -- 8 of the 13 states that permit the use of medical marijuana got there through a referendum process). It’s clichéd to describe the more labyrinthine corridors of our legal system as “Kafkaesque,” but the way Bush did it would draw a knowing sigh from old Franz.
Officially, in states where they’re legal, the federal government only goes after medical marijuana operations when they violate both federal and state law. Officially. But after the DEA raids these shops, their owners are prosecuted in federal courts, and they need only be charged under federal laws. And here’s where it goes from bad policy to simple insanity: thanks to a 2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Raich, defendants are prohibited from entering evidence at trial that they were in compliance with local and state laws when they were busted.
Then, if convicted, these operators of businesses that are legal in their respective states face harsh mandatory drug sentences in the federal justice system -- long minimums that Congress required in the 1980s ostensibly to deter “drug king-pins.”
That’s the situation Charles Lynch is looking at. Lynch is facing up to 20 years in prison after being convicted under federal law for running a medical marijuana clinic in Morro Bay, California. Before DEA agents busted him, Lynch had been in business for 11 months. According to the Los Angeles Times, the clinic had “the blessing of the city's mayor and other public officials” -- including the city’s Chamber of Commerce. Morro Bay City Attorney Rob Schultz said that he had received only one complaint about Lynch’s operation in that time -- and that was from someone griping about the quality of the pot Lynch sold. The town’s mayor, Janice Peters, described Lynch as “polite, compassionate,” and at an April 23 sentencing hearing Steven Beck, the father of a 17 year-old suffering from bone cancer who, following the advice of his oncologist, had bought marijuana from Lynch’s clinic to treat the side-effects of chemo-therapy, told the court that Lynch had often given the boy pot for free. After describing how the teen “could not eat. He could not sleep. His personality became dark and angry," Beck added, "I never felt as though Charlie was there for the money."
Stay up to date with the latest Drugs headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Apr 28, 2009 12:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether they haven't smoked pot because they never had the opportunity (which often arises from peer groups), or because they declined an offer, this speaks to a totally different world than the one I've lived in the U.S.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I can't believe six in ten haven't smoked it.
Posted by: terradea42
» RE: I can't believe six in ten haven't smoked it.
Posted by: greenmulberry
» RE: I can't believe six in ten haven't smoked it.
Posted by: willymack
» Look at the Last Line of the Article: 4 out of ten
Posted by: ATH
» Concerning Statistics
Posted by: ATH
» RE: I can't believe six in ten haven't smoked it.
Posted by: mikeblack
» Maybe only four out of ten
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» I agree--that number is probably closer to 5 out of 10
Posted by: ATH
» I like the hemp protein powder but until the drug screening tests are abolished,
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: soulrebeljc on Apr 28, 2009 1:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They simply can't allow us that much freedom, and not this kind of freedom either - freedom to think, to love, to understand, to empathize and connect. It would be the end of them, and they know it.
So don't look for Obama to do much about this. He keeps his populist tone by these faux acknowledgements that perhaps something might need to change in regard to our drug laws and sentencing. But it's a sham, I say this because he's yet to show he's one of We the People, not in a meaningful way anyway. Token gestures to keep us at arm's length, but still within reach if he needs something.
Bush had the gay-marriage and the abortion issues for his religious 'base'...
'Is he? Will he? Prison for abortion doctors? Criminalize fags? Well, he might, let's keep on behind this cowboy.'
For Obama it might be pot legalization. So don't count on change, but rather count on this kind of article to be written for at least four years.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Freedom
Posted by: mikeblack
» mikeblack: you're right but it's because America is a stupid place
Posted by: NYmediator
» RE: Freedom
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Freedom
Posted by: pothead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: greenferret on Apr 28, 2009 2:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell Obama and your elected representatives that it's time to legalize and regulate marijuana.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I work at the jail... we need prisoners!!!!!!
Posted by: TrollTreason
» RE: Tell Obama to stop jailing marijuana users
Posted by: willymack
» Victimless Crime is an oxymoron.
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bonapartist on Apr 28, 2009 2:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Having in mind...
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Zxyler on Apr 28, 2009 3:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm for Legalization, but You are Wrong about Drug Barons.
Posted by: ATH
» Actually they are not wrong..
Posted by: MaudDib
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 28, 2009 5:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Congress needs to...
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: This seems off topic, but it's not, it is more media bashing
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Congress needs to...
