COMMENTS: 289
The War on Weed: Marijuana Is Basically Harmless -- The Monumentally Stupid Drug War Is Not
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Drugs headlines via email.
You might remember Robert McNamara's stunning mea culpa, delivered a quarter century after his Vietnam War policies sent some 50,000 Americans (and even more horrendous numbers of Vietnamese) to their deaths in that disastrous war. In his 1995 memoir, the man who had been a cold, calculating secretary of defense for both Kennedy and Johnson belatedly confessed that he and other top officials had long known that the war was an unwinnable, ideologically driven mistake. "We were wrong," he wrote, almost tearfully begging in print for public forgiveness. "We were terribly wrong."
Yes, they were, and so are today's leaders (from the White House to nearly all local governments), who are keeping us mired in the longest, most costly, and most futile war in U.S. history: the drug war. As one adamant opponent of this ongoing madness put it, "I cannot help but wonder how many more lives, and how much more money, will be wasted before another Robert McNamara admits what is plain for all to see: the War on Drugs is a failure. Americans are paying too high a price in lives and liberty for a failing War on Drugs, about which our leaders have lost all sense of proportion."
That was no ex-hippie stoner expressing himself through a haze of herbal smoke. It was America's "Uncle Walter," the journalistic icon Walter Cronkite, calling earlier this year for a new truthfulness and sanity in American drug policy.
The drug war is rife with major failures and absurdities, including the rise of a vast, murderous narco-state within Mexico, caused by U.S. consumer demand for drugs outlawed by our government; Plan Colombia, a secretive, multibillion-dollar U.S. military operation started by Bill Clinton in 2000 to eradicate coca production in that country, which now produces 15% more coca than it did before the plan was launched; the racist and grossly unjust sentencing disparity, established by lawmakers in the 1980s, between crack-cocaine users (mostly black) and powder snorters (mostly white); and the ridiculous refusal by pious federal authorities to allow our farmers to grow hemp--a useful, profitable, sustainable, and historic crop (see Lowdown, May 1999).
Here we focus on one particular piece of policy insanity that has afflicted our country for nearly 100 years and was foisted on us by political demagogues, power-hungry police agencies, fire-breathing preachers, fear-mongering media moguls, self-appointed moralists, and other forces of ignorance and arrogance. Thanks to them, America is mired in--get this--a war on a weed. Marijuana is the foe, and after a century of battle, the weed is winning!
A painful price
In 1914, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst mounted a yellow-journalism crusade to demonize the entire genus of cannabis plants. Why? To sell newspapers, of course, but also because he was heavily invested in wood-pulp newsprint, and he wanted to shut down competition from paper made from hemp--a species of cannabis that is a distant cousin to marijuana but produces no high. Hearst simply lumped hemp and marijuana together as the devil's own product, and he was not subtle about generating public fear of all things cannabis. As reported in the August issue of Mother Jones magazine, Hearst's papers ran articles about "reefer-crazed blacks raping white women and playing 'voodoo satanic' jazz music."
Actually, marijuana was largely unknown in America at the time and little used, but its exotic name and unfamiliarity made it an easy target for fearmongers. The next wave of demonization came in 1936 with the release of an exploitation film classic, Reefer Madness. It was originally produced by a church group to warn parents to keep their children in check, lest they smoke pot--a horror that, as the film showed, would drive kids to rape, manslaughter, insanity, and suicide.
Then Congress enthusiastically climbed aboard the anti-pot political bandwagon, passing a law that effectively banned the production, sale, and consumption of marijuana. Signed by FDR on August 2, 1937, this federal prohibition remains in effect today. Although it has been as ineffectual as Prohibition, the 1919-1933 experiment to stop people from consuming "intoxicating liquors," this ban continues, despite its staggering cost and dumfounding destructiveness. Consider a few facts about America's weed war:
Stay up to date with the latest Drugs headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 23, 2009 12:33 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh wow, three whole paragraphs before we bash Hippies
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Oh wow, three whole paragraphs before we bash Hippies
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: who's peeking out?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Oh wow, three whole paragraphs before we bash Hippies
Posted by: poetrylark
» RE: your mixed feelings are no reason to discriminate against me and my religion
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: fuck you asshole, you are in a conspiracy to commit torture and ethnic cleansing
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» you've bought in
Posted by: kittybrat
» poetrylark
Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: Oh wow, three whole paragraphs before we bash Hippies
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Oh wow, STILL SLOW LEARNERS, IN DENIAL, RE-HASHING THE OLD MYTHS.
Posted by: blurider
» You might want to read the article, not just the headline
Posted by: D'Glenn
» You are SO wrong! Hardly worth replying...
Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: The Picture (Hot Burning Overdose Paper Again)
Posted by: tokerdesigner
» Sister Lauren, are you Irony-Impared?
Posted by: LightningJoe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bornxeyed on Nov 23, 2009 1:10 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: This just in ...
Posted by: Nheduanna
» RE: This just in ...
Posted by: Nheduanna
» RE: email and password
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: This just in ... High -larious!
Posted by: sasquuatch55
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 23, 2009 1:14 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A number of years ago in California a study of erratic drivers (testing all with a breathalyzer to determine alcohol intoxication and a radio immune assay test to determine marijuana intoxication) showed that the majority were drunk on marijuana. About a third were drunk on alcohol. About 10% were drunk on both—and around 10% were just lousy drivers!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: got a link for that?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» He doesn't have a link because he is full of shit.
Posted by: thedevil666
» RE: You got that right...
Posted by: jimidee
» What a load of BS
Posted by: thornwolf
» RE: the evidence is in.
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: you are the type of plant that needs to be eradicated
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» What damage?
Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: What damage?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: DAMAGE?-PROOF? - You got nothin'!!
Posted by: blurider
» RE: tommy, you're both wrong about 'erratic drivers'! There's NO, real, evidence of impairment!!
Posted by: blurider
» RE: tommy, you're both wrong about 'erratic drivers'! There's NO, real, evidence of impairment!!
Posted by: 3rdI
» RE: What damage? Exactly...
Posted by: jimidee
» Nothing is ever completely harmless
Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Nothing is ever completely harmless
Posted by: hughesrg
» RE: Look at all the evidence
Posted by: MT512
» RE: Look at all the evidence
Posted by: mtnprivy
» RE: Look at all the evidence
Posted by: MT512
» You are a fucking liar!
Posted by: Stoney 12+1
» RE: You are a fucking liar!
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» What a fucking retard.
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» Way to back up your source less allegations Prof, after 16 challenges
Posted by: hardwroc
» RE: Look at all the evidence
Posted by: DaTruth
» Ok, what's your point? We know driving high won't be legalized..
Posted by: xmvince
» RE: Ok, what's your point? We know driving high won't be legalized..
Posted by: DaTruth
» I've seen the evidence
Posted by: jaylindberg@hotmail.com
» Nope
Posted by: zowie
» RE: Look at all the evidence
Posted by: stacyhinjosa
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Nov 23, 2009 1:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Isn't it about money?
Posted by: Ahimsa
» Money is control
Posted by: xmvince
» RE: Money is control
Posted by: belteshazzar
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lese Majeste on Nov 23, 2009 2:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A massively funded government goon squad, the DEA, is here to stay.
The War on Drugs laid the foundation for the stripping away of our liberties, which really went into high gear after 9/11.
So here's the lesson kids. Get a business degree and a job on Wall Street.
Start up a bank and loot hundreds of billions, then walk away and let the taxpayers clean up the mess while you enjoy the good life.
But dammit, we'd better not catch you smoking some dope or we'll toss your ass in jail.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's not a 'War on Drugs,' but a 'War on Civil Liberties'
Posted by: Richardsievert
» RE: It's not a 'War on Drugs,' but a 'War on Civil Liberties'
Posted by: CharlesRoland
» RE: It's not a 'War on Drugs,' but a 'War on Civil Liberties'
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: It's not a 'War on Drugs,' but a 'War on Civil Liberties'
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE:ASON ANYONE WOULD 'desire to run every aspect of our lives' is PROFITS!!
Posted by: blurider
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RICHARD RALPH ROEHL on Nov 23, 2009 3:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing that some people continue to abandon common sense for the $ake of obdurate partisan politics and outdated belief systems born in the foul bowels of fear and ignorance. The vicious war on drrrugs has destroyed or disenfranchised the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of Amerikans in the so called land of the free and home of the brave.
Truth be told, we the people... live in a capitalist/fascist nation $tate, a cruel corp-rat controlled plutocrazy called the UNITED $TATES OF PERPETUAL WAR PROFITEERING.
If you disagree with the criticism expressed herein, then YOU are one of the EWE folks... and EWE thinking folks are either blind, or they're bending over in willful ignorance for der glorious dogmesses of the $tatus quo!
True Americans prefer inhaling to the Chief... in lieu of in-Heiling! the Chief. So... let me ask! Are you a YOU... or one of the EWEs? Eh?
Be sure and spell my name correct-lie for the fascist fatherland files in the offices Homeland $ecurity.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Future History
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Future History
Posted by: joebanana
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Nov 23, 2009 3:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what a disgusting waste of taxpayers money...
very informative article that gives us the stats most publications never provide... and the MSM people wonder why they're loosing money and blame everyone but themselves for their decline... all i can say in responce is bullshit and outright lies results in lower public interest and thusly lower profits and there own decline...
I wonder how rolling stone and high times magazines are doing?
people aren't stupid, they see whats obvious and have been questioning the laws since Nixon's Presidency.
what is seriously wrong is how this prohibition funds all the gangsters and terrorists globally for HUGE non-taxed profits that they are putting to use against American interests... this is our very own money that we consumers spend are going to support murder and mayhem globally
time to legalize
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: robchapman on Nov 23, 2009 3:41 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The smoke is carcinogenic and THC over-use damages the brain and the other organs.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: bullshit, you are so full of it
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» T.H.C. does not damage organs
Posted by: thedevil666
» RE: T.H.C. does not damage organs
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: T.H.C. does not damage organs
Posted by: Liz45
» Stupid Comment.
Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx
» Weed is Not as Harmful as a Felony Conviction
Posted by: LHB
» RE: Weed is not harmless
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Weed is not harmless
Posted by: buceamos
» even if it did, that is not the point
Posted by: Grandma Crabby
» No one has ever overdosed on weed!
Posted by: clthompson
» RE: WHAT CAN I ADD?? OH!! I know!!
Posted by: blurider
» Neither is plain old air if you want to mince words, dumbass.
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» And you learned these facts from ???? FOX Newz ? DICK Cheney?
Posted by: hardwroc
» RE: Weed is not harmless
Posted by: xmvince
» another cop?
Posted by: zowie
» RE: Weed is not harmless
Posted by: kennykimmy
» RE: Marijuana may help prevent Alzheimer's disease
Posted by: kettleblack
» RE: Marijuana may help prevent Alzheimer's disease
Posted by: kettleblack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx on Nov 23, 2009 4:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The propaganda is very well fionanced and Republicans control the frame and spin on what "debate" we actually have in this country.
I am aware there is more and better debate locally in the West, but here in the South it is still 1937.
It is not sufficient to put on a bow-tie and an expensive suit, cut your hair and make beautiful charts of facts and statistics. Raw data is emotionless and the "arguments" against reform are entirely emotional. Hysteria, to be exact.
Facts do not get past people's hysteria and fear about the "Evil Weed". It is essential that people be confronted and harangued for their backwardsness.
Tehre is no salient reason that canabis should ever have been made illegal except as a means to eliminate the hemp industry, even though the early writings about limiting cannabis clearly specified that hemp was separate. That all changed after WWII and I advise people to not waste time discussing "why" cannabis was initially banned. It has almost no bearing on why it REMAINS so demonized and illegal after 40 years of efforts to fix the problem.
It boils down to Republicans, and the spineless Democrats who cave into them every time the bastards want something. Republicans are all about fearmongering and the have fearmongered maijuana for 40-some years, having linked it to "hippies" and "anti-war protesters".
It is essential to be blunt and direct and harshly denigrate people who still buy into the tripe we have heard for our entire lives.
Blow it off with force. Don't be polite.
Use descriptive terms like "horseshit". Marijuana prohibition is based on horseshit, not anything defensible.
We should be buying herb at convenience stores, grocery stores and in specialty shops just like tobacco and alcohol.
Anything less is horseshit.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It is important that "civility" be tossed out
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» the irony is...
Posted by: permanentilt
» Boils down to two words...
Posted by: dougontrack
» RE: Boils down to two words...
Posted by: linecrosser
» "Your" is a possessive pronoun, which means
Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: It is important that "civility" be tossed out
Posted by: MT512
» Fuckin A!!!!
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» Right on brother
Posted by: xmvince
» Don't Bogart that joint, my friend.....
Posted by: bwaren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fmcevoy on Nov 23, 2009 4:38 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Problems with Weed
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Problems with Weed
Posted by: desertrose
» Nasty addiction? In what way, exactly?
Posted by: thornwolf
» RE: 'Nasty' = they're thinking for themselves
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: No you haven't
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Problems with Weed
Posted by: hughesrg
» It is NOT addictive ! FACT ! But, people do find it attactive
Posted by: hardwroc
» It is a terrible addiction!
Posted by: bornxeyed
» It is a terrible addiction! Yup, just awful!
Posted by: Grandma Crabby
» Why try and treat an addiction that benefits the user?
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grmartin on Nov 23, 2009 4:53 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: heide on Nov 23, 2009 4:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the white man calls it a weed only because no matter what he does do destroy she comes back,,,,,,,,,,you cannot destroy what the god/dess has blessed........the truth is coming out,,lies exposed
STOP THE LIES FREE THE MEDCICNE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: STOP THE LIES - FREE THE MEDCICNE
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: STOP THE LIES - FREE THE MEDCICNE
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: STOP THE LIES - FREE THE MEDCICNE
Posted by: heide
» RE: STOP THE LIES - FREE THE MEDICINE ....grrrrrrrrr
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: STOP THE LIES - FREE THE MEDICINE ....grrrrrrrrr
Posted by: heide
» Hmmmm
Posted by: xmvince
» RE: Hmmmm
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Hmmmm
Posted by: heide
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sopomike on Nov 23, 2009 4:58 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: only the dead
Posted by: linecrosser
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 23, 2009 5:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a list of ten famous people who died as a result of nicotine abuse:
Humphrey Bogart
Edward R. Murrow
Nat King Cole
George Harrison
John Huston
Noel Coward
Betty Grable
Walt Disney
Gary Cooper
Peter Jennings
Here is another list. Ten famous people who died from alcoholism:
Billie Holiday
Jack Kerouac
Truman Capote
Lorenz Hart
Veronica Lake
Bix Beiderbecke
Montgomery Clift
Dylan Thomas
John Barrymore
Errol Flynn
Now I ask you: name for me one celbraty who has died from too much grass.
I'm waiting.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why are we still having this conversation?
Posted by: CharlesRoland
» RE: Why are we still having this conversation?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE:BOB MARLEY Why are we still having this conversation?
Posted by: whealeydj
» RE: speaking of pain
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bondwooley on Nov 23, 2009 5:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meth Rats
(satire)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thornwolf on Nov 23, 2009 5:31 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: A Conspiracy Trifecta of money AND religion
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» How About "Man Shooterin' Kennedydead" Sinatra?
Posted by: tokerdesigner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GatoPreto on Nov 23, 2009 5:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I reckon cops would rather be going after stoners than coked-up narco-traffickers armed to the teeth.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Prohibition is good for law enforcement
Posted by: Richardsievert
» What if they used the money going to the DEA to catch Wall Street criminals?
Posted by: Lese Majeste
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Nov 23, 2009 5:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia authored S-714 to create a national criminal justice commission to look into all aspects of the use of America's criminal justice system. Sen. Webb has even indicated that marijuana legalization is "On the table".
Thus far 35 senators have signed on to Sen. Webb's S-714 as co-sponsors. S-714 tally sheet of senators thus far co-sponsoring the bill. The bill needs all the support it can get because drug war supporters have offered a counter bill in the House of Representative.
H.R. 2943 To eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use, and for other purposes. Please consider writing to your representative and asking that they support this bill.
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: Carol Burns on Nov 23, 2009 6:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marijuana prohibition ruins lives and erodes civil liberties, not to mention the loss of hemp as a much cleaner, greener alternative to the production of paper products from trees.
Marijuana has been endorsed by the American College of Physicians for its known medicinal value in the management of pain and treatment of glaucoma.
Keep the pressure on President Obama to change the outrageous prohibition of marijuana.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 23, 2009 6:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This should be argument enough for decriminalizing it. Whether or not it harms our health should not be cause for making it illegal; if it were then tobacco possession would be punished even more severely and none of us could legally drive automobiles or use cell phones.
Even more crazy, however, it the fact that industrial hemp cannot be grown in this country out of the concern that it looks too much like the marijuana plant. We can buy imported hemp products, but our farmers cannot grow this wonderful crop that can produce fiber for clothing as well as food for eating and fuel for burning. This is truly insane.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» TWINKIES!!!
Posted by: permanentilt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 23, 2009 6:19 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]
» Healthcare is costing US our wealth, health and industry
Posted by: hardwroc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alicelillie on Nov 23, 2009 6:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact, everything the government is doing is about that. The wars, for instance. Also the way they are resisting the move in Congress to audit the fed.
Speaking of the Fed and monetary policy (which is *blatantly* an exercise in government power) see my blog at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Age of Reason on Nov 23, 2009 6:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not bad article, on the whole (some details are inaccurate) but misses the point. No one has EVER died from this drug, and it has apparently anti-carcinogenic effects among other things. But the "illegal" status justifies surveillance and a prison economy and a war. And war is profit. The largest beneficiary of the War on Drugs is the C.I.A. and there has been such conflation between the opiates of the middle east and coca derivatives from South America with cannabis that this too all works to one purpose. And if you haven't figured that out yet, you shall never understand why keeping pot illegal can help keep the world in military and political turmoils. This makes for a good cover, and it controls the masses. Especially the ones who are stoned on either booze, pot, or the myriad "legal" psychotropics.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It is not a mistake...
Posted by: aonghus36
» Yep, a big scam put on by the government
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cannoliamo on Nov 23, 2009 6:56 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: Good luck with that!
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 23, 2009 6:57 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The use of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping emerged during the Prohibition era. Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger whom the government wished to search. It placed taps in the basement of his office building and on wires in the streets near his home. No physical entry into his office or home took place. Olmstead was convicted entirely on the basis of evidence from the wiretaps.
"In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Olmstead argued that the taps were a search conducted without a warrant and without probable cause, and that the evidence seized against him should have been excluded because it was illegally gathered. He also argued that his Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against himself was violated.
"By a 5-4 vote, the Court rejected his arguments and upheld the government's power to wiretap without limit and without any Fourth Amendment restrictions, on the grounds that no actual physical intrusion had taken place.
"Olmstead's Fifth Amendment claim was also dismissed on the grounds that he had not been compelled to talk on the telephone, but had done so voluntarily. Thus the Court upheld the government's power to do by trickery and surreptitious means what it was not permitted to do honestly and openly. It wasn't until 1967, in a similar case involving gambling, that the Court overruled the Olmstead decision by an 8-1 margin and recognized that the Fourth Amendment applied to wiretapping and electronic surveillance.
"Interestingly, these cases arose in the context of crimes like bootlegging and gambling. During the past twenty years, the majority of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping by both state and federal officials has been in cases involving drug dealing and gambling.
"Serious crimes of violence, such as homicide, assault, rape, robbery, and burglary, are rarely the target of electronic eavesdropping, which is not normally a useful tool in such cases.
