Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How totally ignorant. It's a PLANT we can't make ingesting plants illegal. Sit down shut up and eat your foxglove cookies.
The problem isn't marijuana. It just sits there growing. The problem is that such a large number of people have to get high. They are people who mostly will never be able to function. Thankfully they tend to die young but until they do they get to burden the rest of us with their miserable existence. The obvious answer is to warehouse them. This is something they are doing in the Netherlands. They are using old boxcars. In China it's forced labor camps. That's the future of legalized marijuana. Pick one.
I've been around enough potheads to know that isn't true and they can function better than the average person. I've seen workers catch a quick buzz and watched their performance increase on the job. I don't claim it works that way with everybody who smokes pot, but that's been the case with people I've seen working. Pot can act as both a stimulant and tranquilizer depending on environmental circumstances. Maybe they lose their concept of time or return the award of a short minute or two break for a buzz, but their performance increased in the cases I've seen and these were skilled workers doing complicated tasks.
I've seen enough families evicted because the wage earners couldn't rouse themselves enough to go to work. Enough divorces, enough dead children because their parents forgot, enough homes burned to the ground because someone was to sotted to put out a candle or unplug the iron. The one person I cannot forget is the 13 year old boy who went to court to get custody away from his pothead father and given to his grandmother instead. I remember all those cases, but somehow I can't forget this child's face as he pleaded with the judge to get him away from his pothead daddy. Skilled workers, yeah sure, and they leave the baby on the roof of the car as they drive off.
What can happen is that the United States becomes another Yemen, but bigger. Or, it can divide even further, potheads can be rejected, marginalized, separated and like rocks in a stream, the rest of us can go on around them and over them, until they die, which hopefully will be like, Mindy McCready, Whitney Houston, Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix and all the rest, long line that is, while they are still young and haven't done so much damage.
That's true. I stand corrected.Good point!People who don't want to legalize weed are the same ones who claim to need a gun to protect themselves from government interfernce. You want to tell other people what to do, but you don't want anyone telling YOU what to do. Ain't Merrucans great?
Not really, it's a generalized assumption. I know LOTS of Libertarians who are staunch believers in the 2nd Amendment AND an end to this ridiculous 'drug war'.
Smart people they are...
A farmer tried to appeal having his wheat crop destroyed in 1940 on the grounds he was using it to feed his own chickens and the wheat wasn't used for interstate commerce. The Supreme Court decided it did involve interstate commerce, because his chickens would require wheat from elsewhere. If the Supreme Court is going to decide that about wheat, what are they going to decide about pot? What some Judge says about tomatoes isn't making case law of the land, so unless you can come up with a Supreme Court decision reversing previous case law, your plant defense isn't going to cut it. Judges can decide whatever, but that doesn't make it the law of the land. Only the Supreme Court can reverse their case law. The Supreme Court is not going to tell Congress that it can't make a law prohibiting a plant with obvious drug effects. There are wild plants that grow in America that are illegal to possess or intentionally cultivate.
The issue here is also one of property rights. Governments are allowed to prohibit ownership of certain properties, such as chemicals, animals, plants, bacteria and viruses. When a law is made prohibiting owning that property, you can't legally own it to claim it as your property. Even property that is legal to own can be deprived from a person by due process.
The law isn't about what you think it is, what you think it should be or what you want it to be. The law is what it is and the government does have the constitutional right to make pot illegal to own, just like coca or opium poppies. The issue with pot is whether it's worth making it illegal. Having pot illegal is making it worth hundred of times it's value and feeding a black market that wouldn't be there if it was legal. Quality pot is probably worth around $20 to $30 a pound. It can easily be harvested, dried and frozen to last a year. Having pot illegal is just a big waste of law enforcement and criminal justice efforts and has negative economic consequences. If it was easily available and cheap, it might deter people from using more harmful drugs and make Sergeant Joe Friday badge #714 turn over in his grave.
I know of the Wheat case and your leaving out that the farmer had signed into a government/usda contract and that is key info for the ruling in that case as far as i know.
The law isn't what you think it is either friend and from the way you write about the law it seems to me that you are way off base on many points especially the constitutional reach of gov authority and also in the area of how 'rights' are adjudicated etc.
Have you ever filed a civil challenge in effort to protect a certain right?