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Hemp is not pot!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Hemp is not pot!
Posted by: Tweck9
» RE: Hemp is not pot!
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Hemp is not pot yet they are the same!
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Hemp is not pot!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Hemp is.......
Posted by: dasq
» no, you are confusing people...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» No, it's my fault that I mixed up the two in my absentmindedness.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Sorry. I was a bit absentminded at the time of the post.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» See Hemp4Fuel.com a great site, lots of info...
Posted by: TJColatrella
» RE: See Hemp4Fuel.com a great site, lots of info...
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Apr 28, 2009 5:41 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...all we really know thus far is that President Obama is reluctant to spend political capital early in his term on marijuana issues.
There are enough good reasons to rethink our nation’s approach to marijuana that we remain hopeful...
I agree, but hopeful isn't good enough for me. My basic civil rights rights are being grossly violated.
I had an interesting conversation with school staff yesterday. Apparently there is a whole smorgas board of federal (unconstitutional) laws governing marijuana use on campus.
I assured him I was not interested in breaking laws, just in standing up for my rights. We were discussing "inciting to violence" as a potential complaint against me wearing a pot leaf t-shirt.
Pretty flimsy.
Honestly, I hadn't thought about federal pot laws on college campuses much. I told him the laws were unconstitutional. They were against my religion. He said my timing was good.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "inciting to violence?!?!?"
Posted by: NYmediator
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TrollTreason on Apr 28, 2009 6:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: it would destroy their poisonous monopolies
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: it would destroy their poisonous monopolies
Posted by: TrollTreason
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Apr 28, 2009 6:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wrote about it here: Marijuana Legalization is "On the table"
S-714 S-714 tally sheet of senators thus far co-sponsoring the bill.
Congress needs to hear from us to move this bill forward. Contact your U.S. senators and demand that they support S-714.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Webb's heart may be in the right place but
Posted by: NYmediator
» Thanks but
Posted by: aahpat
» Thanks aahpat for the Senate bills info.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Thanks aahpat for the Senate bills info.
Posted by: aussidawg
» If true, wow
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: If true, wow
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Thanks aahpat for the Senate bills info.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Too true
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Apr 28, 2009 6:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May 2, 2009
PhillyNORML - 2009 Global Cannabis March
The 2009 Global Cannabis March, or Philadelphia Cannabis Festival, will be taking place on Saturday May 2, 2009. The event is still being planned, so more information will be posted as it becomes available. The GCM is an annual event that brings out hundreds of supporters, patients, and onlookers. It's an excellent opportunity to show just how popular legalization is, and to have a lot of fun. In 2008 we had our biggest one yet with over 400 people. This year we hope to top 1,000. Check back often for updates!
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Meet at Broad St. and South St. at 3:30 - 4:00pm
March towards Headhouse Square at 4:20pm
Arrive at Headhouse Square by 5:20pm
Speeches - done by 6:30pm
It is more than a mile trek end to end for the march. Parking in between the locations will reduce walking requirements.
The more people our politicians see are willing to get out in the streets and demand drug policy reform the more willing the politicians are to consider reform. If you support drug policy reform please consider adding your body to the numbers of Americans participating in this march and rally. More participants means more message.
IF THEY DON'T HEAR IT FROM US THEY WON'T HEAR IT!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Apr 28, 2009 7:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as I know virtually all white collar and many blue collar employers requires a standard drug screen for new hires (random drug tests are a different story). It seems to me that even under currently law someone could be using legal medical marijuana in their state, but be denied employment due to failed drug screening.
Can they disclose their use and does the employer have to then hire them anyway?(since the drug test is usually the last step in the hiring process) Wouldn't that violate the right to keep medical information private from employers?
This doesn't even get to the question of states where possession/personal use is legal. Could an employer similarly screen for tobacco and deny employment on that basis? I had assumed that employment drug screens were based on criminality of the substance, but perhaps that is incorrect.
Sorry - lots of questions and I am being lazy by asking on here instead of doing my own research, but thought folks might have the info off the top of their heads.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Question about drug testing for employment
Posted by: rsteeb
» RE: Question about drug testing for employment
Posted by: greenmulberry
» Maybe so
Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Maybe so
Posted by: ronaldravin
» And you are a cliche
Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Maybe so
Posted by: greenmulberry
» RE: Question about drug testing for employment
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Question about drug testing for employment Take them to court!