"From the beginning, when wiretapping was virtually invented to enforce laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol, to the late 1960s, when gambling was a major target, to the present, when the use and sale of drugs other than alcohol are the main target, these intrusive devices have been used mostly to enforce laws aimed at punishing and proscribing personal conduct that society deems immoral.
"Because such conduct essentially involves private activities among consenting adults who are all likely to want to keep those activities secret, they are harder to investigate and prosecute than crimes like robbery or burglary, in which an unwilling victim will probably aid any investigation...the invasion of privacy inherent in wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping remains with us as part of the legacy of our attempts to criminalize personal conduct.
"The other major use of electronic eavesdropping has been to punish political dissent. For decades, former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover used wiretaps and other electronic devices to spy on political figures and citizens not yet suspected of having committed a crime. He built vast dossiers on their political activities and personal lives. Special units of local police called 'Red Squads' did the same."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MaxT on Nov 23, 2009 7:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, not *all* but some key issues ? Nothing is black and white... but neither are the harmless pot smokers in labor camp jails.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Public Health Message about War On Drugs ?
Posted by: MT512
Comments are closed-
Posted by: darkmark on Nov 23, 2009 7:50 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i often deride the idea that the usofa is the land of the brave. i think it is. its just that the ones that sing that tune are always on the wrong side of brave. its like most of our political class go to church. is that The Church of the Hypocrite In All Things? why yes it is. shouldn't it be illegal to take bribes while in public office and then vote according to the amount of money you've received? see our leaders have no respect for the law either. on our tombstone will be the phrase "humans fiddled while earth burned." no respect for life either. its all part of a whole. illusions and lies that's what we get. we can't last long on that diet. and we won't.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thisizrob on Nov 23, 2009 8:09 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was talking to a young Lady one day and asked her,She was a User, I had just heard that this wonderful weed had some not so good points. They reckoned that it was a mind changing drug and therefore dangerous.
One person maintained that the altering process could be rather scary. You could be driving along the road and suddenly you could not be sure if you were actually only doing the speed limit as ones perceptions were slowed down. On the other hand, one could be travelling quite fast and it would appear to be quite slow.
The Lady's comment sort of blew me away when she said, "The real scary thing is that speed perception can change rather quickly and one is never sure if they are moving fast of slow
Another friend uses it for his head as he has bipolar and this is the only thing that really eased his pain. I can agree for the product being used for medicinal purposes but this mind bending is really quite scary
The other thing she told me is that NO body who is stoned really can comment on what they perceive their real situation actually is. If they say they can, then its wishful thinking. I don't know, I have never used it, but I can only take the word of a confirmed user who had nothing to gain by sharing information with me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Something funny
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Something funny
Posted by: 3rdI
» RE: NO body who is stoned really can comment on what they perceive their real situation actually is
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Something funny One Trillion funnies...
Posted by: zowie
» RE: Something funny
Posted by: tvaspen
» RE:SPEED PERCEPTION?? FUNNY?? U2 morons had this conversation and the SPEEDOMETER never came up?!?!?
Posted by: blurider
» RE: Something funny
Posted by: hughesrg
» So, you're saying people should'nt smoke and drive ? Really?
Posted by: hardwroc
» LOL, WHAT!?
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Llewellyn on Nov 23, 2009 8:10 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The War on Weed
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: The War on Weed
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» cut & paste
Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: The War on Weed
Posted by: MT512
» RE: The War on Weed
Posted by: aonghus36
» SOOOO... YOU don't even have to smoke it to be paranoid!!
Posted by: blurider
» RE: The War on Weed
Posted by: Ratskii
» Yeah I guess freedom doesn't really matter, right?
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: austex_chris on Nov 23, 2009 9:19 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I just saw Michael Beasley in an interview on Outside the Lines. That guy smokes so much marijuana it affects his speech. Anyone that knows anything about addiction can see that he smokes an insane amount of weed. I wonder how long before it catches up with him?"
Well it finally caught up with him in August, and he went into treatment for marijuana addiction.
I used to work with addicts and almost half of the cases I worked with were people addicted to weed. After a while I used to play a game with some co-workers, if someone called in we used to see how long it took us to determine whether our caller was addicted to weed or alcohol. It rarely took more than three sentences before it was apparent. Alcohol and weed were the drugs of choice for the vast majority of people we worked with.
What I did like about the weed cases was the lack of violence connected with weed smokers. If a someone called us, male or female, and was having an alcohol problem they usually had a violence issue as well. Women alcoholics were a little less violent and tended toward promiscuity, but the alcoholic men almost always hit someone regularly. The weed patients were rarely violent. I cannot recall a case when someone said the smoked a joint then beat their spouse.
The biggest problems with the people I dealt with who had addictions to weed were that if they were young it seemed to slow down their cognitive development. Talking to teenagers was frustrating because you could see their talent just wasting away. Alcoholism was bad, but after a few days of sobriety you could see people really coming back, weed it would take weeks, sometimes months to see a person regain all their mental faculties.
Also, those who suffered from depression seemed to be particularly vulnerable to weed addiction.
Marijuana addiction does not come with the typical physiological withdrawal problems that other drugs, including alcohol, do. BUT, that by no means is a reason to declare that marijuana is safe, it is a drug like any other, whether it is tylenol, codeine, or weed, there are side effects to consider.
After years of working with these people I would never consider smoking weed...ever. I also would never consider drinking alcohol. I am 32 years old and I have never had an alcoholic drink or smoked a joint, purely because of my experience with people who are addicted to these substances.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: you are cruel, ignorant and biased
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: you are cruel, ignorant and biased
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: you are cruel, ignorant and biased
Posted by: tvaspen
» RE: you are cruel, ignorant and biased
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: you are cruel, ignorant and biased
Posted by: tvaspen
» RE: marijana addition
Posted by: Ratskii
» Why put it in pill form?
Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Why put it in pill form?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Marinol (synthetic THC) is responsible for four deaths since 1997
Posted by: kettleblack
» drugs are great
Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: MT512
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: If I ruled the world I would ban alcohol and legalize pot
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: MT512
» If someone has a problem with marijuana he or she already has problems
Posted by: clthompson
» RE: If someone has a problem with marijuana he or she already has problems
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: If someone has a problem with marijuana he or she already has problems
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: If someone has a problem with marijuana he or she already has problems
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: Y'know, lots of experienced users and their friends think you're lying? Y'know why?
Posted by: blurider
» RE: Y'know, lots of experienced users and their friends think you're lying? Y'know why?
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: Y'know, lots of experienced users and their friends think you're lying? Y'know why?
Posted by: richholland
» RE: Y'know, lots of experienced users and their friends think you're lying? Y'know why?
Posted by: austex_chris
» And now YOU, A virgin, are going to share your "wisdom"
Posted by: hardwroc
» austex_chris is a government agent sent here to spread disinformation
Posted by: Valis667
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: bornxeyed
» We are made of drugs you dummy!
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dbaker on Nov 23, 2009 9:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Slavery still exists in North America but is "dressed up pretty", and disguised as the Justice System.
It is the legislated ability of Police Officials, to act regardless of usually applicable rights, where other offences do not give police liberties to suspend constitutional rights as they do to suspected drug offences.
Have you every thought of not electing/ reelecting officials, firing ( police chiefs)as long as the availability of non indigenous narcotics exists.
The sustainable growth of private prisons and the justice system depends on the bodies police provide for processing.
studies have shown that a vast majority of criminal activity is drug induced.
If they did not bring the drugs in themselves, the drugs would not on your street corner.
Your being played for suckers, while a chemical and biological attack is being launched on your country by your own security!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oszATUJ4IRE&feature=related
Dennis Baker
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: dennis baker
Posted by: zowie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: buceamos on Nov 23, 2009 9:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: aahpat on Nov 23, 2009 5:43 AM
I totally agree with aahpat - "If you want it ended then you need to aggressively lobby your representatives in congress."
I just wrote my Senator and House Representative a long email asking that they support:
Sen. Webb's S-714 and Representative Frank's
H.R. 2943.
Everybody here needs to do the same.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: metamind on Nov 23, 2009 9:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This means that we have rights which are NOT specified ( enumerated ) in the Constitution. What might they be? One of them must be the right to "be one with nature" because we ARE nature and cannot be justly separated from it.
Anything which is natural is able to be used by anyone. Any plant can be grown and consumed. We are nature and cannot be separated from it. That's how we know our rights. Rights don't come from government, but from our understanding of our relationship with nature.
End of argument.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Marijuana is already legal ( 9th Amendment argument )
Posted by: MT512
» RE: how about thanking a politician
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: how about thanking a politician
Posted by: MT512
» RE: how about thanking a politician
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 23, 2009 9:30 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: But while politicians
Posted by: zowie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: henderson on Nov 23, 2009 9:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh well, just a dream that Exxon, etc. would turn to hemp and stop demanding that people die for "black gold"......
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Blacktiger on Nov 23, 2009 9:45 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: OleManRiver on Nov 23, 2009 9:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Marijuana, on the other hand, being duration related does its damage over a long period of time. One joint a week will build up the THC in the brain and chronic damage can occur."
Citation needed! What damage?
Another person on this thread claims that cannabis is a carcinogen when the evidence is that it is not. Dr. Fred Gardner, writing in CounterPunch and other venues has presented studies showing that it is NOT a carcinogen.
Meanwhile, given that the article emphasizes the law enforcement aspects of the War On Drugs, one should never forget that Big Pharma gains from the demonization of cannabis, Big Time. Anyone with a green thumb and a little perseverance can grow this medicinal herb, but YOU CAN'T GROW ZOLOFT. Or Paxil. Or other dangerous and debilitating but highly profitable poisons put out by Big Pharma. Opium and coca, both of which also have medicinal and traditional value, are demonized for similar reasons. Legalize these three plants and Big Pharma would lose billions every year and would reduce "health care costs" concominantly
Finally, in the case of cannabis the War On Drugs is really a WAR ON PEOPLE. My younger sister, who died from lung cancer in 2006, lived with that diagnosis for four years, outliving everyone else in her research study group. She found that marijuana eased her pain better than anything else (except total stupor), but because she lived in Ohio her entire regimen had to be kept secret. Except of course to all her friends!
