COMMENTS: 160
Marijuana Could Be a Gusher of Cash If We Treated It Like a Crop, Not a Crime
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Drugs headlines via email.
One 2006 study called cannabis the top cash crop in the nation, worth more than corn and wheat combined. It was the leading crop in 12 states, outstripping grapes in California and tobacco in North Carolina, and one of the top three in 18 others, coming in just behind apples in Washington and cotton in Georgia. So with states facing massive deficits, could reefer revenues help?
The answer is unclear, but it could be lucrative for governments, especially when combined with the savings from ending prohibition. As the U.S. marijuana market is illegal, there are no sales figures. Estimates of its size range from $10.5 billion a year to $113 billion. But three studies done by economists and policy analysts say ganja taxes could bring in anywhere from $2.4 billion to $31.1 billion in revenue, depending on how big the sales really are. About one-third of that would go to the states.
"There's not enough really good data on it, so it's probably best to look at it in ballpark figures," says Jon Gettman, a Virginia policy analyst who has worked with the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Marijuana Policy Project. "But there's a consensus that there's an awful lot of marijuana out there and that it's very valuable."
"The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," a 2005 study by Harvard economics professor Jeffrey A. Miron, makes the most conservative projections of the three studies. It calculates possible pot tax revenues at $2.4 billion. That's assuming that prices would drop about 25 percent under legalization, that pot-related economic activities were taxed at the national average of 30 percent, and that the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy's estimate that the domestic cannabis market is worth $10.5 billion is accurate. If herb were taxed more heavily, as alcohol and cigarettes are, that could bring in as much as $9.5 billion -- although excessive "sin taxes" could cause pot smokers to cut down or grow their own, diminishing revenues.
States with higher rates of marijuana use, such as California and New York, would collect a somewhat higher proportion of taxes than states with lower rates, such as Pennsylvania and Texas. Miron estimates that California would take in $105 million at ordinary levels of taxation.
However, others in the field believe that the government's $10.5 billion figure is absurdly low. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman from Northern California's sinsemilla belt, says the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors estimates bud production in that county alone at between $1 billion and $1.5 billion, worth far more than timber and grapes. California's medical marijuana dispensary owners claim they pay $100 million a year in state sales taxes.
The methods used to estimate the size of the marijuana market involve a great deal of speculation. Determining the supply involves taking the amount of domestic and imported marijuana seized by law enforcement, guessing what percentage of the total amount of homegrown and smuggled weed that represents, and extrapolating from there. Additional variables include how much a single plant can yield -- anywhere from less than an ounce to more than a pound -- and the retail price, which can be loosely sensed from the reader-contributed snippets in High Times magazine's monthly market quotations ("Chicago, Purple Kush, $450/oz") and the Drug Enforcement Administration's STRIDE index, which narcotics agents use to figure out how much to pay for the drugs they try to buy. Demand can be estimated from government and academic household surveys of drug use -- but these are far from specific, especially when you use the limited data on frequency of use to try to figure out how much people spend on pot.
"It's hard to match the supply-and-demand data," says Gettman. "Sometimes you don't know what it is, but you know what it's not." He estimates the value of the U.S. weed market at $113 billion, based on a supply of more than 14 million kilos, an average retail price of about $220 an ounce, and between 25 million and 40 million pot smokers.
That number seems high. It would require 40 million people to spend an average of $55 a week on weed. But Gettman cites United Nations data that has estimated U.S. cannabis cultivation at 10 million to 14 million kilos for the past several years. The federal government has reduced its estimate of domestic production from 10 million kilos in 2002 to between 2.8 million and 6.6 million kilos in 2006, but those figures, he says, are "complete politics." They're based on the assumption that law enforcement eradicates 30 to 50 percent of all the pot plants grown in the United States, and that plants average a pound each.
As for demand, "there is a small amount of people who go through an incredible amount of pot." On the other hand, many of the heaviest ganja users are growers and dealers who go into the business in part so they can essentially get free pot and don't have to pay retail prices for the amounts they smoke.
Gettman's 2006 study "Marijuana Production in the United States" estimated the domestic crop at 10 million kilos, worth a total of $35.8 billion.
California NORML's estimates are in that ballpark. In 2003, the group figured that if 600,000 to 700,000 people in the state smoke two cigarette-size joints every day and 1 million smoke one joint every 10 days, then the total market in the state would be $3 billion to $5 billion under legalization -- at the lower end if prices dropped to the Dutch average of about $170 an ounce, at the higher end if consumption increased. State sales taxes would generate $240 million to $400 million, and a $56-an-ounce excise tax could bring in another $1 billion. If pot were taxed at the same 50 percent rate as cigarettes, total revenues would be $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion. Nationally, California NORML claims, a $56-an-ounce tax would bring in $6 billion to $13 billion.
Miron dislikes the concept of such "sin taxes," saying it's a bad idea to tax what's "politically unpopular." But he says they're generally effective if consistent throughout a federal system, where people can't go to a state with lower costs. If the tax is too high, however, people might try to evade it by growing their own. Miron thinks that won't be significant. "Some people are going to buy tomatoes in a supermarket, and some are going to grow their own," he says. "Most people will opt for convenience."
On the other hand, given that home growing has become widespread and well-entrenched in the last 30 years, potheads fetishize strains like White Widow and Bubbleberry, and herb costs significantly more than tomatoes, it's likely that many people would do their own gardening if the danger of prison and forfeiture were lifted.
Legislators active on cannabis issues have not investigated the revenue possibilities much. "I don't think I could even begin to put a number on it, because there are so many variables," says a staffer for New York State Assemblymember Richard Gottfried, who has sponsored several unsuccessful medical marijuana bills recently. Instead, they focus on the money that would be saved by not prosecuting marijuana users or that could be gained by farming industrial hemp.
Massachusetts state Sen. Patricia Jehlen, sponsor of a bill to reduce the penalty for possession of less than an ounce to a $250 fine, calls trying to project pot tax revenues "speculative," but she says decriminalization would save the state $24 million a year.
Miron's study estimates that "legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government enforcement of prohibition," with $2.4 billion of that going to the states. Gettman's 2007 report says "marijuana arrests cost taxpayers $10.7 billion annually."
Northern California's Humboldt and Mendocino counties, where marijuana is a crucial part of the economy, have been frustrated in their efforts to get direct revenues from it, according to Hamburg. Schemes proposed in Mendocino included having the county sell permits for $25 a plant and setting up a growers' cooperative that would inspect, certify and market medical herb crops as organically and locally grown. But "anything we came up with along those lines, our lawyers said was impossible."
Miron says potential tax income is "the least important reason to legalize" cannabis when compared with the "horrific" precedents prohibition sets for government power and the damage criminalization does to users. And even at the highest estimates, reefer revenues would not be enough to cover budget deficits the size of California's estimated $15 billion, New York's $6.4 billion, Florida's $1.5 billion, or Massachusetts' $1.3 billion. Still, the combination of reducing expenditures on enforcement and collecting taxes on legal sales could help save the states from having to lay off workers or cut health care payments.
NORML head Allen St. Pierre says that when he was lobbying in Texas last year for a bill that would let local governments decriminalize marijuana possession, one legislator told him that prohibition "is no longer a luxury we can afford." The Austinist, noting that marijuana possession accounts for about 7 percent of arrests in the state at a cost of $2,000 each, called the bill "a money-saving effort more than anything else."
Stay up to date with the latest Drugs headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Sep 11, 2008 7:39 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who are healthy all their lives live the longest and cost the health care system the most.
Yet no one is talking about putting health taxes on raw fruits and veggies.
Sin Taxes are tyranny of the majority bullshit whereby a majority who doesn't use a substance like alcohol or tobacco taxes it knowing they don't have to pay the tax and therefore get to shoulder less of a overall tax burden.
Don't push the tax revenue angle on marijuana. Push the truth, that those who abuse their own bodies die quicker and cost the system less and therefore the tools they use to abuse themselves shouldn't be subject to taxes above and beyond normal products.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sin Taxes are Bullshit Not!
Posted by: ken_sailor
» RE: Sin Taxes are Bullshit Not!
Posted by: ken_sailor
» Some Studies Show Exactly the Opposite of What You State
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» I did not argue Marijuana users are bad because they live longer
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: I did not argue Marijuana users are bad because they live longer
Posted by: chinacat
» RE: I did not take a stance on marijuana there
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Sin Taxes are Bullshit
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: My point was if they legalize marijuana it shouldn't be taxes above normal sales tax rates
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: My point was if they legalize marijuana it shouldn't be taxes above normal sales tax rates
Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Are terrorists in charge? Looks like it
Posted by: Lauren
» You have it backwards...
Posted by: ta2
» RE: Better be sure...
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Sin Taxes are Bullshit
Posted by: mahembar
» Actually read my posts before commenting
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Sin Taxes are Bullshit
Posted by: techcafe
» Read some studies
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ken_sailor on Sep 11, 2008 10:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not one of those cases however.