Posted by: photon's feather
» Tobacco
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey
» RE: Question about drug testing for employment
Posted by: Madam Hatter
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Apr 28, 2009 8:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be one thing if it were killing people on a regular basis - like nicotine and alcohol - but I'm not aware of it being the cause of one death in all recorded human history!
I haven't smoked grass in over thirty years. Quite frankly it gives me severe anxiety attacks. But for most people it has a calming, even medicinal effect. It's high time (pun intended) it were made commercially available.
To quote the great David Peel:
"Have a marijuana".
"The Rant"
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Isn't it amazing?
Posted by: robert.noll
» Tom "Happy Mothers Day" and "Up against the wall MFer"
Posted by: hardwroc
» RE: Tom "Happy Mothers Day" and "Up against the wall MFer"
Posted by: mtatasmith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mikeblack on Apr 28, 2009 8:29 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a sad fact, but that's the mindset in America. It does not matter how many studies you trot out showing pot is pretty much harmless in comparison to cigarettes & alcohol, or how many polls you can show people showing a lot of police officers think busting pot smokers is a total waste of everybody's time. The public at large, just as they have a knee-jerk negative reaction to gay marriage, have a automatic knee-jerk reaction of "OMG MY 3 YEAR OLD WILL HAVE A ONE HITTER AT THE DAY CARE AND THIS MEANS CRACK IS GOING TO BE LEGALIZED SOON!" Let's face it, most people aren't very smart. I gave up faith in the American public at large a long time ago.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Pot Legalization More Favorable than Congress
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Pot Legalization - It's a vicious circle ...
Posted by: stellabloo
» Then again, even amongst conservatives, there's a growing split on the drug war.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Apr 28, 2009 8:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ab390 on Apr 28, 2009 8:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on Apr 28, 2009 9:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rimchamp77 on Apr 28, 2009 9:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NotJesus on Apr 28, 2009 9:56 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. The uninformed,
2. The just plain stupid,
3. Those profiting from drugs illegal status, and
4. Politicians (the all of the above answer).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Apr 28, 2009 10:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like Obama, I did my time as a community organizer. People in low to moderate income neighborhoods, at least in the eighties, felt they were besieged by drug sellers and drug users. They felt that their children were highly at risk of falling to drug addiction.
The people didn't distinguish between marijuana, crack or any other drugs. They tended to want more community policing against drug activity.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's how it was. Honestly, it's been quite a while since I've been in the field, knocking on doors, listening to peoples concerns. Then as now, I'd prefer to suggest that drug laws discriminate against people of color, and it is latino and african american communities that provide the most prison "customers".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Another argument, ‘Legalization, For The Children’
Posted by: aahpat
» the reason these people didn't/don't distinguish between drugs...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: the reason these people didn't/don't distinguish between drugs...
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: the reason these people didn't/don't distinguish between drugs...
Posted by: aussidawg
» I believe that this is what happened in CA when attempts to legalize hemp farming were under attack.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» A refinement...
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Debunking the 'for the children' myth
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Debunking the 'for the children' myth
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» no confusion
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picket on Apr 28, 2009 10:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John P Walters..The Wall Street Journal 4/25/09 "To Legalize or Not"
What is the treatment for MJ addiction $5,000 to take the 12 step program?
Hello.. MJ is not physically addictive!!!
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices". Voltaire
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The first drug czar, who coined the term "drug czar"
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: x Drug CZAR speaks... Still paid to Lie????
Posted by: doneman2000
Comments are closed-
Posted by: robert.noll on Apr 28, 2009 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Juries
Posted by: NotJesus
» RE: Thanks
Posted by: robert.noll
» RE: Juries
Posted by: hedgewytch
» RE: Juries
Posted by: robert.noll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Xynyx on Apr 28, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do, however, favor legalization. Strongly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Apr 28, 2009 12:45 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
b) this is a sting operation...the big catch is that it is up to the DEA to determine whether or not a given vendor is in compliance with state laws...the sting is aimed at those vendors who are naive enough not to see through the catch...
nor do i believe that there has been a "tidal shift" on public opinions towards marijuana either ..other polls which do not broach the subject of marijuana nevertheless show persistent strong majority support for core fascist positions such as torture (gallup.. CAP(PDF))...in this broader context..it is difficult to imagine that very many ppl have changed their minds wrt marijuana...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leafsong1 on Apr 28, 2009 1:05 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: More cluelessness
Posted by: pothead
» Dimbulb, they ARE reality for FOUR YEARS, get used to it.