The War On Drugs is but one of the tools in the arsenal of Oppression in our wonderful Patriot Act democracy. (Funny isn't it, how our military dispenses amphetamines to our pilots in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere but if you get caught with one pill you can go to jail... And notice how the rich can get high on any legal mind-altering Big Pharma substitute for the lowly, noble herb.)
What a country.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: OleManRiver
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: OleManRiver
Posted by: MT512
» RE: And when you're in the system, everything is stacked against you to keep you in there.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Nov 23, 2009 9:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cannabis agriculture as a biogenic tool for radiative forcing of the atmosphere is the best available proportionate response to climate change.
Cannabis is the only crop that produces a complete food and a sustainable yield of organic biofuels from the same harvest.
How bad do things have to get before all solutions are considered?
The REAL Question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edZw3hXkGJo
projectpeace's YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/projectpeace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ah, me thinks the "religious" bastards are partially responsible for this war.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beecher on Nov 23, 2009 10:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When arrest records need to be publicized, the few people who are easily available get arrested again. Some of these people are in jail 30 or 40 times a year. Meanwhile the guy in the penthouse suite, the developer sweating over a not payment, the businessman in the house out by the lake, these people are able to afford layers of privacy. It should not be a surprise that some people don't care how they make their money or who they hurt in the process. It should also not surprise anyone that there are some who are well enough connected to call up and get the DEA to surveil a certain portion of the border with the AWACS plane and other resources, so they can move merchandise through undeteced.
It should also not surprise anyone that people get busted because there has been a falling out, or someone has failed to pay bribes, or it is simply time to hang a scapegoat out there.
The War on Drugs has turned into a mechanism to cover the richest participants and enforce against interlopers. Anybody who doesn't already suspect that is the truth, is too naive to bother with. Out in the Texas countryside, there is most likely a plane landing tonight deep in very conservative territory where nobody would dare question it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just Like Prohibition - Who Benefits?
Posted by: zowie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zowie on Nov 23, 2009 10:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't even try to break my door down again.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 23, 2009 10:27 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a message to Congress on August 2, 1977, President Jimmy Carter insisted: "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself."
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Law Judge Francis L. Young wrote on September 8, 1988: "Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
After years of suppression by the government, the truth about medical marijuana is finally coming out. Dr. Tod Mikuriya, former director of marijuana research for the entire federal government, wrote in 1996: "I was hired by the government to provide scientific evidence that marijuana was harmful. As I studied the subject, I began to realize that marijuana was once widely used as a safe and effective medicine. But the government had a different agenda, and I had to resign."
Tobacco kills about 430,700 each year. Alcohol and alcohol-related diseases and injuries kill about 110,000 per year. Secondhand tobacco smoke kills about 50,000 every year. Aspirin and other anti-inflammatory drugs kill 7,600 each year. Cocaine kills about 500 yearly alone, and another 2,500 in combination with another drug. Heroin kills about 400 yearly alone, and another 2,500 in combination with another drug. Adverse reactions to prescription drugs total 32,000 per year, while marijuana kills no one.
A November 4, 2002 Time/CNN Poll found 80 percent of those polled felt marijuana should be legal only for medicinal purposes. 72 percent felt recreational users should get fines rather than jail time, which is essentially decriminalization. The complete legalization of marijuana was favored only by 34 percent of respondents, but this figure is twice as large as it was in 1986. Marijuana is safer than alcohol and tobacco, and our drug laws should reflect this reality.
According to a 2003 Zogby poll, two of every five Americans say “the government should treat marijuana the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children.” Close to 100 million Americans, including over half of those between the ages of 18 and 50, have tried marijuana at least once. Military and police recruiters often have no alternative but to ignore past marijuana use by job seekers.
In 1996, California voters passed a law to regulate medical marijuana within the state. In 2000, voters in California approved an initiative allowing people who are arrested for simple possession of drugs to go through a rehabilitation program rather than through the court process that would result in prison. Since the program began, most agree it has been very successful. It results in less recidivism and is considered cheaper than imprisonment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 23, 2009 10:28 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“It is nonsense that we should be devoting so many law enforcement resources to marijuana," says Posner. "I am skeptical that a society that is so tolerant of alcohol and cigarettes should come down so hard on marijuana use and send people to prison for life without parole.”
Posner is the highest-ranking judge to publicly favor the repeal of marijuana laws. Several judges of the federal district court, a level lower than the appeals court, have made similar calls, including Robert Sweet of New York and James Paine of Florida, both Carter Administration appointees.
New York University law professor Burt Neuborne said it's significant that “one of the leading intellectuals in the judicial system recognizes that the laws don't seem to be working well.”
Posner and other federal judges have complained that sentencing guidelines force them to give unjustly severe prison sentences to relatively minor drug offenders. Says Posner: “Prison terms in America have become appallingly long, especially for conduct that, arguably, should not be criminal at all. Only decriminalization is a sure route to a lower crime rate. It is sad that it appears so far below the horizon of political feasibility.”
Rufus King, a Washington, DC lawyer who has served on the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, calls the drug war, “A worthless crusade.” According to King, drug use is a social problem, not a law enforcement problem. He observes: “Cigarette use is declining through changes in cultural values in the population. Like most smokers and alcoholics, most users of illegal drugs poison themselves because they want to be intoxicated. No human force can do them much good until they want help.” King is optimistic that the current anti-drug hysteria will subside, and responsible and reasonable drug law policies will be adopted.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Nov 23, 2009 10:46 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: for the umpteenth time ..stop beating a dead bird...
Posted by: Richardsievert
Comments are closed-
Posted by: greenferret on Nov 23, 2009 11:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell Obama and your elected representatives that marijuana should be legalized and taxed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Take action to end prohibition
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tokamak on Nov 23, 2009 11:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That said, I've been noticing a disturbing trend on my beloved Alternet recently that is pissing me off so much I had to register just to point it out:
I think we've been infiltrated by conservatives, with the nefarious intention to promote discord and distraction. I don't know if the scheme was cooked up in the Teabagging caucuses (pun fully intended), or was hatched by some right-wing think-tank, but we've got a cancer in our midst, pretending to be the honest views of well-meaning readers.
Cases in point:
ProfBob's comment
--The phrase "drunk on marijuana" is just so wrong it's utterly ridiculous. You know this guy didn't come to Alternet for the intelligent journalism.
robchapman's comment:
--"The smoke is carcinogenic and THC over-use damages the brain and the other organs."
Now this could be a case of legitimate ignorance... Still sounds suspicious to me. Too similar to fmcevoy's comment a little further down.
Notice how the disinformationists never have sources to back their hogwash?
franklyspanking's comment:
--Not really about anything in particular, but is undeniably Teabagish.
thisizrob's comment:
--Something's funny alright! Funny enough to inspire me to write this post. Notice the reference to someone he "knows"... The best and only source of "facts" for the disinformationists: personal experience -- can't check it, can't argue with it.
Llewellyn's comment:
--Could be a legit comment from an anti-pot, otherwise liberal person(do they really exist?)... But anyone who claims cannabis is just for "partying" doesn't really understand the deep insights and spiritual connection many people consume it for. And the "revolution" bit seems Teabagish -- anyone with half a brain realizes a violent revolution, from the Right or Left, is pretty much DOA in our high-tech police state.
austex_chris's comment:
Austin, Texas, Chris? This is a typical disinformationist comment: appeals to personal experience as the only source; claims to speak from a position of experience (drug counselor -- that should alert anyone: he's a Prohibitionist); then he ends with the true mark of a conservative -- speaking about his own "moral" way of living.
Anyone else see a pattern here?
BTW: Sister_Lauren, Tom Degan, xxdr_zombiexx (Hey Doc, still on MJ.com?) -- Keep up the fight! Somebody has to keep repeating the truth, even if only to the wind...
Peace.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: We've been infiltrated
Posted by: sunnywater
» Possibly. But the left is also building a big tent.
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: The best response is to invite legitimate critique and then review it for exploitable flaws.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: We've been infiltrated
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: We've been infiltrated
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: We've been infiltrated
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: We've been infiltrated
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: We've been infiltrated
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: We've been infiltrated
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: We've been infiltrated
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» your point is taken and would also explain all the spam we are seeing throughout the posts
Posted by: Bearzerker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 23, 2009 12:46 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our government spends billions of dollars a year on arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating drug-law violators. Choked courts and prisons, an incarceration rate higher than most other nations in the world, and tax dollars diverted from education and health care are just a few of the costs our current prohibition imposes. There are health costs in drug prohibition. During the prohibition era, some fifty thousand Americans were paralyzed after consuming "jake," an adulterated Jamaican ginger extract. Today we have marijuana made more dangerous by government-sprayed paraquat.
Prohibition did succeed in reducing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related ills ranging from cirrhosis to public drunkenness and employee related absenteeism. But this was due to the effectiveness of the temperance movement in publicizing the dangers of alcohol. The decline in alcohol consumption during those years, like the recent decline in cigarette consumption, had less to do with laws than with changing social attitudes.
During the 1980s, for example, Americans began switching from hard liquor to beer and wine, from high tar-and-nicotine to low tar-and-nicotine cigarettes, and even from caffeinated to decaffeinated sodas, coffees, and teas.
Alcohol prohibition was repealed after just thirteen years while the prohibition of other drugs has continued for over 75 years. Why? Alcohol prohibition struck directly at society's most powerful members. The prohibition of other drugs, by contrast, threatened far fewer Americans with hardly any political power.