The war on marijuana is a government-created-and-run inquisition and exactly what our bill of rights is supposed to protect us against. All we have to do is stop it, and then things get better.
Getting more money out of the legal commerce in marijuana is just one of the benefits.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Let's do the right thing and make money doing it!
Posted by: lil ole me
» RE: Let's do the right thing and make money doing it!
Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Sep 11, 2008 10:48 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: The real hemp potential...
Posted by: Knowmad
» The real hemp potential...
Posted by: Knowmad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Sep 11, 2008 11:58 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the real argument is reducing the rather large profit motives from the underground economy...
if you legalize it...
you CAN tax the hell outta it as people are paying 300$ an ounce for it now!...
The government can tax this herb for immediate tax relief now while at the same time undermining criminal organizations and black marketeers!
Prohibition this day and age is about who is doing more harm...
1.)drugs...
2.)their suppliers, or
3.)the consumers of these products
who's reasons for consuming them are as varied as the products are themselves!
end prohibition now...
end black market money market now...
end the killings of both victims and victimizers ...NOW!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Founding Father of this Nation grew Hemp!
Posted by: tRANIS
» RE: The Founding Father of this Nation grew Hemp!
Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: The Founding Father of this Nation grew Hemp!
Posted by: john mont
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willd4change on Sep 12, 2008 8:36 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: they will lose money - for sure!
Posted by: donl51
» RE: they will lose money
Posted by: chinacat
» RE: they will lose money
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: they will lose money+Jimmy Carter
Posted by: john mont
» RE: they will lose money+Jimmy Carter
Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: they will lose money+Jimmy Carter
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: they will lose money+Jimmy Carter
Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: they will lose money+Jimmy Carter????????????
Posted by: bizeeb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John Thomas on Sep 12, 2008 7:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But as was briefly noted, this is about far more than money. 800,000 innocent Americans are branded second-class citizens for life every year with the record of a marijuana arrest.
It's about humanity. It's about the American Inquisition. It's about justice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fraud
Posted by: mystump
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Sep 13, 2008 1:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is insane that at this very moment there are people sitting in prison for its usage.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY.
Barack Needs Our Help
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pot Shot
Posted by: Lauren
» Hello, Lauren....
Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Hello, Lauren....
Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: ..incapable of being concerned with the immense harm that is being done to so many people...
Posted by: Lauren
» PREJUDICE A HOPELESS CASE - 100% OF THE TIME
Posted by: caru
» RE: Pot Shot
Posted by: larkztngue
» one person
Posted by: bluebirdella
» RE: Pot Shot, its about the fat.
Posted by: weathered
» RE: Pot Shot, its about the fat.
Posted by: mathprof
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VetAgainst McCain on Sep 13, 2008 1:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One more thing. I want to thank AlterNet for improving my retired lifestyle.
Since I began commenting on the best progressive blog ever, I've lost all interest in talking-head TV,- such as my former favorites: MSNBC's "Hardball," Keith Obermann's hoot and most recently, the six p.m. program hosted by Rachel Maddow.
I also ignore the Sunday morning shows -- like "Face the Nation" and "Meet the Press." Happily, I've discovered, the print media, online transcripts and investigative Web sites plus AlterNet provide more than enough information to satisfy my curiosity.
I now have more time during the week for writing, gardening, swimming, seeing movies, shopping with my wife and visiting our kids -- to name a few pleasurable afternoon activities (but not smoking pot until it's legal).
Then, at midnight before going to bed and after AlterNet posts its newest articles, I'm back on the blog having fun attacking Manchurian Candidate McCain, Appalling Palin and the rightwing GOP.
I even enjoy jousting with LyingHeart -- I mean, LionHeart.
Have a great weekend, everyone!
Vet against McCain
To find out why, click on the links below:
American View (now my favorite anti-GOP Web site)
Vietnam Veterans Against McCain (self-explanatory)
Vote Vets (maintained by Iraq and Afghan war vets)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Isn't there a third way???
Posted by: CatDad
» Treat pot smokers like drunks,CatDad. If they drive stoned, make it a DUI, not a felony.
Posted by: VetAgainst McCain
» RE: Treat pot smokers like drunks,CatDad. If they drive stoned, make it a DUI, not a felony.
Posted by: jroth420
» In California, a DUI is a misdemeanor offense initially subject to fines. not jail time.
Posted by: VetAgainst McCain
» RE: Treat pot smokers like drunks,CatDad. If they drive stoned, make it a DUI, not a felony.
Posted by: insidelookingout
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sparks56 on Sep 13, 2008 3:25 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last thing marijuana growers want is legal pot. It would put them out of business.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If marijuana were legal you couldn't give it away, let alone tax it. Wrong!
Posted by: mainspark
» RE: Can't Give It Away
Posted by: larkztngue
» RE: Can't Give It Away
Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: Can't Give It Away
Posted by: Sparks56
» If grown like tomatoes and beans people would buy factory mades
Posted by: billwald
» RE: If grown like tomatoes and beans people would buy factory mades
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Can't Give It Away
Posted by: ganja_farmer
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 13, 2008 4:45 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: kewpie on Sep 13, 2008 5:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The vested big business elites own both parties lock stock and barrel. Peak oil might reverse it.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: WHy not the other cousin...HEMP?
Posted by: Xynyx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Sep 13, 2008 5:47 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pot has the record for one of the Longest lOngitudinal Studies known to man!Waht claims to 'cancer' are riduclous because it can be steeped as a tea or made into a butter- so eating & drinking are ways to negate the 'smoking' negatives. Also Pot is NOT addictive, you may enjoy it so much you refuse to give it up- but you are not pyshically addicted.
What manufactured meds would be knocked off the profit margin sheets if Pot was able to be grown at home as it's substitute?Anti Depressants, anxiety, blood Pressure, pain meds, appetite stimulants, Glaucoma pills & Drops..??
Want to know why Pot is still illegal although it kills far less than Alcohol (auto related)- Too easy to set up shop in your own basement and it will gut the Pharm business Profits,esp those meds to address the side effects of your other meds.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Too Easy To Grow at Home- No Profits
Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» RE: Too Easy To Grow at Home- No Profits
Posted by: Lauren
» Solar can benefit from hemp. Durable solar panels from hemp. How's that?
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: larkztngue on Sep 13, 2008 6:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last and most important argument advocating the use of Hemp would be that we can make paper out of it. Our culture wastes so much paper which unfortunately is made out of trees. So thanks to various lobbying groups-like the Lumber industry-we in a manner of speaking are wiping our butts with Old Growth Forests and flushing them down the crapper.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SHRED on Sep 13, 2008 7:12 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legalize industrial use of the plant and the tax revenue generated from spinoff cottage industries would dwarf any pot revenues.
I don't want to see pot commercials on TV and I am not sure it would work anyway. It doesn't take much to grow it.
Better idea is to legalize industrial hemp while allowing people to grow their own for medicinal/recreational. No commercial sales or advertising but instead people could trade their pot.
If you allow people 3 plants each then the price would drop to weed levels which would make commercial growing pointless anyway.
Think people think.
---
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Industrial Hemp for tax revenue not pot
Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» RE: Industrial Hemp for tax revenue not pot
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Sep 13, 2008 7:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jiff
Is your ISP watching you?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picket on Sep 13, 2008 8:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doesn't "dirty money" have a HUGE effect on our economy? The big boxes of cash help out the banking industry, real estate, auto,....on and on...
Low level criminals like your next door neighbor may depend on the summer crop to only pay their property taxes. Is that such a BAD thing? Bad enough to be thrown into a cage?
Apparently the "so-called leaders" of the USA think so !!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aonghus36 on Sep 13, 2008 8:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Don't get me wrong...
Posted by: aonghus36
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mcl on Sep 13, 2008 8:36 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: war_on_tara on Sep 13, 2008 9:12 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't owned a car in many years - live happily in a transit-dense city & region - but realize I'm in a tiny minority and it's obvious to me this is what is holding back the tide of pot legalization. There must be 98% or so of American adults driving nearly every day, so there has to be a way to test for this. As long as there is not, it won't get legalized, it's simple as that.
I never hear anything about this and think there MUST be a way - short of testing hair follicles that prove you smoked half a joint 6 weeks ago! - of testing for very short-term marijuana use.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The problem with the weed test is how we metabolize THC
Posted by: rancespergl
» If you come up with a figure, legalization will be an easier sell
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Needed first: A reliable test for DUI marijuana!
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Needed first: A reliable test for DUI marijuana!
Posted by: war_on_tara
» No DUI test needed
Posted by: Dankhank
» Now could a STONED person type all that? (heh)
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Now could a STONED person type all that? (heh)
Posted by: amerimet
» you'd apparently be suprised by a stoner's abilities in anything
Posted by: Dankhank
» DUI Marijuana
Posted by: Xynyx
» how do you know that is true? (WEEDER! SPEEDER!)