Posted by: hardwroc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TJColatrella on Apr 28, 2009 1:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go to Hemp4Fuel.com and read see the Why Hemp section too...
We could reduce food prices by replacing King Corn with Industrial Hemp and it renews every 4 months, it would give us cellulose ethanol and bio diesel from the seeds not to mention a lot of other products...including killer guitar speakers...
Also it would create a lot of good jobs both growing and refining or distilling it..
Real Green Jobs..!
Grow Here-Grow Now...!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Apr 28, 2009 2:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the drug reform organizations don't want to engage in public demonstrations against the drug war. Students for a Sensible Drug Policy and NORML are doing some at least.
May 2, 2009
PhillyNORML - 2009 Global Cannabis March
The 2009 Global Cannabis March, or Philadelphia Cannabis Festival, will be taking place on Saturday May 2, 2009. The event is still being planned, so more information will be posted as it becomes available. The GCM is an annual event that brings out hundreds of supporters, patients, and onlookers. It's an excellent opportunity to show just how popular legalization is, and to have a lot of fun. In 2008 we had our biggest one yet with over 400 people. This year we hope to top 1,000. Check back often for updates!
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Meet at Broad St. and South St. at 3:30 - 4:00pm
March towards Headhouse Square at 4:20pm
Arrive at Headhouse Square by 5:20pm
Speeches - done by 6:30pm
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bluebama II on Apr 28, 2009 5:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Apr 28, 2009 5:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That choice being; "Is THIS worth imprisoning Americans"?
Posted by: hardwroc
» RE: New Liberal Congress Will Give Us A Choice.
Posted by: pkay
Comments are closed-
Posted by: caru on Apr 28, 2009 7:14 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ALL USE IS MEDICINAL ALL USE IS SPIRITUAL
Posted by: paganpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ross Wolf on Apr 29, 2009 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Patriot Act's mention of incidental criminal networks-opened the door for police under the Act’s anti-terrorism provisions to broadly use wiretaps, spy on and arrest U.S. Citizens for alleged ordinary crimes.
The “Act” defines supporting "terrorist activity” as any criminal activity that "participates" in "World Markets" that terrorist may use or depend on for their support. Anyone distributing illegal-drugs could be charged with supporting a “Criminal Market” that terrorists use—based on the premise both criminals and terrorists use the same world networks and organizations to "Market" illegal-drugs; and have interests in criminal activity." That criminal/terrorist-activity link by the Patriot Act is—logically flawed when you consider a common car thief could be charged with supporting terrorism by selling a stolen car on a "criminal market" a terrorist used—among many non-terrorists. Such flawed logic could as easily be used by government to charge a “common criminal’s illegal activity” supported a lawful “Market” terrorists are dependent on for support.
Brilliantly the “Patriot Act” spins full circle to include all commerce as being “One Market” to charge “common criminals” with supporting terrorists: brilliant because all legal and illegal “markets” are linked at some point by commerce. While there are “narrow illegal-markets” where prosecutions may be justified, for example Americans fronting for NARCO-drug-gangs to buy or supply guns, Americans should be careful U.S. Government does not expand this “Market” concept similar to (RICO) to be all inclusive of commerce.
U.S. Government before tried to merge lawful and unlawful commerce to forfeit innocent owners’ property. You may read that “Government Concept” in United States v. 92 Buena Vista Ave. (91-781), 507 U.S. 111 (1993) at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-781.ZS.html
U.S. Police using the Patriot Act’s low probable cause requirement can too easily wiretap and spy on innocent U.S. Citizens they believe might be involved in ordinary crime. Congress should let provisions of the Patriot Act due to Sunset in December 2009, EXPIRE.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: paganpat on Apr 30, 2009 10:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» nice try troll
Posted by: hardwroc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jpeck.1 on May 2, 2009 1:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gabe Ronimo
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pkay on May 3, 2009 2:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- Isn't it odd that there is a prohibition on almost EVERYTHING except ALCOHOL? And there's EVEN a MINI-Prohibition on IT! ie. 18 yrs to 21 yrs (drinking age). I've often said that could change if enough young people petitioned & got it on the ballot.