Only the prohibition of marijuana, which nearly 100 million Americans have violated since 1965, has come close to approximating the Prohibition era experience, but marijuana smokers consist mostly of young and relatively powerless Americans.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ptah on Nov 23, 2009 12:49 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: profound sense of connection, compassion,introspection and relaxation
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jonestown kool-aid on Nov 23, 2009 12:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to think people would become more open-minded and insightful by partaking in the herb, but I know this isn't the case. Weed simply keeps you what you are- whatever that may be. But the war on drugs is complete and total insanity, and so is drug testing.
As an intersting side note- Last year my neighbors' farm had four (4) pot plants growing in a wooded lot near one of his fields- NOT planted by him (yes, it sounds like bs, but this guy is a Hannity fan, not a Chong fan) It was spotted by the National Guard in one of their many seasonal marijuana eradication fly-overs. When they showed up to "handle the situation" it was basically a commando raid- a dozen fully armed guardsmen in full camo descended on our neighborhood for these 4 fucking plants- my neighbor, oblivious to the fact, was essentially treated like a felon until these dimwits determined he in fact had no clue the plants were there. One incident, $20,000- (they initially told him if found guilty he would have to foot the bill for their little adventure.) BTW- a federal law passed in 1984 gives the Nat'l Guard the right to search & seize property without a warrant so they are used to bypass state & local authorities. This took place in the Northeast, not some draconian drug state like Oklahoma or Utah.
Our tax money is being relentlessly squandered on military activities here and abroad under the guise of "national security"- it will be near impossible to reverse this trend, Ike tried to warn us so many years ago......
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: god bless america........
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» OMFG GREAT IDEA!!!!
Posted by: permanentilt
» RE: OMFG GREAT IDEA!!!!
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: OMFG GREAT IDEA!!!! Let's plant hemp instead of marijuana.
Posted by: kettleblack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Nov 23, 2009 3:02 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Freedom To Get High
Posted by: Ratskii
» RE: The Freedom To Get High
Posted by: richholland
» So lets do the immoral thing and make a boat load of cash?
Posted by: xmvince
» RE: The American Way - If you can get away with it, it's Okay.
Posted by: kettleblack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thymeforhemp on Nov 23, 2009 3:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bob Marley said "a billion man a-sparkin'".
I can't wait to share this link with others. I think 2010 will be remembered as the year of hemp.
Judging by Mr. Obama's recent directive to the Attorney General re: ceasing federal 'medicinal' prosecutions, and the mounting hard scientific research (and patents) with respect to hemp's healing properties and healthy/non-toxic nature, I believe that it is safe to say that we are well on our way to NORMLized civilization once again.
Save the planet; sow a seed.
The Rick Simpson / Pine Ridge stories (and much more info) can be viewed at:
linked text =http://www.thymeforhemp.viviti.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Try Basil, Marjoram, Oregano, Sage (Salvia), Savory, Thyme in a screened single-toke utensil
Posted by: tokerdesigner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 23, 2009 3:37 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hemp has many economic uses. It contains the longest fiber in the plant kingdom and is one of the strongest and most durable. It can be used for commercial and industrial applications, including insulation, textiles, clothing, and rope. The fiber and pulp can be used to manufacture nondeteriorating paper using a relatively pollution-free process. The plant can also be used for biomass applications. Its seeds yield oil similar to linseed, which can be used in many commercial and industrial applications. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the seeds have been used for human consumption.
"Hemp. It's marijuana's nonspyschoactive sister," writes Ed Rosenthal. "You couldn't get a buzz if you smoked a bale of hemp, but it's still illegal to grow it in the United States." Industrial hemp is legally grown in over thirty countries. For thousands of years, people grew hemp and prospered. It flourishes without pesticides.
Thomas Jefferson considered hemp so vital to America that he risked his life to smuggle hemp seeds out of France. George Washington grew hemp and instructed his caretaker at Mount Vernon: "Make the most of the hemp seed. Sow it everywhere."
Industrial hemp was first grown in Kentucky 250 years ago. It is currently grown in other countries across the globe, including France, England, Canada, Australia, China, Hungary and the Ukraine. Industrial hemp has virtually no THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It cannot be used as a drug. None of the countries that allow industrial hemp production have experienced any drug problems relating to the crop.
Using modern processing techniques, hemp can be used in place of petrochemicals. Instead of synthetic plastics made from oil, we can use natural fiber and processed bioplastic derivatives. Plastics and polyester rely on foreign oil, while cotton consumes enormous amounts of water, fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides.
Industrial hemp is very clean, easy to grow and is one of the most environmentally sound sources of industrial fiber in the world. Environmentally friendly detergents, plastics, paints, varnishes, cosmetics, and textiles are made from it in Europe. Industrial hemp can meet our fiber needs while also revitalizing our struggling rural economies.
Hemp is being used in place of trees for pressboard, particleboard, and core concrete construction molds. Paper made from hemp is acid-free, stronger and lasts far longer than paper made from trees. Hemp fabrics are far stronger and more resistant to mold than any other natural fiber. Builders in France and Germany use hemp for construction material, replacing drywall and plywood.
Hemp can be used to manufacture plastic plumbing pipe, replacing such toxic materials as polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Hemp fiber is already being used in place of glass fiber in surfboards and snowboards. Hemp could also provide the resin itself.
For ideological reasons, the federal government refuses to allow farmers to grow hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp is currently grown legally worldwide. The George W. Bush administration took anti-hemp policy to a new extreme, attempting unsuccessfully to ban the import of hemp foods and cosmetics.
Erwin "Bud" Sholts, director of the Wisconsin Agriculture Department's marketing division, said hemp "is the most value-added, prolific fiber crop man can grow." Sholts acknowledged that hemp is an emotional issue, but says, "other nations with drug laws as tough or tougher than ours have overcome this hurdle."
The U.S. is the only major industrialized nation that prohibits the growing of industrial hemp; anti-drug hysteria should not blind the public to the commercial and industrial applications of hemp.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marcopolos on Nov 23, 2009 3:38 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being a drug and alcohol counselor, an article like this makes me sick.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oh yea! It hurts your bottom line!
Posted by: Stoney 12+1
» Yeah it would make me sick too if I was an unethical bastard
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: greenfloyd on Nov 23, 2009 3:40 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Any of us that pay taxes are culpable.
Posted by: rafaeltoral
Comments are closed-
Posted by: New American on Nov 23, 2009 3:58 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: Harmless? No. But Alcohol Is Worse, By Far!
Posted by: thymeforhemp
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Nov 23, 2009 6:08 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will this be by the big corporations?
Probably the same maffia making the big bucks now will receive the licenses.
many of the comments are made by spoiled kids, big state no give me my candy.
Nobody says ;
production and sales should be in the hands of public enterprises, so that the CEO of the corporation cannot have another billion.
The states should have licensed shops selling for costprice, marihuana shouldnt be another profit commodity.
In the netherlands marihuana is licensed sold but the shopowners are often former dealers.
Crime didnt disappaer.
A wise step could be;
own use production allowed for max.10 plants,
through drugstores medical marihuana.
But still ARREST the BIG drugsdealers.
Even when marihuana is legalised smoking in a car isnt allowed.
in the dutch cafees to drink beer and smoke weed is NOT allowed.
The way to end the war on drugs could be a step towards freedom from the big corporations back in the hands of Mainstreet but nobody metions it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How about nothing
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: How about nothing
Posted by: richholland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tokerdesigner on Nov 23, 2009 6:21 PM
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: dayahka on Nov 23, 2009 6:24 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we need is calm and reasoned argument--not exaggeration and falsehoods. Anyone and everyone who's ever used the weed--except, of course, old Bill who never inhaled--knows that a toke or two of good weed means you shouldn't get in a car and drive, shouldn't, in fact, handle any complex technical task or machine. Even Alcohol isn't that bad.
The war on drugs is a war of corporations against people who don't want to be a part of their mechanistic culture. It is an insane and irrational war. It should be dismantled. But you're not going to stop this insanity by claiming insanity (and falsehoods).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's hardly harmless
Posted by: richholland
» no, really, harmless
Posted by: permanentilt
» It's harmless and you're clueless.
Posted by: bornxeyed
» You're kidding and we all know it
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: abusedbypenguins on Nov 23, 2009 7:36 PM
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: Ian MacLeod on Nov 24, 2009 1:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect,” says Tashkin, whose research was the largest case-control study ever conducted. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.
Tobacco smokers in the study had as much as a 21-fold increase in lung cancer risk. Cigarette smokers, too, developed COPD more often in the study, and researchers found that marijuana did not impair lung function.
Tashkin, supported by other research, concluded that the active ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has an “anti-tumoral effect” in which “cells die earlier before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to lung cancer.”
However, the smoke from marijuana did swell the airways and lead to a greater risk of chronic bronchitis.
“Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects,” Tashkin says. “But at this point, I’d be in favor of legalization. I wouldn’t encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don’t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm.”
Dr. Tashkin is one of the government’s leading anti-pot researchers. His whole career has been spent searching for that (pardon the pun) smoking gun showing marijuana causes cancer. His prohibitionist funders (our government) have spent millions looking for such a link, one that Dr. Tashkin was certain he would find. A link between the tragedy of cancer that kills so many Americans and the marijuana the government has told us is our country’s gravest threat. A link that would provide the political justification for the war against that grave threat, even though all the evidence seems to show that marijuana is actually quite benign and there is no link to cancer. A supposed link that unnecessarily frightens Americans into supporting that war, which diverts our attention from real threats like meth.
Fake links, lying government, ignoring evidence, diverting attention, a war on a noun… man, it all seems so vaguely familiar…
This is a huge moment when even the government’s own researchers can’t deny the science behind marijuana anymore.
Put the separated lines together for the URL:
http://stash.norml.org/
leading-researcher-at-this-point-
id-be-in-favor-of-legalization
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LightningJoe on Nov 24, 2009 3:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Alaskan Supreme Court has only said that suspicion of growing or possession cannot be used as the basis of a search; NOT that possession or growth of the weed cannot be charged, if its found. This, and some rather confusing "personal use" limits, are the basic facts of pot here in AK.