Posted by: caru
» RE: Needed first: A reliable test for DUI marijuana!
Posted by: mathprof
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bushmaster on Sep 13, 2008 9:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The amount of savings alone from relieving the criminal justice system of this would be tremendous.
The unemployed prison employees and police could earn a living honestly by growing pot.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fomented on Sep 13, 2008 9:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And to deny people the use of this medically is insane,
while we allow drug companies to use us a lab rats for any old shite they want to pump
us with -- then have to sue them for damage long after the fact.
NOW THAT IS REEFER MADNESS
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This my beef
Posted by: amerimet
» RE: This my beef
Posted by: Xynyx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 13, 2008 10:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [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 that eighty percent of those polled felt marijuana should be legal only for therapeutic 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.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: make marijuana safe and legal (part 1)
Posted by: Xynyx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 13, 2008 11:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each year, the U.S. government spends more than $30 billion on the drug war and arrests over 1.5 million people on drug-related charges. Over 318,000 people are now behind bars in the U.S. for drug violations, greater than the total number of people incarcerated for all crimes in England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.
Our government is calling for billions of dollars to fight a drug war it can't win. Roughly 75 percent of this money goes to enforcing laws and regulations, but only 15 percent goes to drug education and prevention, and a only a meager 10 percent goes to treatment for addicts.
During the 1950s, long-term prison sentences against drug users choked the courts, strained and disrupted prisons and drove black-market prices even higher. The latest casualty in the drug war has been our civil liberties: mandatory drug testing so we can all be “drug free”. Some of these tests have been struck down by the courts, where the government is the employer. But others have been upheld. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia denounced these drug tests as “an immolation of privacy and human dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use.”
Even putting America under martial law will not solve the nation's drug problem. Iran executes hundreds of drug offenders. Malaysia has hanged dozens of drug users in the past few years. In neither country has the drug problem receded. In fact, in Malaysia, the addiction rate continues to rise. On the other hand, the Dutch government, with its liberal social and political philosophy, tolerates drug use, and the addiction rate is declining.
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.
Richard Posner, Chicago's chief judge of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and one of the nation's leading legal scholars, says marijuana use should be legalized as a way of reducing crime. Posner, a Reagan administration appointee once described by American Lawyer magazine as “the most brilliant judge in the country,” explained his views on marijuana in The Times Literary Supplement, a British publication, and in later interview:
“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.”
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 13, 2008 11:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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.
***
Dissenting from the recent Supreme Court ruling on the suspension of an Alaskan student for waving a banner -- "BONG HITS 4 Jesus" -- at a high school event, Justice John Paul Stevens takes the long view:
"...the current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs...
"...just as Prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several states that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs."
The Washington Post, July 26, 2007, reported: "Stevens compared the current marijuana ban to the abandoned alcohol ban and urged a respectful hearing for those who suggest 'however inarticulately' that the ban is 'futile' and that marijuana should be legalized, taxed and regulated instead of prohibited."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE Vasumurti
Posted by: Stoney 12+1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 13, 2008 11:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [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 already being made from it in Europe. Industrial hemp can meet our fiber needs while also revitalizing our struggling rural economies.
Hemp is already 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 current 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 points out that "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]
» thank you!
Posted by: bluebirdella
» RE: thank you!
Posted by: Xynyx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John Thomas on Sep 13, 2008 11:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Police, prosecutors and politicians build their careers and empires on it. -- Industries like alcohol and pharmaceuticals don't want the competition. -- Other interests like the drug treatment/testing industry and the prison industries depend on it for their life's blood. Finally, the government/corporate junta uses marijuana prohibition as a means of controlling minorities and the poor, and as a pretext to invade other countries - often destroying governments that represent the people to install dictatorships that will give U.S. companies free reign.
On the other side?
30 to 50 million innocent marijuana consumers that are coerced into silence because they can suffer the loss of jobs, the right to drive, their freedom, even their CHILDREN - if they speak up and their consumption becomes public.
Something's got to give.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bluebirdella on Sep 13, 2008 12:22 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But you couldn't make big tax money on it because if it were legal, people would grow in it in their back yards.
What makes more sense to me is legalizing hemp (legalizing both, really) and making money on the sale of hemp products.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MattSavinar on Sep 13, 2008 12:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our financial system is, at this point, probably as dependent on laundered money from the drug trade as the transportation system is on oil imports. You could no more decriminalize marijuana in short order than you could stop accepting oil imports and expect the country in its current form to function for more than 2-7 days.
Also of note: Once it's laundered into Wall Street, a further portion is used to donate money to whichever politician(s) are most likely to make decisions favorable to the drug cartels and banks that launder their money.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that alot of the money the Big Banks used to invest in construction the last 5 years was money coming in from the heroin trade in AFghanistan that needed to be laundered. Heroin is not the topic of this article but the tie between the drug war and the housing boom rarely goes noticed by these sort of articles.
Neither does the connection between the drug war and climate change. Most of the money that's getting laundered into suburban construction projects the last 5 years are out in the exurbs where people have to drive further and used more energy to heat the homes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Marijuana profits are laundered into Wall Street
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Marijuana profits are laundered into Wall Street
Posted by: MattSavinar
» RE: Marijuana profits are laundered into Wall Street
Posted by: MattSavinar
» RE: Marijuana profits are laundered into Wall Street
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Sep 13, 2008 12:43 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hemp makes paper that can last 100 years or more. Hemp makes oils of all kinds from skin oils to lamp oil to #2 diesel fuel. Hemp charcoal is 80% cleaner burning than fossil coal. Hemp flour makes as good a bread as wheat,rye,soy.Hemp also,in seed,contains all the essiental amino acids that rebuild the human immune system.
There's a lot of people that think these claims are making hemp seem like a 'miracle plant'. Far from it. We're just feeding you the truth as it's known throughout history. Why should we lie? That only makes us the same as those whom we elect. Their system of control is based upon lies,like Iraq.
If we taxed just the smoking of it alone there would be enough money collected to pay for healthcare for everyone,if the politicians don't steal it. Additional tax monies could be earned by the commerical uses of this plant.
Factor in the fact that hemp can be grown on the same plot of land, without anything more than manure fertilizer,for 25 years means controlled environmental impact. Add to that the fact that when you grow hemp for fibers,the cellulose from the plant is left on the fields and that refertilizes the land without extra chemicals. Chemicals that would otherwise 'run-off' into local water sheds.Which means,hemp farming can have a greatly positive impact on the environment.
Using hemp for paper means 75% less chemicals going into our waterways from plant discharges and as a charcoal 80% less stack emmissions.
If we're serious about 'saving the environment' we'd be idiots to ignore these facts. But it's the greedy in the oil and chemical industries that keep this plant illegal because it cuts into their long established markets. Markets that used to be the domain of Hemp,until the Natural Resources Conservation Act of 1933. That's when hemp and all the other farm based products that could be replaced by products made from petrochemicals became 'off market'.
'Marijuana' is a lie fed to our Great Grandparents to help pass laws designed to wage war on the poor. If the papers and newsreels of the day were filled with 'Crazy Mexicans stoned on Hemp' stories our Great grandparents would have laughed their asses off at the stupidity of the reporting.
To show you were a 'Liberteen' in the 1770's,you had a copy of the 'Declaration of Independance' hid somewhere on your person or property. That copy was written on Hemp paper
and it would look as good today as it did when it was illegally printed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xtine on Sep 13, 2008 1:38 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest benefit would be the reduced crime rate. If drugs were easily available, the pushers would be out of business, the kids in poor urban neighborhoods would suddenly find that school and part time legitimate employment were of interest, and all of us would be safer.
I have held this view for a long time, but as obvious as it is to me, I am not optimistic that it would ever come to pass.
Why? Because the drug business is so huge and so profitable that the people involved have too much power to allow it to happen. Too bad.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I am not optimistic that it would ever come to pass.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: I am not optimistic that it would ever come to pass.
Posted by: MattSavinar
» RE: I am not optimistic that it would ever come to pass.
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: using on Sep 13, 2008 1:47 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer to our financial crisis is to addict our citizens to pot?
A person can consume some alcohol and still be good to drive safely. And surely while cigeratte smoking can cause cancer, one can safely drive a car or operate on a patient after having a smoke.
HOwever, I remember that friends who smoked pot sparingly (a few drags here and there), would say, "oh you should try it ...it is wonderful-- changes your whole perspective, colors are more vivid, time slows down etc.
So, I ask you....how safe will we be on the open road?? in our schools, in the hands of doctors? But hey, we won't have to worry about who wins the election ..or how many jobs leave America....because we won't care so much..work smork...addicting people to pot and having them in a state of "high" roaming the streets, driving their cars and serving in Congress, (oh what am I saying, didn't they just uncover a drug and sex orgey amongst our senate committee members.....with missing tax dollars and oil bribes drowning out the needs of our country and its people. Yes, what a solution, lets sell pot and fill our coffiers....Trust me, we will never see a benifit from it. YOu want benifits....fix our problem with honest to goodness "stand for a better world clear headed accountable types and see our financial crisis melt and our options and possibities for a better future open up.