In modern times both Budwieser & ALL the pharmacutical companies don't want Cannabis legal. So, until you all (in article above) can afford bigger & better LOBBYISTs you're probably out of luck. - Though there is a groundswell & many states are passing de-criminalization.
Finally, I recently heard how each year Southern California farmers are really struggling to keep their fields irrigated - due to drought & it gets worse with each year. WOULDN'T Cannabis be a GREAT crop for these farmers? Don't need a lot of water!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obivious Corp/Power concerns: Oligarchy whatever
Posted by: jpeck.1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: urtheiz on May 5, 2009 4:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean legalizing reefer would be a double money maker for OUR country. the $ saved from it's prohibition (but cops would really have to work for they paycheck then) and the $ from taxing it. So why don't they (the elected officals) listen to the people and do it? Because the people who vote don't make a difference to the goverment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Apr 28, 2009 12:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether they haven't smoked pot because they never had the opportunity (which often arises from peer groups), or because they declined an offer, this speaks to a totally different world than the one I've lived in the U.S.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I can't believe six in ten haven't smoked it.
Posted by: terradea42
» RE: I can't believe six in ten haven't smoked it.
Posted by: greenmulberry
» RE: I can't believe six in ten haven't smoked it.
Posted by: willymack
» Look at the Last Line of the Article: 4 out of ten
Posted by: ATH
» Concerning Statistics
Posted by: ATH
» RE: I can't believe six in ten haven't smoked it.
Posted by: mikeblack
» Maybe only four out of ten
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» I agree--that number is probably closer to 5 out of 10
Posted by: ATH
» I like the hemp protein powder but until the drug screening tests are abolished,
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: soulrebeljc on Apr 28, 2009 1:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They simply can't allow us that much freedom, and not this kind of freedom either - freedom to think, to love, to understand, to empathize and connect. It would be the end of them, and they know it.
So don't look for Obama to do much about this. He keeps his populist tone by these faux acknowledgements that perhaps something might need to change in regard to our drug laws and sentencing. But it's a sham, I say this because he's yet to show he's one of We the People, not in a meaningful way anyway. Token gestures to keep us at arm's length, but still within reach if he needs something.
Bush had the gay-marriage and the abortion issues for his religious 'base'...
'Is he? Will he? Prison for abortion doctors? Criminalize fags? Well, he might, let's keep on behind this cowboy.'
For Obama it might be pot legalization. So don't count on change, but rather count on this kind of article to be written for at least four years.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Freedom
Posted by: mikeblack
» mikeblack: you're right but it's because America is a stupid place
Posted by: NYmediator
» RE: Freedom
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Freedom
Posted by: pothead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: greenferret on Apr 28, 2009 2:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell Obama and your elected representatives that it's time to legalize and regulate marijuana.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I work at the jail... we need prisoners!!!!!!
Posted by: TrollTreason
» RE: Tell Obama to stop jailing marijuana users
Posted by: willymack
» Victimless Crime is an oxymoron.
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bonapartist on Apr 28, 2009 2:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Having in mind...
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Zxyler on Apr 28, 2009 3:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm for Legalization, but You are Wrong about Drug Barons.
Posted by: ATH
» Actually they are not wrong..
Posted by: MaudDib
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 28, 2009 5:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Congress needs to...
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: This seems off topic, but it's not, it is more media bashing
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Congress needs to...
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Hemp is not pot!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Hemp is not pot!
Posted by: Tweck9
» RE: Hemp is not pot!
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Hemp is not pot yet they are the same!
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Hemp is not pot!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Hemp is.......
Posted by: dasq
» no, you are confusing people...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» No, it's my fault that I mixed up the two in my absentmindedness.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Sorry. I was a bit absentminded at the time of the post.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» See Hemp4Fuel.com a great site, lots of info...
Posted by: TJColatrella
» RE: See Hemp4Fuel.com a great site, lots of info...
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Apr 28, 2009 5:41 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...all we really know thus far is that President Obama is reluctant to spend political capital early in his term on marijuana issues.
There are enough good reasons to rethink our nation’s approach to marijuana that we remain hopeful...
I agree, but hopeful isn't good enough for me. My basic civil rights rights are being grossly violated.
I had an interesting conversation with school staff yesterday. Apparently there is a whole smorgas board of federal (unconstitutional) laws governing marijuana use on campus.