This means that a cop MAY enter your home for "something else," (so long as there is probable cause or a warrant, of course) and therein "find" your weed, and then arrest and charge you for it. The full panoply of sentences awaits, for those so charged.
So far, however, the change is working to substantially lessen the efforts that our cops devote to weed collection, which I think was the main impetus for the decision (public efforts vs. social benefits).
But be warned: the cops COULD get sticky about it, and then we'd be back at square one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: whealeydj on Nov 24, 2009 6:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I entirely favor legalization and we should contact Jim Webb and other Senators to say 40 year War on Pot Users should be ended as our prisons are too filled with Americans. Perhaps a tax on marijuana to fund universal health care--All American Health care as I like to call it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dealmeinfo5 on Nov 24, 2009 10:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
-----------------------------------------
4x4 trucks for sale fork lift for sale
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» and your still a spammer!
Posted by: Bearzerker
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 25, 2009 12:43 AM
Current rating: 1 [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: DaTruth on Nov 25, 2009 3:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they took our eyeballs and now they're coming for the sockets... Something has got to give.
Medical Marijuana and its therapeutic benefits is a breakthrough. Legalized and properly taxed it could help us get out of this economic crater we're currently stuck in.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aaronpeter on Nov 25, 2009 4:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Yes, Marijuana
Posted by: veriz01
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Noah_Scape on Nov 27, 2009 4:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing gets people more interested than DRUGS.
I think this is because humans have a conscious mind that needs to be massaged a lot, and only pot can do that without causing a "strong addiction" [like the physical addiction of opiates, or the mental addiction to cocaine].
Plant-based drugs!! Opiates from poppies, cocaine from cocoa leaves, and cannabis from cannabis plants are the big three, and mushrooms have a unique corner on the psychadelic effects. WE NEED THESE THINGS to keep us sane... they don't cause insanity or even stress - the War on Drugs does that.
Religion is more dangerous than pot is;
Prohibition is a religious thing too;
- so argue against religion and legalise dope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Odd that the three drugs you named have Medicinal Qualities
Posted by: kettleblack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Noah_Scape on Nov 27, 2009 4:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing gets people more interested than DRUGS.
I think this is because humans have a conscious mind that needs to be massaged a lot, and only pot can do that without causing a "strong addiction" [like the physical addiction of opiates, or the mental addiction to cocaine].
Plant-based drugs!! Opiates from poppies, cocaine from cocoa leaves, and cannabis from cannabis plants are the big three, and mushrooms have a unique corner on the psychadelic effects. WE NEED THESE THINGS to keep us sane... they don't cause insanity or even stress - the War on Drugs does that.
Religion is more dangerous than pot is;
Prohibition is a religious thing too;
- so argue against religion and legalise dope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: evalin on Nov 27, 2009 4:59 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ugg boots sale
Straighteners
NFL jerseys
ugg australia
NFL jersey
uggs
ghd Hair Straighteners
Photoshop CS4
ghd
It’s a meaningful and interesting topic. Thanks. Want to know more about
UGG Bailey Button boots
UGG Classic Cardy
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Nightfall
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» BOYCOTT THESE BRANS!!!!
Posted by: aahpat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Recher on Nov 28, 2009 3:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
genus cannabis
C. ruderalis - siberia, very short, no use****
C. indica - central asia. narcotic. grows to about 2.4meters. short internodes (not good for fibre)
C. sativa- native to India both narcotic and fibre vars. this species has been selected from time immemorial for both its narcotic potency and high quality fibre. It has longer internodes servicing fibre production. Most selection for fiber has been in colder northern hemisphere. fiber hemp is narcotically inactive
potency is in the genes., strong dope grows strong dope. with narcotic strains up until flowering males are equally potent / not potent as females
**** ruderalis might be of use to produce smaller stature narcotic plants to avoid detection or for indoor cultivation but of no use if cannabis legalized
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ruderalis has no buzz
Posted by: kettleblack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DHFabian on Nov 28, 2009 9:54 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: dadanbetty on Nov 29, 2009 6:37 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kettleblack on Nov 29, 2009 7:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the DEA invaded his home, they asked him, "Do you have any drugs?" And he answered, "Hell yeah, I'm Tommy Chong!" But, they did not bust him for pot, They convicted him because his name was being used by his son to sell Chong's Bongs. In order to keep his wife and son out of prison, he cut the deal with the DEA.
Addicted to WAR, our government has lost its perspective. Even Mary Beth Buchanan, the lead prosecutor in the case recently admitted that it "was a mistake" to prosecute Tommy Chong. She did not elaborate on why, only that she was now running for public office.
The Military Industrial Complex has transformed the DEA into another branch of the military. They are now attacking poppy fields alongside the army. Illegal poppy fields that are under the Karzai government's protection (Karzai's brother is a major player here).
The Government is in serious need of interdiction, or this addiction to war may get out of control.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Nov 29, 2009 12:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sen. Webb has even indicated that marijuana legalization is "On the table".
I have posted, at the link below, more information and committee contact information in order for drug reform supporters to contact the Senate Judiciary Committee this week to show your support for this important bill, going into the hearings. The bill has 35 co-sponsors and can use all of the help it can get. Please consider alerting your friends in advance of this hearing, so that they may take timely action. Show your support for senators who are co-sponsors. contact them and thank them. Aggressively lobby senators who are not yet co-sponsors.
I have all needed information posted on my blog, Aid & comfort, in the post:
Drug War Related Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing
Thanks for your time.
Aid & comfort blog
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jmmartin on Nov 29, 2009 3:26 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: noahveil on Dec 5, 2009 10:12 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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jimidee on Dec 17, 2009 5:05 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: Sister_Lauren on Nov 23, 2009 12:33 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh wow, three whole paragraphs before we bash Hippies
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Oh wow, three whole paragraphs before we bash Hippies
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: who's peeking out?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Oh wow, three whole paragraphs before we bash Hippies
Posted by: poetrylark
» RE: your mixed feelings are no reason to discriminate against me and my religion
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: fuck you asshole, you are in a conspiracy to commit torture and ethnic cleansing
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» you've bought in
Posted by: kittybrat
» poetrylark
Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: Oh wow, three whole paragraphs before we bash Hippies
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Oh wow, STILL SLOW LEARNERS, IN DENIAL, RE-HASHING THE OLD MYTHS.
Posted by: blurider
» You might want to read the article, not just the headline
Posted by: D'Glenn
» You are SO wrong! Hardly worth replying...
Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: The Picture (Hot Burning Overdose Paper Again)
Posted by: tokerdesigner
» Sister Lauren, are you Irony-Impared?
Posted by: LightningJoe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bornxeyed on Nov 23, 2009 1:10 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: This just in ...
Posted by: Nheduanna
» RE: This just in ...
Posted by: Nheduanna
» RE: email and password
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: This just in ... High -larious!
Posted by: sasquuatch55
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 23, 2009 1:14 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A number of years ago in California a study of erratic drivers (testing all with a breathalyzer to determine alcohol intoxication and a radio immune assay test to determine marijuana intoxication) showed that the majority were drunk on marijuana. About a third were drunk on alcohol. About 10% were drunk on both—and around 10% were just lousy drivers!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: got a link for that?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» He doesn't have a link because he is full of shit.
Posted by: thedevil666
» RE: You got that right...
Posted by: jimidee
» What a load of BS
Posted by: thornwolf
» RE: the evidence is in.
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: you are the type of plant that needs to be eradicated
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» What damage?
Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: What damage?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: DAMAGE?-PROOF? - You got nothin'!!
Posted by: blurider
» RE: tommy, you're both wrong about 'erratic drivers'! There's NO, real, evidence of impairment!!
Posted by: blurider
» RE: tommy, you're both wrong about 'erratic drivers'! There's NO, real, evidence of impairment!!
Posted by: 3rdI
» RE: What damage? Exactly...
Posted by: jimidee
» Nothing is ever completely harmless
Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Nothing is ever completely harmless
Posted by: hughesrg
» RE: Look at all the evidence
Posted by: MT512
» RE: Look at all the evidence
Posted by: mtnprivy
» RE: Look at all the evidence
Posted by: MT512
» You are a fucking liar!
Posted by: Stoney 12+1
» RE: You are a fucking liar!
Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» What a fucking retard.
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» Way to back up your source less allegations Prof, after 16 challenges
Posted by: hardwroc
» RE: Look at all the evidence
Posted by: DaTruth
» Ok, what's your point? We know driving high won't be legalized..
Posted by: xmvince
» RE: Ok, what's your point? We know driving high won't be legalized..
Posted by: DaTruth
» I've seen the evidence
Posted by: jaylindberg@hotmail.com
» Nope
Posted by: zowie
» RE: Look at all the evidence
Posted by: stacyhinjosa
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Nov 23, 2009 1:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Isn't it about money?
Posted by: Ahimsa
» Money is control
Posted by: xmvince
» RE: Money is control
Posted by: belteshazzar
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lese Majeste on Nov 23, 2009 2:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A massively funded government goon squad, the DEA, is here to stay.
The War on Drugs laid the foundation for the stripping away of our liberties, which really went into high gear after 9/11.
So here's the lesson kids. Get a business degree and a job on Wall Street.
Start up a bank and loot hundreds of billions, then walk away and let the taxpayers clean up the mess while you enjoy the good life.
But dammit, we'd better not catch you smoking some dope or we'll toss your ass in jail.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's not a 'War on Drugs,' but a 'War on Civil Liberties'
Posted by: Richardsievert
» RE: It's not a 'War on Drugs,' but a 'War on Civil Liberties'
Posted by: CharlesRoland
» RE: It's not a 'War on Drugs,' but a 'War on Civil Liberties'
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: It's not a 'War on Drugs,' but a 'War on Civil Liberties'
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE:ASON ANYONE WOULD 'desire to run every aspect of our lives' is PROFITS!!