We need to face our reality and fix it. Something that some amongst us have a stake in our not accomplishing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: flash backs from ancient China
Posted by: jroth420
» Barely coherent paragraph. Are you on crack?
Posted by: Coleman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Sep 13, 2008 6:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the 60s (the Peace, Love, High era) there was a huge push to legalize marijuana. So much so that Big Tobacco was setting out fields reserved for marijuana growth exclusively.
Then all of a sudden--all plans to legalize marijuana were shelved--the fields plowed under, and the whole idea was not only never heard from again--but legalization met with fierce opposition. Why?
Because, in the meantime, Big Tobacco had learned something: they learned that smoking marijuana helps motivated people to quit smoking cigarettes, often overnight--and then those people don't stay with the grass, either.
A lose-lose proposition, for the Marlboro Man.
You see, if you want to quit smoking and have a heavy habit as I had, back in 1977-- working 18-hour days at a highpressure job, I went through 4 packs a day for 3 years-- you exchange your cigarettes for grass.
I did that for one weekend. (Memo for those who want to try this--DO NOT DRIVE while using grass to quit!!! That's why I picked the weekend to do that.)
At the end of that weekend I sobered up--and then never touched another cigarette again. To this day.
And it wasn't hard to do. The REAL interesting thing about it all was--I didn't want a joint, either!
I told others and helped them to quit that way. And I bet along the way, Big Tobacco found out that not only their cigarette business was at risk--but that marijuana wouldn't even replace the cigarette business that would be lost when people used the grass to quit smoking ciggies.
HALF A MILLION people a year, die from smoking. That's money in these poison-peddlers' pockets that they don't want to lose. That's why nowadays, I hear, you can hardly get grass without a tobacco component in it. Unless--as I did back then--you grow your own.
All marijuana comes with seeds. It's REAL easy to grow. I grew it in my kitchen, under lamps. Once I had enough for a year, I put the lamps in my junk closet where they looked like any other spares.
I kept the grass in case I got some uncontrollable urge to start smoking again. I figured that, after a year still OK, I didn't need my years' stash. So I gave it to a doctor friend of mine who took his terminal cancer patients to a safe place to smoke some of the pain away. I never asked where, when--it was none of my business what he did with it.
Only a year later, I found out that my contribution had eased the passing of over a hundred people. And many of them had been suffering from lung cancer. Some, even from cigarette exposure--though most, from radon in their first-floor dwelling places
BTW--that's how you get these people who never smoked but get cancer anyway. Everyone living on the first floor should get their home tested for radon. It's quick & cheap and you can pick up a test kit at your local Home Depot; Ace; Lowe's; Walgreen's.
Now--regarding smoking and the way that I quit--where would Big Tobacco be if EVERYBODY did that? My God, the share price would disappear!
(Can't have that--that's un-American!)
THAT'S why, Big Tobacco will never allow marijuana to be legalized. They'd rather do what they've been doing all along--kill the smoker and then hook their kids. In the Big Tobacco's boardrooms, those kids are known as "replacements".
Nice, hah?
I am now 70 years old. I didn't get lung cancer but I do have COPD. Still, I have maybe a few more years before emphysema sets in, so I have got to say that I really really lucked out. I was 35 when I quit that massive smoking habit that I'd developed--half my lifetime ago. And I could not have done it without grass.
The grass, quite literally, saved my life.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I can tell you the real reason why marijuana will never be legalized in America...
Posted by: jroth420
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joe on Sep 13, 2008 7:29 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Shouldn't you revise that to United Fascist Party, Joe?
Posted by: paulmagillsmith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mtatasmith on Sep 13, 2008 7:56 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Obviously you've never almost crashed from a dropped 'roach'
Posted by: paulmagillsmith
» RE: The problem on the road is not POT it 's CELL PHONES!
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: paulmagillsmith on Sep 13, 2008 9:07 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Morality plays no part in discussions about this weed/herb. For those Christian/Judeo religious fanatics out there, and Puritanical types hell bent on trying to convince others they are going to a mythological man invented hell for enjoying a bit of pleasure in their lives instead of misery, I suggest you read your own operators manual...the Bible. In Genesis it even states everything here on Earth are a gift from God for man to use...and that means EVERYTHING. In this most suspect, numerous times edited, literary work by who knows who, when, or where (the why, to control populations through fear, is obvious) we have been propagandized to believe if something feels good it must be sinful...what a crock! I consider myself very fortunate to be an enlightened hippie child of the '60's, where a new paradigm was set in motion, to wit, "If it feels good do it again...or take two".
Unfortunately, those diametrically opposed, who sadly believe people were put here to suffer, have weaseled their way into controlling the financial resources of this planet, and through this means control over the lives of the world populace.
There were some very good comments made on this article, a lot of info provided, and some claims made. One I take exception with is that legalization of pot (or hemp or both) would crash our economy. With hemp used as a source of biofuel instead of corn ethanol, a savings from the $60+ billion now spent for the prison industrial complex, savings by not needing to spend a trillion dollars per year on an oversized/budgeted military used to steal resources (oil) from other countries, and recouping some of the balance of trade deficit from the estimated $110+ billion Americans spend on recreational drugs yearly(most going south of the border), it just doesn't add up.
Besides, that money would stay in this country, production of pot & hemp products (including energy resources) would provide countless new jobs, and we could spend far less than the $700 billion we now have going outside the country to purchase oil from other countries.
Obstacles, of course, are big tobacco, oil, pharma, and big agriculture. Even moreso , a corrupt greedy corporate structure, media controlled by same, compromised congress, but especially big banking, a (non) Federal Reserve, and families like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, DuPonts, Morgans, & others, who have manipulated the economy in the past toward depressions in order to buy up resources deflated in value for pennies on the dollar (or just take them), powerful interests all.
Like I said, "It's all about the money", and especially the nefarious consolidation of our economy into the hands of an infinitesmally small number of people.
I don't see pot (or perhaps even hemp) being legalized in my lifetime, unless energy prices squeeze Americans to the point of saying 'Enough', causing them to rise enmasse beyond their ignorance, complacency, and divisive political insanity...slim chance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Sep 13, 2008 11:06 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NEVER.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: CIA AND CITIBANK WON'T LET IT HAPPEN
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Sep 13, 2008 11:16 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JUST LIKE IT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT THAT BUSH HASN'T FOUND BIN-LADEN (who's family FUNDED BUSH'S FIRST OIL COMPANY, ARBUSTO, AND ARE CLOSE FAMILY, HANG AROUND THE HOUSE, FRIENDS).
JUST LIKE UNDERFUNDED EDUCATION IS NOT AN ACCIDENT.... CANNON FODDER AND LOW INFORMATION VOTERS.
DESTROYING OUR GOVERNMENT IS NO ACCIDENT: SMALLER GOVERNMENT IS A 'CORPORATE FREE-FOR-ALL.'
POOR HEALTH CARE IS NOT AN ACCIDENT.
NONE OF IT IS AN ACCIDENT.
ALL OF IT IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE ADVANCING FASCISM IN THIS COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD. RETURNING US TO FEUDALISM.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John Thomas on Sep 14, 2008 12:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, an increasing number of communities - from Denver to Santa Cruz - are passing initiatives make marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority.
Personal consumption and cultivation are legal in Alaska.
Public opinion has now passed the tipping point, with polls showing most Americans want an end to marijuana arrests.
100 million Americans have smoked pot. All the major studies show marijuana is far safer than alcohol. The cat is out of the bag.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picket on Sep 14, 2008 8:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The citizens who are advocates for drug reform need to see some positive steps taken:
... LIKE....
..... Keep the Feds out of California as a starter. Hasn't it been 10 years since the VOTERS decided. [McCain speaks of States Rights,that is a JOKE]
....Take Cannabis out of Schedule One Drugs...which now states Cannabis has no medical use.
People who have been advocating for the suffering humans caught up in the dirty drug war are getting weary..... THAT IS WHAT "they" want...."people shut up."
This is a control issue for the FEDS against the citizens. Certain aspects of the drug war which could be solved without an economic crash are in the hands of powerful lobbyists who have millions to spend! Support Drug Reform Groups by putting pressure on Congress when these groups ask for help on issues. [ The Hinchey Ammendment ] It seems to have gone missing this election year????
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: e: Illegal Drug Profits Laundered Into Wall Street..
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: caru on Sep 14, 2008 8:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yes turn it around.
leave the fear factor.
turn it around.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: motamanx on Sep 14, 2008 10:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "War on Drugs" is an expensive, and failed, policy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Sep 14, 2008 10:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can the Federal government make pot illegal in the first place. When it was alcohol they had to resort to a constitutional amendment to prohibit its sale and use. There is no amendment to ban pot which is just another plant cultivated to smoke as is tobacco...which is perfectly legal.