I assured him I was not interested in breaking laws, just in standing up for my rights. We were discussing "inciting to violence" as a potential complaint against me wearing a pot leaf t-shirt.
Pretty flimsy.
Honestly, I hadn't thought about federal pot laws on college campuses much. I told him the laws were unconstitutional. They were against my religion. He said my timing was good.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "inciting to violence?!?!?"
Posted by: NYmediator
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TrollTreason on Apr 28, 2009 6:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: it would destroy their poisonous monopolies
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: it would destroy their poisonous monopolies
Posted by: TrollTreason
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Apr 28, 2009 6:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wrote about it here: Marijuana Legalization is "On the table"
S-714 S-714 tally sheet of senators thus far co-sponsoring the bill.
Congress needs to hear from us to move this bill forward. Contact your U.S. senators and demand that they support S-714.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Webb's heart may be in the right place but
Posted by: NYmediator
» Thanks but
Posted by: aahpat
» Thanks aahpat for the Senate bills info.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Thanks aahpat for the Senate bills info.
Posted by: aussidawg
» If true, wow
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: If true, wow
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Thanks aahpat for the Senate bills info.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Too true
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Apr 28, 2009 6:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May 2, 2009
PhillyNORML - 2009 Global Cannabis March
The 2009 Global Cannabis March, or Philadelphia Cannabis Festival, will be taking place on Saturday May 2, 2009. The event is still being planned, so more information will be posted as it becomes available. The GCM is an annual event that brings out hundreds of supporters, patients, and onlookers. It's an excellent opportunity to show just how popular legalization is, and to have a lot of fun. In 2008 we had our biggest one yet with over 400 people. This year we hope to top 1,000. Check back often for updates!
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Meet at Broad St. and South St. at 3:30 - 4:00pm
March towards Headhouse Square at 4:20pm
Arrive at Headhouse Square by 5:20pm
Speeches - done by 6:30pm
It is more than a mile trek end to end for the march. Parking in between the locations will reduce walking requirements.
The more people our politicians see are willing to get out in the streets and demand drug policy reform the more willing the politicians are to consider reform. If you support drug policy reform please consider adding your body to the numbers of Americans participating in this march and rally. More participants means more message.
IF THEY DON'T HEAR IT FROM US THEY WON'T HEAR IT!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Apr 28, 2009 7:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as I know virtually all white collar and many blue collar employers requires a standard drug screen for new hires (random drug tests are a different story). It seems to me that even under currently law someone could be using legal medical marijuana in their state, but be denied employment due to failed drug screening.
Can they disclose their use and does the employer have to then hire them anyway?(since the drug test is usually the last step in the hiring process) Wouldn't that violate the right to keep medical information private from employers?
This doesn't even get to the question of states where possession/personal use is legal. Could an employer similarly screen for tobacco and deny employment on that basis? I had assumed that employment drug screens were based on criminality of the substance, but perhaps that is incorrect.
Sorry - lots of questions and I am being lazy by asking on here instead of doing my own research, but thought folks might have the info off the top of their heads.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Question about drug testing for employment
Posted by: rsteeb
» RE: Question about drug testing for employment
Posted by: greenmulberry
» Maybe so
Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Maybe so
Posted by: ronaldravin
» And you are a cliche
Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Maybe so
Posted by: greenmulberry
» RE: Question about drug testing for employment
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Question about drug testing for employment Take them to court!
Posted by: photon's feather
» Tobacco
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey
» RE: Question about drug testing for employment
Posted by: Madam Hatter
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Apr 28, 2009 8:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be one thing if it were killing people on a regular basis - like nicotine and alcohol - but I'm not aware of it being the cause of one death in all recorded human history!
I haven't smoked grass in over thirty years. Quite frankly it gives me severe anxiety attacks. But for most people it has a calming, even medicinal effect. It's high time (pun intended) it were made commercially available.
To quote the great David Peel:
"Have a marijuana".
"The Rant"
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Isn't it amazing?