Posted by: blurider
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RICHARD RALPH ROEHL on Nov 23, 2009 3:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing that some people continue to abandon common sense for the $ake of obdurate partisan politics and outdated belief systems born in the foul bowels of fear and ignorance. The vicious war on drrrugs has destroyed or disenfranchised the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of Amerikans in the so called land of the free and home of the brave.
Truth be told, we the people... live in a capitalist/fascist nation $tate, a cruel corp-rat controlled plutocrazy called the UNITED $TATES OF PERPETUAL WAR PROFITEERING.
If you disagree with the criticism expressed herein, then YOU are one of the EWE folks... and EWE thinking folks are either blind, or they're bending over in willful ignorance for der glorious dogmesses of the $tatus quo!
True Americans prefer inhaling to the Chief... in lieu of in-Heiling! the Chief. So... let me ask! Are you a YOU... or one of the EWEs? Eh?
Be sure and spell my name correct-lie for the fascist fatherland files in the offices Homeland $ecurity.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Future History
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Future History
Posted by: joebanana
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Nov 23, 2009 3:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what a disgusting waste of taxpayers money...
very informative article that gives us the stats most publications never provide... and the MSM people wonder why they're loosing money and blame everyone but themselves for their decline... all i can say in responce is bullshit and outright lies results in lower public interest and thusly lower profits and there own decline...
I wonder how rolling stone and high times magazines are doing?
people aren't stupid, they see whats obvious and have been questioning the laws since Nixon's Presidency.
what is seriously wrong is how this prohibition funds all the gangsters and terrorists globally for HUGE non-taxed profits that they are putting to use against American interests... this is our very own money that we consumers spend are going to support murder and mayhem globally
time to legalize
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: robchapman on Nov 23, 2009 3:41 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The smoke is carcinogenic and THC over-use damages the brain and the other organs.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: bullshit, you are so full of it
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» T.H.C. does not damage organs
Posted by: thedevil666
» RE: T.H.C. does not damage organs
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: T.H.C. does not damage organs
Posted by: Liz45
» Stupid Comment.
Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx
» Weed is Not as Harmful as a Felony Conviction
Posted by: LHB
» RE: Weed is not harmless
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Weed is not harmless
Posted by: buceamos
» even if it did, that is not the point
Posted by: Grandma Crabby
» No one has ever overdosed on weed!
Posted by: clthompson
» RE: WHAT CAN I ADD?? OH!! I know!!
Posted by: blurider
» Neither is plain old air if you want to mince words, dumbass.
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» And you learned these facts from ???? FOX Newz ? DICK Cheney?
Posted by: hardwroc
» RE: Weed is not harmless
Posted by: xmvince
» another cop?
Posted by: zowie
» RE: Weed is not harmless
Posted by: kennykimmy
» RE: Marijuana may help prevent Alzheimer's disease
Posted by: kettleblack
» RE: Marijuana may help prevent Alzheimer's disease
Posted by: kettleblack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx on Nov 23, 2009 4:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The propaganda is very well fionanced and Republicans control the frame and spin on what "debate" we actually have in this country.
I am aware there is more and better debate locally in the West, but here in the South it is still 1937.
It is not sufficient to put on a bow-tie and an expensive suit, cut your hair and make beautiful charts of facts and statistics. Raw data is emotionless and the "arguments" against reform are entirely emotional. Hysteria, to be exact.
Facts do not get past people's hysteria and fear about the "Evil Weed". It is essential that people be confronted and harangued for their backwardsness.
Tehre is no salient reason that canabis should ever have been made illegal except as a means to eliminate the hemp industry, even though the early writings about limiting cannabis clearly specified that hemp was separate. That all changed after WWII and I advise people to not waste time discussing "why" cannabis was initially banned. It has almost no bearing on why it REMAINS so demonized and illegal after 40 years of efforts to fix the problem.
It boils down to Republicans, and the spineless Democrats who cave into them every time the bastards want something. Republicans are all about fearmongering and the have fearmongered maijuana for 40-some years, having linked it to "hippies" and "anti-war protesters".
It is essential to be blunt and direct and harshly denigrate people who still buy into the tripe we have heard for our entire lives.
Blow it off with force. Don't be polite.
Use descriptive terms like "horseshit". Marijuana prohibition is based on horseshit, not anything defensible.
We should be buying herb at convenience stores, grocery stores and in specialty shops just like tobacco and alcohol.
Anything less is horseshit.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It is important that "civility" be tossed out
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» the irony is...
Posted by: permanentilt
» Boils down to two words...
Posted by: dougontrack
» RE: Boils down to two words...
Posted by: linecrosser
» "Your" is a possessive pronoun, which means
Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: It is important that "civility" be tossed out
Posted by: MT512
» Fuckin A!!!!
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» Right on brother
Posted by: xmvince
» Don't Bogart that joint, my friend.....
Posted by: bwaren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fmcevoy on Nov 23, 2009 4:38 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Problems with Weed
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Problems with Weed
Posted by: desertrose
» Nasty addiction? In what way, exactly?
Posted by: thornwolf
» RE: 'Nasty' = they're thinking for themselves
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: No you haven't
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Problems with Weed
Posted by: hughesrg
» It is NOT addictive ! FACT ! But, people do find it attactive
Posted by: hardwroc
» It is a terrible addiction!
Posted by: bornxeyed
» It is a terrible addiction! Yup, just awful!
Posted by: Grandma Crabby
» Why try and treat an addiction that benefits the user?
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grmartin on Nov 23, 2009 4:53 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: heide on Nov 23, 2009 4:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the white man calls it a weed only because no matter what he does do destroy she comes back,,,,,,,,,,you cannot destroy what the god/dess has blessed........the truth is coming out,,lies exposed
STOP THE LIES FREE THE MEDCICNE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: STOP THE LIES - FREE THE MEDCICNE
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: STOP THE LIES - FREE THE MEDCICNE
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: STOP THE LIES - FREE THE MEDCICNE
Posted by: heide
» RE: STOP THE LIES - FREE THE MEDICINE ....grrrrrrrrr
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: STOP THE LIES - FREE THE MEDICINE ....grrrrrrrrr
Posted by: heide
» Hmmmm
Posted by: xmvince
» RE: Hmmmm
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Hmmmm
Posted by: heide
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sopomike on Nov 23, 2009 4:58 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: only the dead
Posted by: linecrosser
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 23, 2009 5:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a list of ten famous people who died as a result of nicotine abuse:
Humphrey Bogart
Edward R. Murrow
Nat King Cole
George Harrison
John Huston
Noel Coward
Betty Grable
Walt Disney
Gary Cooper
Peter Jennings
Here is another list. Ten famous people who died from alcoholism:
Billie Holiday
Jack Kerouac
Truman Capote
Lorenz Hart
Veronica Lake
Bix Beiderbecke
Montgomery Clift
Dylan Thomas
John Barrymore
Errol Flynn
Now I ask you: name for me one celbraty who has died from too much grass.
I'm waiting.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why are we still having this conversation?
Posted by: CharlesRoland
» RE: Why are we still having this conversation?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE:BOB MARLEY Why are we still having this conversation?
Posted by: whealeydj
» RE: speaking of pain
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bondwooley on Nov 23, 2009 5:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meth Rats
(satire)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thornwolf on Nov 23, 2009 5:31 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: A Conspiracy Trifecta of money AND religion
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» How About "Man Shooterin' Kennedydead" Sinatra?
Posted by: tokerdesigner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GatoPreto on Nov 23, 2009 5:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I reckon cops would rather be going after stoners than coked-up narco-traffickers armed to the teeth.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Prohibition is good for law enforcement
Posted by: Richardsievert
» What if they used the money going to the DEA to catch Wall Street criminals?
Posted by: Lese Majeste
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aahpat on Nov 23, 2009 5:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia authored S-714 to create a national criminal justice commission to look into all aspects of the use of America's criminal justice system. Sen. Webb has even indicated that marijuana legalization is "On the table".
Thus far 35 senators have signed on to Sen. Webb's S-714 as co-sponsors. S-714 tally sheet of senators thus far co-sponsoring the bill. The bill needs all the support it can get because drug war supporters have offered a counter bill in the House of Representative.
H.R. 2943 To eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use, and for other purposes. Please consider writing to your representative and asking that they support this bill.
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: Carol Burns on Nov 23, 2009 6:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marijuana prohibition ruins lives and erodes civil liberties, not to mention the loss of hemp as a much cleaner, greener alternative to the production of paper products from trees.
Marijuana has been endorsed by the American College of Physicians for its known medicinal value in the management of pain and treatment of glaucoma.
Keep the pressure on President Obama to change the outrageous prohibition of marijuana.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 23, 2009 6:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This should be argument enough for decriminalizing it. Whether or not it harms our health should not be cause for making it illegal; if it were then tobacco possession would be punished even more severely and none of us could legally drive automobiles or use cell phones.
Even more crazy, however, it the fact that industrial hemp cannot be grown in this country out of the concern that it looks too much like the marijuana plant. We can buy imported hemp products, but our farmers cannot grow this wonderful crop that can produce fiber for clothing as well as food for eating and fuel for burning. This is truly insane.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» TWINKIES!!!
Posted by: permanentilt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 23, 2009 6:19 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]
» Healthcare is costing US our wealth, health and industry
Posted by: hardwroc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alicelillie on Nov 23, 2009 6:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact, everything the government is doing is about that. The wars, for instance. Also the way they are resisting the move in Congress to audit the fed.
Speaking of the Fed and monetary policy (which is *blatantly* an exercise in government power) see my blog at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Age of Reason on Nov 23, 2009 6:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not bad article, on the whole (some details are inaccurate) but misses the point. No one has EVER died from this drug, and it has apparently anti-carcinogenic effects among other things. But the "illegal" status justifies surveillance and a prison economy and a war. And war is profit. The largest beneficiary of the War on Drugs is the C.I.A. and there has been such conflation between the opiates of the middle east and coca derivatives from South America with cannabis that this too all works to one purpose. And if you haven't figured that out yet, you shall never understand why keeping pot illegal can help keep the world in military and political turmoils. This makes for a good cover, and it controls the masses. Especially the ones who are stoned on either booze, pot, or the myriad "legal" psychotropics.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It is not a mistake...