Why did we resort to the 18th amendment if merely passing a law was all that was required in the first place? It seems to be that, absent the 18th amendment, drinking is/was a protected "pursuit of happiness" as is smoking tobacco.
If alcohol is not unconstitutional and tobacco is not unconstitutional then how can pot be unconstitutional. If it is NOT unconstitutional how can congress ban it's use? What amendment allows the government to ban pot while still allowing tobacco?
Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 12th Amendment would seem to prohibit a federal law outlawing smoking pot, or grape leaves or any other thing a person might wish to light up! There is no article in the constitution that I can find that grants Congress to declare any substance illegal. If a state were to legalize pot ( or any other substance ) it would seem this falls within state's rights and not subject to review by Congress.
Case in point are medical marijuana laws where people have been arrested by federal agents for the distribution of use of pot that is legal under their state's laws.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Is it's illegality actuall unconstitutional?
Posted by: Lauren
» Blame FDR and Wickard v Filburn
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jstepp590 on Sep 14, 2008 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good luck getting the DEA to give it up though. The money saved would come out of their budget and they, just like any government agency, will not give up power without a fight. Personally I say decriminalize, take that money and do random school drug testing for any drugs (legal or illegal) for grades 6-12, and use the extra manpower freed up to shut off the flow of drugs into our schools (not giving the parents or kids a hard time, just shut it off). Our schools are loaded with drugs you know and as someone who started smoking at 13ys old out of a Catholic school 25 yrs ago I say that is long overdue to correct.
If we keep our kids off them until at least 18yo then as all the studies have shown they are far less likely later to use them. Basically it's the same Clear, Hold and Build strategy used in Iraq. Even though I believe in decriminalization and/or legalization for adults I sincerely wish I hadn't used it that much (chronic) in school. It did take away from my lifes possibilities, as much as I hate to admit it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: decriminalization
Posted by: reelectnoone
» RE: decriminalization
Posted by: jstepp590
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John Thomas on Sep 14, 2008 12:22 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry. I have to doubt marijuana's responsibility in taking your life away. 100 million Americans have smoked pot. There are 30 to 50 million current consumers. The vast majority of them are perfectly-functioning, supporting families, and valuable members of their communities. The idea that marijuana turns people into "slackers" is just another prohibitionist demonization. It seems far more likely that marijuana is just something that slackers turn to.
The very existence of the DEA is an affront to humanity. They are simply the Inquisitors with another name.
reelectnoone
How can the Federal government make pot illegal in the first place."
Of course, the whole persecution has been a fraud from the beginning. That more people don't realize this lends support to the idea that Americans have indeed been 'dumbed down.'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Great Fraud
Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: The Great Fraud
Posted by: John Thomas
» RE: The Great Fraud
Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: The Great Fraud
Posted by: John Thomas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tap17x on Sep 14, 2008 8:31 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]
» RE: No politician, Dem or Refucklican,.....
Posted by: John Thomas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero1 on Sep 15, 2008 6:14 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They would be the first to scream if there was a 'sin' tax on BC pills or condoms.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cause they are weak and are trying to bribe their opponents
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Cause they are weak and are trying to bribe their opponents
Posted by: John Thomas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Stoney 12+1 on Sep 15, 2008 6:33 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you get kissed after you got fucked?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: YOU'RE PAYING $300.00 AN OUNCE??!!!!!!!!
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lizard12 on Sep 15, 2008 1:09 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: dayahka on Sep 15, 2008 2:46 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wishing upon a Star
Posted by: John Thomas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Sep 11, 2008 7:39 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who are healthy all their lives live the longest and cost the health care system the most.
Yet no one is talking about putting health taxes on raw fruits and veggies.
Sin Taxes are tyranny of the majority bullshit whereby a majority who doesn't use a substance like alcohol or tobacco taxes it knowing they don't have to pay the tax and therefore get to shoulder less of a overall tax burden.
Don't push the tax revenue angle on marijuana. Push the truth, that those who abuse their own bodies die quicker and cost the system less and therefore the tools they use to abuse themselves shouldn't be subject to taxes above and beyond normal products.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sin Taxes are Bullshit Not!
Posted by: ken_sailor
» RE: Sin Taxes are Bullshit Not!
Posted by: ken_sailor
» Some Studies Show Exactly the Opposite of What You State
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» I did not argue Marijuana users are bad because they live longer
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: I did not argue Marijuana users are bad because they live longer
Posted by: chinacat
» RE: I did not take a stance on marijuana there
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Sin Taxes are Bullshit
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: My point was if they legalize marijuana it shouldn't be taxes above normal sales tax rates
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: My point was if they legalize marijuana it shouldn't be taxes above normal sales tax rates
Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Are terrorists in charge? Looks like it
Posted by: Lauren
» You have it backwards...
Posted by: ta2
» RE: Better be sure...
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Sin Taxes are Bullshit
Posted by: mahembar
» Actually read my posts before commenting
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Sin Taxes are Bullshit
Posted by: techcafe
» Read some studies
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ken_sailor on Sep 11, 2008 10:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not one of those cases however.
The war on marijuana is a government-created-and-run inquisition and exactly what our bill of rights is supposed to protect us against. All we have to do is stop it, and then things get better.
Getting more money out of the legal commerce in marijuana is just one of the benefits.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Let's do the right thing and make money doing it!
Posted by: lil ole me
» RE: Let's do the right thing and make money doing it!
Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Sep 11, 2008 10:48 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: The real hemp potential...
Posted by: Knowmad
» The real hemp potential...
Posted by: Knowmad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Sep 11, 2008 11:58 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the real argument is reducing the rather large profit motives from the underground economy...
if you legalize it...
you CAN tax the hell outta it as people are paying 300$ an ounce for it now!...
The government can tax this herb for immediate tax relief now while at the same time undermining criminal organizations and black marketeers!
Prohibition this day and age is about who is doing more harm...
1.)drugs...
2.)their suppliers, or
3.)the consumers of these products
who's reasons for consuming them are as varied as the products are themselves!
end prohibition now...
end black market money market now...
end the killings of both victims and victimizers ...NOW!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Founding Father of this Nation grew Hemp!
Posted by: tRANIS
» RE: The Founding Father of this Nation grew Hemp!
Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: The Founding Father of this Nation grew Hemp!
Posted by: john mont
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willd4change on Sep 12, 2008 8:36 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: they will lose money - for sure!
Posted by: donl51
» RE: they will lose money
Posted by: chinacat
» RE: they will lose money
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: they will lose money+Jimmy Carter
Posted by: john mont
» RE: they will lose money+Jimmy Carter
Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: they will lose money+Jimmy Carter
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: they will lose money+Jimmy Carter
Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: they will lose money+Jimmy Carter????????????
Posted by: bizeeb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John Thomas on Sep 12, 2008 7:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But as was briefly noted, this is about far more than money. 800,000 innocent Americans are branded second-class citizens for life every year with the record of a marijuana arrest.
It's about humanity. It's about the American Inquisition. It's about justice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fraud
Posted by: mystump
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Sep 13, 2008 1:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is insane that at this very moment there are people sitting in prison for its usage.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY.
Barack Needs Our Help
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pot Shot
Posted by: Lauren
» Hello, Lauren....
Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Hello, Lauren....
Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: ..incapable of being concerned with the immense harm that is being done to so many people...
Posted by: Lauren
» PREJUDICE A HOPELESS CASE - 100% OF THE TIME
Posted by: caru
» RE: Pot Shot
Posted by: larkztngue
» one person
Posted by: bluebirdella
» RE: Pot Shot, its about the fat.
Posted by: weathered
» RE: Pot Shot, its about the fat.
Posted by: mathprof
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VetAgainst McCain on Sep 13, 2008 1:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One more thing. I want to thank AlterNet for improving my retired lifestyle.
Since I began commenting on the best progressive blog ever, I've lost all interest in talking-head TV,- such as my former favorites: MSNBC's "Hardball," Keith Obermann's hoot and most recently, the six p.m. program hosted by Rachel Maddow.
I also ignore the Sunday morning shows -- like "Face the Nation" and "Meet the Press." Happily, I've discovered, the print media, online transcripts and investigative Web sites plus AlterNet provide more than enough information to satisfy my curiosity.
I now have more time during the week for writing, gardening, swimming, seeing movies, shopping with my wife and visiting our kids -- to name a few pleasurable afternoon activities (but not smoking pot until it's legal).
Then, at midnight before going to bed and after AlterNet posts its newest articles, I'm back on the blog having fun attacking Manchurian Candidate McCain, Appalling Palin and the rightwing GOP.
I even enjoy jousting with LyingHeart -- I mean, LionHeart.
Have a great weekend, everyone!