Posted by: robert.noll
» Tom "Happy Mothers Day" and "Up against the wall MFer"
Posted by: hardwroc
» RE: Tom "Happy Mothers Day" and "Up against the wall MFer"
Posted by: mtatasmith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mikeblack on Apr 28, 2009 8:29 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a sad fact, but that's the mindset in America. It does not matter how many studies you trot out showing pot is pretty much harmless in comparison to cigarettes & alcohol, or how many polls you can show people showing a lot of police officers think busting pot smokers is a total waste of everybody's time. The public at large, just as they have a knee-jerk negative reaction to gay marriage, have a automatic knee-jerk reaction of "OMG MY 3 YEAR OLD WILL HAVE A ONE HITTER AT THE DAY CARE AND THIS MEANS CRACK IS GOING TO BE LEGALIZED SOON!" Let's face it, most people aren't very smart. I gave up faith in the American public at large a long time ago.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Pot Legalization More Favorable than Congress
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Pot Legalization - It's a vicious circle ...
Posted by: stellabloo
» Then again, even amongst conservatives, there's a growing split on the drug war.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Apr 28, 2009 8:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ab390 on Apr 28, 2009 8:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on Apr 28, 2009 9:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rimchamp77 on Apr 28, 2009 9:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NotJesus on Apr 28, 2009 9:56 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. The uninformed,
2. The just plain stupid,
3. Those profiting from drugs illegal status, and
4. Politicians (the all of the above answer).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Apr 28, 2009 10:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like Obama, I did my time as a community organizer. People in low to moderate income neighborhoods, at least in the eighties, felt they were besieged by drug sellers and drug users. They felt that their children were highly at risk of falling to drug addiction.
The people didn't distinguish between marijuana, crack or any other drugs. They tended to want more community policing against drug activity.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's how it was. Honestly, it's been quite a while since I've been in the field, knocking on doors, listening to peoples concerns. Then as now, I'd prefer to suggest that drug laws discriminate against people of color, and it is latino and african american communities that provide the most prison "customers".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Another argument, ‘Legalization, For The Children’
Posted by: aahpat
» the reason these people didn't/don't distinguish between drugs...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: the reason these people didn't/don't distinguish between drugs...
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: the reason these people didn't/don't distinguish between drugs...
Posted by: aussidawg
» I believe that this is what happened in CA when attempts to legalize hemp farming were under attack.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» A refinement...
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Debunking the 'for the children' myth
Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Debunking the 'for the children' myth
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» no confusion
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picket on Apr 28, 2009 10:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John P Walters..The Wall Street Journal 4/25/09 "To Legalize or Not"
What is the treatment for MJ addiction $5,000 to take the 12 step program?
Hello.. MJ is not physically addictive!!!
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices". Voltaire
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The first drug czar, who coined the term "drug czar"
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: x Drug CZAR speaks... Still paid to Lie????
Posted by: doneman2000
Comments are closed-
Posted by: robert.noll on Apr 28, 2009 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Juries
Posted by: NotJesus
» RE: Thanks
Posted by: robert.noll
» RE: Juries
Posted by: hedgewytch
» RE: Juries
Posted by: robert.noll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Xynyx on Apr 28, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do, however, favor legalization. Strongly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Apr 28, 2009 12:45 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
b) this is a sting operation...the big catch is that it is up to the DEA to determine whether or not a given vendor is in compliance with state laws...the sting is aimed at those vendors who are naive enough not to see through the catch...
nor do i believe that there has been a "tidal shift" on public opinions towards marijuana either ..other polls which do not broach the subject of marijuana nevertheless show persistent strong majority support for core fascist positions such as torture (gallup.. CAP(PDF))...in this broader context..it is difficult to imagine that very many ppl have changed their minds wrt marijuana...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leafsong1 on Apr 28, 2009 1:05 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: More cluelessness
Posted by: pothead
» Dimbulb, they ARE reality for FOUR YEARS, get used to it.
Posted by: hardwroc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TJColatrella on Apr 28, 2009 1:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go to Hemp4Fuel.com and read see the Why Hemp section too...
We could reduce food prices by replacing King Corn with Industrial Hemp and it renews every 4 months, it would give us cellulose ethanol and bio diesel from the seeds not to mention a lot of other products...including killer guitar speakers...
Also it would create a lot of good jobs both growing and refining or distilling it..
Real Green Jobs..!
Grow Here-Grow Now...!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Apr 28, 2009 2:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the drug reform organizations don't want to engage in public demonstrations against the drug war. Students for a Sensible Drug Policy and NORML are doing some at least.