Posted by: aonghus36
» Yep, a big scam put on by the government
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cannoliamo on Nov 23, 2009 6:56 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: Good luck with that!
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 23, 2009 6:57 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The use of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping emerged during the Prohibition era. Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger whom the government wished to search. It placed taps in the basement of his office building and on wires in the streets near his home. No physical entry into his office or home took place. Olmstead was convicted entirely on the basis of evidence from the wiretaps.
"In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Olmstead argued that the taps were a search conducted without a warrant and without probable cause, and that the evidence seized against him should have been excluded because it was illegally gathered. He also argued that his Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against himself was violated.
"By a 5-4 vote, the Court rejected his arguments and upheld the government's power to wiretap without limit and without any Fourth Amendment restrictions, on the grounds that no actual physical intrusion had taken place.
"Olmstead's Fifth Amendment claim was also dismissed on the grounds that he had not been compelled to talk on the telephone, but had done so voluntarily. Thus the Court upheld the government's power to do by trickery and surreptitious means what it was not permitted to do honestly and openly. It wasn't until 1967, in a similar case involving gambling, that the Court overruled the Olmstead decision by an 8-1 margin and recognized that the Fourth Amendment applied to wiretapping and electronic surveillance.
"Interestingly, these cases arose in the context of crimes like bootlegging and gambling. During the past twenty years, the majority of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping by both state and federal officials has been in cases involving drug dealing and gambling.
"Serious crimes of violence, such as homicide, assault, rape, robbery, and burglary, are rarely the target of electronic eavesdropping, which is not normally a useful tool in such cases.
"From the beginning, when wiretapping was virtually invented to enforce laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol, to the late 1960s, when gambling was a major target, to the present, when the use and sale of drugs other than alcohol are the main target, these intrusive devices have been used mostly to enforce laws aimed at punishing and proscribing personal conduct that society deems immoral.
"Because such conduct essentially involves private activities among consenting adults who are all likely to want to keep those activities secret, they are harder to investigate and prosecute than crimes like robbery or burglary, in which an unwilling victim will probably aid any investigation...the invasion of privacy inherent in wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping remains with us as part of the legacy of our attempts to criminalize personal conduct.
"The other major use of electronic eavesdropping has been to punish political dissent. For decades, former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover used wiretaps and other electronic devices to spy on political figures and citizens not yet suspected of having committed a crime. He built vast dossiers on their political activities and personal lives. Special units of local police called 'Red Squads' did the same."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MaxT on Nov 23, 2009 7:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, not *all* but some key issues ? Nothing is black and white... but neither are the harmless pot smokers in labor camp jails.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Public Health Message about War On Drugs ?
Posted by: MT512
Comments are closed-
Posted by: darkmark on Nov 23, 2009 7:50 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i often deride the idea that the usofa is the land of the brave. i think it is. its just that the ones that sing that tune are always on the wrong side of brave. its like most of our political class go to church. is that The Church of the Hypocrite In All Things? why yes it is. shouldn't it be illegal to take bribes while in public office and then vote according to the amount of money you've received? see our leaders have no respect for the law either. on our tombstone will be the phrase "humans fiddled while earth burned." no respect for life either. its all part of a whole. illusions and lies that's what we get. we can't last long on that diet. and we won't.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thisizrob on Nov 23, 2009 8:09 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was talking to a young Lady one day and asked her,She was a User, I had just heard that this wonderful weed had some not so good points. They reckoned that it was a mind changing drug and therefore dangerous.
One person maintained that the altering process could be rather scary. You could be driving along the road and suddenly you could not be sure if you were actually only doing the speed limit as ones perceptions were slowed down. On the other hand, one could be travelling quite fast and it would appear to be quite slow.
The Lady's comment sort of blew me away when she said, "The real scary thing is that speed perception can change rather quickly and one is never sure if they are moving fast of slow
Another friend uses it for his head as he has bipolar and this is the only thing that really eased his pain. I can agree for the product being used for medicinal purposes but this mind bending is really quite scary
The other thing she told me is that NO body who is stoned really can comment on what they perceive their real situation actually is. If they say they can, then its wishful thinking. I don't know, I have never used it, but I can only take the word of a confirmed user who had nothing to gain by sharing information with me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Something funny
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: Something funny
Posted by: 3rdI
» RE: NO body who is stoned really can comment on what they perceive their real situation actually is
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Something funny One Trillion funnies...
Posted by: zowie
» RE: Something funny
Posted by: tvaspen
» RE:SPEED PERCEPTION?? FUNNY?? U2 morons had this conversation and the SPEEDOMETER never came up?!?!?
Posted by: blurider
» RE: Something funny
Posted by: hughesrg
» So, you're saying people should'nt smoke and drive ? Really?
Posted by: hardwroc
» LOL, WHAT!?
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Llewellyn on Nov 23, 2009 8:10 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The War on Weed
Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: The War on Weed
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» cut & paste
Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: The War on Weed
Posted by: MT512
» RE: The War on Weed
Posted by: aonghus36
» SOOOO... YOU don't even have to smoke it to be paranoid!!
Posted by: blurider
» RE: The War on Weed
Posted by: Ratskii
» Yeah I guess freedom doesn't really matter, right?
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: austex_chris on Nov 23, 2009 9:19 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I just saw Michael Beasley in an interview on Outside the Lines. That guy smokes so much marijuana it affects his speech. Anyone that knows anything about addiction can see that he smokes an insane amount of weed. I wonder how long before it catches up with him?"
Well it finally caught up with him in August, and he went into treatment for marijuana addiction.
I used to work with addicts and almost half of the cases I worked with were people addicted to weed. After a while I used to play a game with some co-workers, if someone called in we used to see how long it took us to determine whether our caller was addicted to weed or alcohol. It rarely took more than three sentences before it was apparent. Alcohol and weed were the drugs of choice for the vast majority of people we worked with.
What I did like about the weed cases was the lack of violence connected with weed smokers. If a someone called us, male or female, and was having an alcohol problem they usually had a violence issue as well. Women alcoholics were a little less violent and tended toward promiscuity, but the alcoholic men almost always hit someone regularly. The weed patients were rarely violent. I cannot recall a case when someone said the smoked a joint then beat their spouse.
The biggest problems with the people I dealt with who had addictions to weed were that if they were young it seemed to slow down their cognitive development. Talking to teenagers was frustrating because you could see their talent just wasting away. Alcoholism was bad, but after a few days of sobriety you could see people really coming back, weed it would take weeks, sometimes months to see a person regain all their mental faculties.
Also, those who suffered from depression seemed to be particularly vulnerable to weed addiction.
Marijuana addiction does not come with the typical physiological withdrawal problems that other drugs, including alcohol, do. BUT, that by no means is a reason to declare that marijuana is safe, it is a drug like any other, whether it is tylenol, codeine, or weed, there are side effects to consider.
After years of working with these people I would never consider smoking weed...ever. I also would never consider drinking alcohol. I am 32 years old and I have never had an alcoholic drink or smoked a joint, purely because of my experience with people who are addicted to these substances.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: you are cruel, ignorant and biased
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: you are cruel, ignorant and biased
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: you are cruel, ignorant and biased
Posted by: tvaspen
» RE: you are cruel, ignorant and biased
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: you are cruel, ignorant and biased
Posted by: tvaspen
» RE: marijana addition
Posted by: Ratskii
» Why put it in pill form?
Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Why put it in pill form?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Marinol (synthetic THC) is responsible for four deaths since 1997
Posted by: kettleblack
» drugs are great
Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: MT512
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: If I ruled the world I would ban alcohol and legalize pot
Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: MT512
» If someone has a problem with marijuana he or she already has problems
Posted by: clthompson
» RE: If someone has a problem with marijuana he or she already has problems
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: If someone has a problem with marijuana he or she already has problems
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: If someone has a problem with marijuana he or she already has problems
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: Y'know, lots of experienced users and their friends think you're lying? Y'know why?
Posted by: blurider
» RE: Y'know, lots of experienced users and their friends think you're lying? Y'know why?
Posted by: austex_chris
» RE: Y'know, lots of experienced users and their friends think you're lying? Y'know why?
Posted by: richholland
» RE: Y'know, lots of experienced users and their friends think you're lying? Y'know why?
Posted by: austex_chris
» And now YOU, A virgin, are going to share your "wisdom"
Posted by: hardwroc
» austex_chris is a government agent sent here to spread disinformation
Posted by: Valis667
» RE: Drugs are bad
Posted by: bornxeyed
» We are made of drugs you dummy!
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dbaker on Nov 23, 2009 9:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Slavery still exists in North America but is "dressed up pretty", and disguised as the Justice System.
It is the legislated ability of Police Officials, to act regardless of usually applicable rights, where other offences do not give police liberties to suspend constitutional rights as they do to suspected drug offences.
Have you every thought of not electing/ reelecting officials, firing ( police chiefs)as long as the availability of non indigenous narcotics exists.
The sustainable growth of private prisons and the justice system depends on the bodies police provide for processing.
studies have shown that a vast majority of criminal activity is drug induced.
If they did not bring the drugs in themselves, the drugs would not on your street corner.
Your being played for suckers, while a chemical and biological attack is being launched on your country by your own security!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oszATUJ4IRE&feature=related
Dennis Baker
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: dennis baker
Posted by: zowie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: buceamos on Nov 23, 2009 9:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: aahpat on Nov 23, 2009 5:43 AM
I totally agree with aahpat - "If you want it ended then you need to aggressively lobby your representatives in congress."
I just wrote my Senator and House Representative a long email asking that they support:
Sen. Webb's S-714 and Representative Frank's
H.R. 2943.
Everybody here needs to do the same.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