Vet against McCain
To find out why, click on the links below:
American View (now my favorite anti-GOP Web site)
Vietnam Veterans Against McCain (self-explanatory)
Vote Vets (maintained by Iraq and Afghan war vets)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Isn't there a third way???
Posted by: CatDad
» Treat pot smokers like drunks,CatDad. If they drive stoned, make it a DUI, not a felony.
Posted by: VetAgainst McCain
» RE: Treat pot smokers like drunks,CatDad. If they drive stoned, make it a DUI, not a felony.
Posted by: jroth420
» In California, a DUI is a misdemeanor offense initially subject to fines. not jail time.
Posted by: VetAgainst McCain
» RE: Treat pot smokers like drunks,CatDad. If they drive stoned, make it a DUI, not a felony.
Posted by: insidelookingout
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sparks56 on Sep 13, 2008 3:25 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last thing marijuana growers want is legal pot. It would put them out of business.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If marijuana were legal you couldn't give it away, let alone tax it. Wrong!
Posted by: mainspark
» RE: Can't Give It Away
Posted by: larkztngue
» RE: Can't Give It Away
Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: Can't Give It Away
Posted by: Sparks56
» If grown like tomatoes and beans people would buy factory mades
Posted by: billwald
» RE: If grown like tomatoes and beans people would buy factory mades
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Can't Give It Away
Posted by: ganja_farmer
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 13, 2008 4:45 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: kewpie on Sep 13, 2008 5:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The vested big business elites own both parties lock stock and barrel. Peak oil might reverse it.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: WHy not the other cousin...HEMP?
Posted by: Xynyx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Sep 13, 2008 5:47 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pot has the record for one of the Longest lOngitudinal Studies known to man!Waht claims to 'cancer' are riduclous because it can be steeped as a tea or made into a butter- so eating & drinking are ways to negate the 'smoking' negatives. Also Pot is NOT addictive, you may enjoy it so much you refuse to give it up- but you are not pyshically addicted.
What manufactured meds would be knocked off the profit margin sheets if Pot was able to be grown at home as it's substitute?Anti Depressants, anxiety, blood Pressure, pain meds, appetite stimulants, Glaucoma pills & Drops..??
Want to know why Pot is still illegal although it kills far less than Alcohol (auto related)- Too easy to set up shop in your own basement and it will gut the Pharm business Profits,esp those meds to address the side effects of your other meds.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Too Easy To Grow at Home- No Profits
Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» RE: Too Easy To Grow at Home- No Profits
Posted by: Lauren
» Solar can benefit from hemp. Durable solar panels from hemp. How's that?
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: larkztngue on Sep 13, 2008 6:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last and most important argument advocating the use of Hemp would be that we can make paper out of it. Our culture wastes so much paper which unfortunately is made out of trees. So thanks to various lobbying groups-like the Lumber industry-we in a manner of speaking are wiping our butts with Old Growth Forests and flushing them down the crapper.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SHRED on Sep 13, 2008 7:12 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legalize industrial use of the plant and the tax revenue generated from spinoff cottage industries would dwarf any pot revenues.
I don't want to see pot commercials on TV and I am not sure it would work anyway. It doesn't take much to grow it.
Better idea is to legalize industrial hemp while allowing people to grow their own for medicinal/recreational. No commercial sales or advertising but instead people could trade their pot.
If you allow people 3 plants each then the price would drop to weed levels which would make commercial growing pointless anyway.
Think people think.
---
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Industrial Hemp for tax revenue not pot
Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» RE: Industrial Hemp for tax revenue not pot
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Sep 13, 2008 7:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jiff
Is your ISP watching you?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picket on Sep 13, 2008 8:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doesn't "dirty money" have a HUGE effect on our economy? The big boxes of cash help out the banking industry, real estate, auto,....on and on...
Low level criminals like your next door neighbor may depend on the summer crop to only pay their property taxes. Is that such a BAD thing? Bad enough to be thrown into a cage?
Apparently the "so-called leaders" of the USA think so !!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aonghus36 on Sep 13, 2008 8:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Don't get me wrong...
Posted by: aonghus36
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mcl on Sep 13, 2008 8:36 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: war_on_tara on Sep 13, 2008 9:12 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't owned a car in many years - live happily in a transit-dense city & region - but realize I'm in a tiny minority and it's obvious to me this is what is holding back the tide of pot legalization. There must be 98% or so of American adults driving nearly every day, so there has to be a way to test for this. As long as there is not, it won't get legalized, it's simple as that.
I never hear anything about this and think there MUST be a way - short of testing hair follicles that prove you smoked half a joint 6 weeks ago! - of testing for very short-term marijuana use.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The problem with the weed test is how we metabolize THC
Posted by: rancespergl
» If you come up with a figure, legalization will be an easier sell
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Needed first: A reliable test for DUI marijuana!
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Needed first: A reliable test for DUI marijuana!
Posted by: war_on_tara
» No DUI test needed
Posted by: Dankhank
» Now could a STONED person type all that? (heh)
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Now could a STONED person type all that? (heh)
Posted by: amerimet
» you'd apparently be suprised by a stoner's abilities in anything
Posted by: Dankhank
» DUI Marijuana
Posted by: Xynyx
» how do you know that is true? (WEEDER! SPEEDER!)
Posted by: caru
» RE: Needed first: A reliable test for DUI marijuana!
Posted by: mathprof
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bushmaster on Sep 13, 2008 9:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The amount of savings alone from relieving the criminal justice system of this would be tremendous.
The unemployed prison employees and police could earn a living honestly by growing pot.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fomented on Sep 13, 2008 9:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And to deny people the use of this medically is insane,
while we allow drug companies to use us a lab rats for any old shite they want to pump
us with -- then have to sue them for damage long after the fact.
NOW THAT IS REEFER MADNESS
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This my beef
Posted by: amerimet
» RE: This my beef
Posted by: Xynyx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 13, 2008 10:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [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 that eighty percent of those polled felt marijuana should be legal only for therapeutic 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.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: make marijuana safe and legal (part 1)
Posted by: Xynyx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 13, 2008 11:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each year, the U.S. government spends more than $30 billion on the drug war and arrests over 1.5 million people on drug-related charges. Over 318,000 people are now behind bars in the U.S. for drug violations, greater than the total number of people incarcerated for all crimes in England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.
Our government is calling for billions of dollars to fight a drug war it can't win. Roughly 75 percent of this money goes to enforcing laws and regulations, but only 15 percent goes to drug education and prevention, and a only a meager 10 percent goes to treatment for addicts.
During the 1950s, long-term prison sentences against drug users choked the courts, strained and disrupted prisons and drove black-market prices even higher. The latest casualty in the drug war has been our civil liberties: mandatory drug testing so we can all be “drug free”. Some of these tests have been struck down by the courts, where the government is the employer. But others have been upheld. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia denounced these drug tests as “an immolation of privacy and human dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use.”
Even putting America under martial law will not solve the nation's drug problem. Iran executes hundreds of drug offenders. Malaysia has hanged dozens of drug users in the past few years. In neither country has the drug problem receded. In fact, in Malaysia, the addiction rate continues to rise. On the other hand, the Dutch government, with its liberal social and political philosophy, tolerates drug use, and the addiction rate is declining.
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.
Richard Posner, Chicago's chief judge of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and one of the nation's leading legal scholars, says marijuana use should be legalized as a way of reducing crime. Posner, a Reagan administration appointee once described by American Lawyer magazine as “the most brilliant judge in the country,” explained his views on marijuana in The Times Literary Supplement, a British publication, and in later interview:
“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.”
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 13, 2008 11:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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.
***
Dissenting from the recent Supreme Court ruling on the suspension of an Alaskan student for waving a banner -- "BONG HITS 4 Jesus" -- at a high school event, Justice John Paul Stevens takes the long view:
"...the current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs...
"...just as Prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several states that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs."
The Washington Post, July 26, 2007, reported: "Stevens compared the current marijuana ban to the abandoned alcohol ban and urged a respectful hearing for those who suggest 'however inarticulately' that the ban is 'futile' and that marijuana should be legalized, taxed and regulated instead of prohibited."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE Vasumurti
Posted by: Stoney 12+1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 13, 2008 11:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [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 already being made from it in Europe. Industrial hemp can meet our fiber needs while also revitalizing our struggling rural economies.
Hemp is already 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 current 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 points out that "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]
» thank you!
Posted by: bluebirdella
» RE: thank you!
Posted by: Xynyx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John Thomas on Sep 13, 2008 11:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Police, prosecutors and politicians build their careers and empires on it. -- Industries like alcohol and pharmaceuticals don't want the competition. -- Other interests like the drug treatment/testing industry and the prison industries depend on it for their life's blood. Finally, the government/corporate junta uses marijuana prohibition as a means of controlling minorities and the poor, and as a pretext to invade other countries - often destroying governments that represent the people to install dictatorships that will give U.S. companies free reign.
On the other side?