May 2, 2009
PhillyNORML - 2009 Global Cannabis March
The 2009 Global Cannabis March, or Philadelphia Cannabis Festival, will be taking place on Saturday May 2, 2009. The event is still being planned, so more information will be posted as it becomes available. The GCM is an annual event that brings out hundreds of supporters, patients, and onlookers. It's an excellent opportunity to show just how popular legalization is, and to have a lot of fun. In 2008 we had our biggest one yet with over 400 people. This year we hope to top 1,000. Check back often for updates!
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Meet at Broad St. and South St. at 3:30 - 4:00pm
March towards Headhouse Square at 4:20pm
Arrive at Headhouse Square by 5:20pm
Speeches - done by 6:30pm
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bluebama II on Apr 28, 2009 5:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Apr 28, 2009 5:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That choice being; "Is THIS worth imprisoning Americans"?
Posted by: hardwroc
» RE: New Liberal Congress Will Give Us A Choice.
Posted by: pkay
Comments are closed-
Posted by: caru on Apr 28, 2009 7:14 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ALL USE IS MEDICINAL ALL USE IS SPIRITUAL
Posted by: paganpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ross Wolf on Apr 29, 2009 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Patriot Act's mention of incidental criminal networks-opened the door for police under the Act’s anti-terrorism provisions to broadly use wiretaps, spy on and arrest U.S. Citizens for alleged ordinary crimes.
The “Act” defines supporting "terrorist activity” as any criminal activity that "participates" in "World Markets" that terrorist may use or depend on for their support. Anyone distributing illegal-drugs could be charged with supporting a “Criminal Market” that terrorists use—based on the premise both criminals and terrorists use the same world networks and organizations to "Market" illegal-drugs; and have interests in criminal activity." That criminal/terrorist-activity link by the Patriot Act is—logically flawed when you consider a common car thief could be charged with supporting terrorism by selling a stolen car on a "criminal market" a terrorist used—among many non-terrorists. Such flawed logic could as easily be used by government to charge a “common criminal’s illegal activity” supported a lawful “Market” terrorists are dependent on for support.
Brilliantly the “Patriot Act” spins full circle to include all commerce as being “One Market” to charge “common criminals” with supporting terrorists: brilliant because all legal and illegal “markets” are linked at some point by commerce. While there are “narrow illegal-markets” where prosecutions may be justified, for example Americans fronting for NARCO-drug-gangs to buy or supply guns, Americans should be careful U.S. Government does not expand this “Market” concept similar to (RICO) to be all inclusive of commerce.
U.S. Government before tried to merge lawful and unlawful commerce to forfeit innocent owners’ property. You may read that “Government Concept” in United States v. 92 Buena Vista Ave. (91-781), 507 U.S. 111 (1993) at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-781.ZS.html
U.S. Police using the Patriot Act’s low probable cause requirement can too easily wiretap and spy on innocent U.S. Citizens they believe might be involved in ordinary crime. Congress should let provisions of the Patriot Act due to Sunset in December 2009, EXPIRE.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: paganpat on Apr 30, 2009 10:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» nice try troll
Posted by: hardwroc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jpeck.1 on May 2, 2009 1:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gabe Ronimo
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pkay on May 3, 2009 2:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- Isn't it odd that there is a prohibition on almost EVERYTHING except ALCOHOL? And there's EVEN a MINI-Prohibition on IT! ie. 18 yrs to 21 yrs (drinking age). I've often said that could change if enough young people petitioned & got it on the ballot.
In modern times both Budwieser & ALL the pharmacutical companies don't want Cannabis legal. So, until you all (in article above) can afford bigger & better LOBBYISTs you're probably out of luck. - Though there is a groundswell & many states are passing de-criminalization.
Finally, I recently heard how each year Southern California farmers are really struggling to keep their fields irrigated - due to drought & it gets worse with each year. WOULDN'T Cannabis be a GREAT crop for these farmers? Don't need a lot of water!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obivious Corp/Power concerns: Oligarchy whatever
Posted by: jpeck.1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: urtheiz on May 5, 2009 4:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean legalizing reefer would be a double money maker for OUR country. the $ saved from it's prohibition (but cops would really have to work for they paycheck then) and the $ from taxing it. So why don't they (the elected officals) listen to the people and do it? Because the people who vote don't make a difference to the goverment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
NYC Police Accused of 'Anal Assault' Over Marijuana Use
Do Employers Really Need to Give Drug Tests for Pot?
False Claims on Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Lead to Credibility Gap for Prosecutors