30 to 50 million innocent marijuana consumers that are coerced into silence because they can suffer the loss of jobs, the right to drive, their freedom, even their CHILDREN - if they speak up and their consumption becomes public.
Something's got to give.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bluebirdella on Sep 13, 2008 12:22 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But you couldn't make big tax money on it because if it were legal, people would grow in it in their back yards.
What makes more sense to me is legalizing hemp (legalizing both, really) and making money on the sale of hemp products.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MattSavinar on Sep 13, 2008 12:24 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our financial system is, at this point, probably as dependent on laundered money from the drug trade as the transportation system is on oil imports. You could no more decriminalize marijuana in short order than you could stop accepting oil imports and expect the country in its current form to function for more than 2-7 days.
Also of note: Once it's laundered into Wall Street, a further portion is used to donate money to whichever politician(s) are most likely to make decisions favorable to the drug cartels and banks that launder their money.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that alot of the money the Big Banks used to invest in construction the last 5 years was money coming in from the heroin trade in AFghanistan that needed to be laundered. Heroin is not the topic of this article but the tie between the drug war and the housing boom rarely goes noticed by these sort of articles.
Neither does the connection between the drug war and climate change. Most of the money that's getting laundered into suburban construction projects the last 5 years are out in the exurbs where people have to drive further and used more energy to heat the homes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Marijuana profits are laundered into Wall Street
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Marijuana profits are laundered into Wall Street
Posted by: MattSavinar
» RE: Marijuana profits are laundered into Wall Street
Posted by: MattSavinar
» RE: Marijuana profits are laundered into Wall Street
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Sep 13, 2008 12:43 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hemp makes paper that can last 100 years or more. Hemp makes oils of all kinds from skin oils to lamp oil to #2 diesel fuel. Hemp charcoal is 80% cleaner burning than fossil coal. Hemp flour makes as good a bread as wheat,rye,soy.Hemp also,in seed,contains all the essiental amino acids that rebuild the human immune system.
There's a lot of people that think these claims are making hemp seem like a 'miracle plant'. Far from it. We're just feeding you the truth as it's known throughout history. Why should we lie? That only makes us the same as those whom we elect. Their system of control is based upon lies,like Iraq.
If we taxed just the smoking of it alone there would be enough money collected to pay for healthcare for everyone,if the politicians don't steal it. Additional tax monies could be earned by the commerical uses of this plant.
Factor in the fact that hemp can be grown on the same plot of land, without anything more than manure fertilizer,for 25 years means controlled environmental impact. Add to that the fact that when you grow hemp for fibers,the cellulose from the plant is left on the fields and that refertilizes the land without extra chemicals. Chemicals that would otherwise 'run-off' into local water sheds.Which means,hemp farming can have a greatly positive impact on the environment.
Using hemp for paper means 75% less chemicals going into our waterways from plant discharges and as a charcoal 80% less stack emmissions.
If we're serious about 'saving the environment' we'd be idiots to ignore these facts. But it's the greedy in the oil and chemical industries that keep this plant illegal because it cuts into their long established markets. Markets that used to be the domain of Hemp,until the Natural Resources Conservation Act of 1933. That's when hemp and all the other farm based products that could be replaced by products made from petrochemicals became 'off market'.
'Marijuana' is a lie fed to our Great Grandparents to help pass laws designed to wage war on the poor. If the papers and newsreels of the day were filled with 'Crazy Mexicans stoned on Hemp' stories our Great grandparents would have laughed their asses off at the stupidity of the reporting.
To show you were a 'Liberteen' in the 1770's,you had a copy of the 'Declaration of Independance' hid somewhere on your person or property. That copy was written on Hemp paper
and it would look as good today as it did when it was illegally printed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xtine on Sep 13, 2008 1:38 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest benefit would be the reduced crime rate. If drugs were easily available, the pushers would be out of business, the kids in poor urban neighborhoods would suddenly find that school and part time legitimate employment were of interest, and all of us would be safer.
I have held this view for a long time, but as obvious as it is to me, I am not optimistic that it would ever come to pass.
Why? Because the drug business is so huge and so profitable that the people involved have too much power to allow it to happen. Too bad.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I am not optimistic that it would ever come to pass.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: I am not optimistic that it would ever come to pass.
Posted by: MattSavinar
» RE: I am not optimistic that it would ever come to pass.
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: using on Sep 13, 2008 1:47 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer to our financial crisis is to addict our citizens to pot?
A person can consume some alcohol and still be good to drive safely. And surely while cigeratte smoking can cause cancer, one can safely drive a car or operate on a patient after having a smoke.
HOwever, I remember that friends who smoked pot sparingly (a few drags here and there), would say, "oh you should try it ...it is wonderful-- changes your whole perspective, colors are more vivid, time slows down etc.
So, I ask you....how safe will we be on the open road?? in our schools, in the hands of doctors? But hey, we won't have to worry about who wins the election ..or how many jobs leave America....because we won't care so much..work smork...addicting people to pot and having them in a state of "high" roaming the streets, driving their cars and serving in Congress, (oh what am I saying, didn't they just uncover a drug and sex orgey amongst our senate committee members.....with missing tax dollars and oil bribes drowning out the needs of our country and its people. Yes, what a solution, lets sell pot and fill our coffiers....Trust me, we will never see a benifit from it. YOu want benifits....fix our problem with honest to goodness "stand for a better world clear headed accountable types and see our financial crisis melt and our options and possibities for a better future open up.
We need to face our reality and fix it. Something that some amongst us have a stake in our not accomplishing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: flash backs from ancient China
Posted by: jroth420
» Barely coherent paragraph. Are you on crack?
Posted by: Coleman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Sep 13, 2008 6:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the 60s (the Peace, Love, High era) there was a huge push to legalize marijuana. So much so that Big Tobacco was setting out fields reserved for marijuana growth exclusively.
Then all of a sudden--all plans to legalize marijuana were shelved--the fields plowed under, and the whole idea was not only never heard from again--but legalization met with fierce opposition. Why?
Because, in the meantime, Big Tobacco had learned something: they learned that smoking marijuana helps motivated people to quit smoking cigarettes, often overnight--and then those people don't stay with the grass, either.
A lose-lose proposition, for the Marlboro Man.
You see, if you want to quit smoking and have a heavy habit as I had, back in 1977-- working 18-hour days at a highpressure job, I went through 4 packs a day for 3 years-- you exchange your cigarettes for grass.
I did that for one weekend. (Memo for those who want to try this--DO NOT DRIVE while using grass to quit!!! That's why I picked the weekend to do that.)
At the end of that weekend I sobered up--and then never touched another cigarette again. To this day.
And it wasn't hard to do. The REAL interesting thing about it all was--I didn't want a joint, either!
I told others and helped them to quit that way. And I bet along the way, Big Tobacco found out that not only their cigarette business was at risk--but that marijuana wouldn't even replace the cigarette business that would be lost when people used the grass to quit smoking ciggies.
HALF A MILLION people a year, die from smoking. That's money in these poison-peddlers' pockets that they don't want to lose. That's why nowadays, I hear, you can hardly get grass without a tobacco component in it. Unless--as I did back then--you grow your own.
All marijuana comes with seeds. It's REAL easy to grow. I grew it in my kitchen, under lamps. Once I had enough for a year, I put the lamps in my junk closet where they looked like any other spares.
I kept the grass in case I got some uncontrollable urge to start smoking again. I figured that, after a year still OK, I didn't need my years' stash. So I gave it to a doctor friend of mine who took his terminal cancer patients to a safe place to smoke some of the pain away. I never asked where, when--it was none of my business what he did with it.
Only a year later, I found out that my contribution had eased the passing of over a hundred people. And many of them had been suffering from lung cancer. Some, even from cigarette exposure--though most, from radon in their first-floor dwelling places
BTW--that's how you get these people who never smoked but get cancer anyway. Everyone living on the first floor should get their home tested for radon. It's quick & cheap and you can pick up a test kit at your local Home Depot; Ace; Lowe's; Walgreen's.
Now--regarding smoking and the way that I quit--where would Big Tobacco be if EVERYBODY did that? My God, the share price would disappear!
(Can't have that--that's un-American!)
THAT'S why, Big Tobacco will never allow marijuana to be legalized. They'd rather do what they've been doing all along--kill the smoker and then hook their kids. In the Big Tobacco's boardrooms, those kids are known as "replacements".
Nice, hah?
I am now 70 years old. I didn't get lung cancer but I do have COPD. Still, I have maybe a few more years before emphysema sets in, so I have got to say that I really really lucked out. I was 35 when I quit that massive smoking habit that I'd developed--half my lifetime ago. And I could not have done it without grass.
The grass, quite literally, saved my life.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I can tell you the real reason why marijuana will never be legalized in America...
Posted by: jroth420
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joe on Sep 13, 2008 7:29 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Shouldn't you revise that to United Fascist Party, Joe?
Posted by: paulmagillsmith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mtatasmith on Sep 13, 2008 7:56 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Obviously you've never almost crashed from a dropped 'roach'
Posted by: paulmagillsmith
» RE: The problem on the road is not POT it 's CELL PHONES!
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: paulmagillsmith on Sep 13, 2008 9:07 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Morality plays no part in discussions about this weed/herb. For those Christian/Judeo religious fanatics out there, and Puritanical types hell bent on trying to convince others they are going to a mythological man invented hell for enjoying a bit of pleasure in their lives instead of misery, I suggest you read your own operators manual...the Bible. In Genesis it even states everything here on Earth are a gift from God for man to use...and that means EVERYTHING. In this most suspect, numerous times edited, literary work by who knows who, when, or where (the why, to control populations through fear, is obvious) we have been propagandized to believe if something feels good it must be sinful...what a crock! I consider myself very fortunate to be an enlightened hippie child of the '60's, where a new paradigm was set in motion, to wit, "If it feels good do it again...or take two".
Unfortunately, those diametrically opposed, who sadly believe people were put here to suffer, have weaseled their way into controlling the financial resources of this planet, and through this means control over the lives of the world populace.
There were some very good comments made on this article, a lot of info provided, and some claims made. One I take exception with is that legalization of pot (or hemp or both) would crash our economy. With hemp used as a source of biofuel instead of corn ethanol, a savings from the $60+ billion now spent for the prison industrial complex, savings by not needing to spend a trillion dollars per year on an oversized/budgeted military used to steal resources (oil) from other countries, and recouping some of the balance of trade deficit from the estimated $110+ billion Americans spend on recreational drugs yearly(most going south of the border), it just doesn't add up.
Besides, that money would stay in this country, production of pot & hemp products (including energy resources) would provide countless new jobs, and we could spend far less than the $700 billion we now have going outside the country to purchase oil from other countries.
Obstacles, of course, are big tobacco, oil, pharma, and big agriculture. Even moreso , a corrupt greedy corporate structure, media controlled by same, compromised congress, but especially big banking, a (non) Federal Reserve, and families like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, DuPonts, Morgans, & others, who have manipulated the economy in the past toward depressions in order to buy up resources deflated in value for pennies on the dollar (or just take them), powerful interests all.
Like I said, "It's all about the money", and especially the nefarious consolidation of our economy into the hands of an infinitesmally small number of people.
I don't see pot (or perhaps even hemp) being legalized in my lifetime, unless energy prices squeeze Americans to the point of saying 'Enough', causing them to rise enmasse beyond their ignorance, complacency, and divisive political insanity...slim chance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Sep 13, 2008 11:06 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NEVER.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: CIA AND CITIBANK WON'T LET IT HAPPEN
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Sep 13, 2008 11:16 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JUST LIKE IT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT THAT BUSH HASN'T FOUND BIN-LADEN (who's family FUNDED BUSH'S FIRST OIL COMPANY, ARBUSTO, AND ARE CLOSE FAMILY, HANG AROUND THE HOUSE, FRIENDS).
JUST LIKE UNDERFUNDED EDUCATION IS NOT AN ACCIDENT.... CANNON FODDER AND LOW INFORMATION VOTERS.
DESTROYING OUR GOVERNMENT IS NO ACCIDENT: SMALLER GOVERNMENT IS A 'CORPORATE FREE-FOR-ALL.'
POOR HEALTH CARE IS NOT AN ACCIDENT.
NONE OF IT IS AN ACCIDENT.
ALL OF IT IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE ADVANCING FASCISM IN THIS COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD. RETURNING US TO FEUDALISM.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John Thomas on Sep 14, 2008 12:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, an increasing number of communities - from Denver to Santa Cruz - are passing initiatives make marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority.
Personal consumption and cultivation are legal in Alaska.
Public opinion has now passed the tipping point, with polls showing most Americans want an end to marijuana arrests.
100 million Americans have smoked pot. All the major studies show marijuana is far safer than alcohol. The cat is out of the bag.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picket on Sep 14, 2008 8:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The citizens who are advocates for drug reform need to see some positive steps taken:
... LIKE....
..... Keep the Feds out of California as a starter. Hasn't it been 10 years since the VOTERS decided. [McCain speaks of States Rights,that is a JOKE]
....Take Cannabis out of Schedule One Drugs...which now states Cannabis has no medical use.
People who have been advocating for the suffering humans caught up in the dirty drug war are getting weary..... THAT IS WHAT "they" want...."people shut up."
This is a control issue for the FEDS against the citizens. Certain aspects of the drug war which could be solved without an economic crash are in the hands of powerful lobbyists who have millions to spend! Support Drug Reform Groups by putting pressure on Congress when these groups ask for help on issues. [ The Hinchey Ammendment ] It seems to have gone missing this election year????
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: e: Illegal Drug Profits Laundered Into Wall Street..
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: caru on Sep 14, 2008 8:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yes turn it around.
leave the fear factor.
turn it around.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: motamanx on Sep 14, 2008 10:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "War on Drugs" is an expensive, and failed, policy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Sep 14, 2008 10:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can the Federal government make pot illegal in the first place. When it was alcohol they had to resort to a constitutional amendment to prohibit its sale and use. There is no amendment to ban pot which is just another plant cultivated to smoke as is tobacco...which is perfectly legal.
Why did we resort to the 18th amendment if merely passing a law was all that was required in the first place? It seems to be that, absent the 18th amendment, drinking is/was a protected "pursuit of happiness" as is smoking tobacco.
If alcohol is not unconstitutional and tobacco is not unconstitutional then how can pot be unconstitutional. If it is NOT unconstitutional how can congress ban it's use? What amendment allows the government to ban pot while still allowing tobacco?
Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 12th Amendment would seem to prohibit a federal law outlawing smoking pot, or grape leaves or any other thing a person might wish to light up! There is no article in the constitution that I can find that grants Congress to declare any substance illegal. If a state were to legalize pot ( or any other substance ) it would seem this falls within state's rights and not subject to review by Congress.
Case in point are medical marijuana laws where people have been arrested by federal agents for the distribution of use of pot that is legal under their state's laws.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Is it's illegality actuall unconstitutional?
Posted by: Lauren
» Blame FDR and Wickard v Filburn
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jstepp590 on Sep 14, 2008 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good luck getting the DEA to give it up though. The money saved would come out of their budget and they, just like any government agency, will not give up power without a fight. Personally I say decriminalize, take that money and do random school drug testing for any drugs (legal or illegal) for grades 6-12, and use the extra manpower freed up to shut off the flow of drugs into our schools (not giving the parents or kids a hard time, just shut it off). Our schools are loaded with drugs you know and as someone who started smoking at 13ys old out of a Catholic school 25 yrs ago I say that is long overdue to correct.
If we keep our kids off them until at least 18yo then as all the studies have shown they are far less likely later to use them. Basically it's the same Clear, Hold and Build strategy used in Iraq. Even though I believe in decriminalization and/or legalization for adults I sincerely wish I hadn't used it that much (chronic) in school. It did take away from my lifes possibilities, as much as I hate to admit it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: decriminalization
Posted by: reelectnoone
» RE: decriminalization
Posted by: jstepp590
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John Thomas on Sep 14, 2008 12:22 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry. I have to doubt marijuana's responsibility in taking your life away. 100 million Americans have smoked pot. There are 30 to 50 million current consumers. The vast majority of them are perfectly-functioning, supporting families, and valuable members of their communities. The idea that marijuana turns people into "slackers" is just another prohibitionist demonization. It seems far more likely that marijuana is just something that slackers turn to.
The very existence of the DEA is an affront to humanity. They are simply the Inquisitors with another name.
reelectnoone
How can the Federal government make pot illegal in the first place."
Of course, the whole persecution has been a fraud from the beginning. That more people don't realize this lends support to the idea that Americans have indeed been 'dumbed down.'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Great Fraud
Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: The Great Fraud
Posted by: John Thomas
» RE: The Great Fraud
Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: The Great Fraud
Posted by: John Thomas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tap17x on Sep 14, 2008 8:31 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]
» RE: No politician, Dem or Refucklican,.....
Posted by: John Thomas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero1 on Sep 15, 2008 6:14 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They would be the first to scream if there was a 'sin' tax on BC pills or condoms.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cause they are weak and are trying to bribe their opponents
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Cause they are weak and are trying to bribe their opponents
Posted by: John Thomas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Stoney 12+1 on Sep 15, 2008 6:33 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you get kissed after you got fucked?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: YOU'RE PAYING $300.00 AN OUNCE??!!!!!!!!
Posted by: xmvince
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lizard12 on Sep 15, 2008 1:09 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: dayahka on Sep 15, 2008 2:46 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wishing upon a Star
Posted by: John Thomas
NYC Police Accused of 'Anal Assault' Over Marijuana Use
Do Employers Really Need to Give Drug Tests for Pot?
False Claims on Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Lead to Credibility Gap for Prosecutors