Or maybe more accurate to your wording you apparently believe you get all your rights from gov?
Either way you are quite wrong as are most of the posts I've read of yours.
It's your analysis of government authority that is way off. You act like government has no purpose to regulate an orderly society and our Constitution prohibited the federal government from doing so. Such things as making laws for the general welfare don't exist in your mind, because you believe you have a constitutional right to grow drugs, hence the plant defense. There are plants that are very dangerous and it's the job of government not to allow the general public to own them. I mentioned the ability to make WMD biological weapons from plants, but what about an invasive species. Does your plant theory only apply to plants that make drugs and why is it limited to plants? If you think people have the universal freedom to property rights, then all chemicals, animals, bacteria and viruses should be included. I guess people have the right to own nuclear weapons too.
A government that behaves the way you claim our government should and is suppose to behave isn't functioning. Your concept of government is anarchy, where it's prohibited from making common sense laws and gives unlimited freedom to it's citizens. According to you, the Constitution didn't give Congress the authority to make any law regulating human behavior, because you won't read what the Founders said. The Founders had enough sense to know people needed government or they wouldn't have bothered to form one. They knew laws were needed to regulate human behavior. Try reading what they said, before and after each part of the Constitution by doing some actual research and not lazily taking a viewpoint based on talking points from some extremist site. Here is our Constitution and Bill of Rights based on what formed it and the minutes of the meetings where it was worded. The link also contains the historical evidence prior to and after writing each item in the Constitution.
Founders' Constitution
If you people want pot legalized, why can't you use reason? You aren't going to convince people that our government doesn't have the authority to prohibit the possession of a plant. Pot is unique in that it can easily be grown, but drugs like coca and opiates aren't. You aren't going to get rid of a black market by legalizing those drugs. Drugs like meth also are too dangerous to be legal. It would be smart to decriminalize with treatment these street drugs, but it isn't smart to legalize them. Pot should be legalized, except for exports, so it's value will drop to it's production value. If someone wants to smoke pot, they should be allowed to grow all they want and only have a sales tax when sold. They can put the pot in tobacco shops and keep it from the general public. The fact is, they should do the same thing with cigarettes, including only having a sales tax. There should be excise taxes on these or liquor. If governments want revenue then progressive taxation on income is the method to raise it.
We aren't going to solve drug problems with legalization. Opium poppies can be grown in the US, but producing opium is too labor intensive for it to be produced here. It isn't like a heroin addict will grow his own drug for consumption. The same thing applies to crack, but I doubt we could sufficiently grow coca outside of Hawaii. Legalizing those drugs isn't going to stop the drug cartels or make the drugs cheap. Those drugs will be around as long as countries are allowed to produce them and they can only be stopped at the source of production.
It would be easy for the world to rid itself of crack, because the plantations producing it are easy to find. A coca bush takes about a year and a half to two years to grow. Only new growth leaves are picked and the bush will grow to tree size and live forty years or more. The point is the bush/tree can be easily cut down. Opium poppies are a different story and once an area is planted, it takes a sustained effort to remove that perennial plant. It's pie in the sky thinking to believe legalizing these or harmful drugs like meth will solve the problems associated with them. It's stupid too to claim efforts to stop such drugs aren't working, so we should stop trying. It may suit your libertarian fancy to think your methods would work, but legalizing those types of drugs would just make a bad situation much worse.
kiddingNot everyone who uses pot thinks they act like a Cheech and Chong stereotype. They act like a Ridgemont High stereotype instead. That's the way they should be treated too. A pothead is someone that currently uses or has ever used. If they used once the tendency is always there and they cannot be trusted.
That's true. I stand corrected.Good point!
Not really, it's a generalized assumption. I know LOTS of Libertarians who are staunch believers in the 2nd Amendment AND an end to this ridiculous 'drug war'.
Smart people they are...
I've been around enough potheads to know that isn't true and they can function better than the average person. I've seen workers catch a quick buzz and watched their performance increase on the job. I don't claim it works that way with everybody who smokes pot, but that's been the case with people I've seen working. Pot can act as both a stimulant and tranquilizer depending on environmental circumstances. Maybe they lose their concept of time or return the award of a short minute or two break for a buzz, but their performance increased in the cases I've seen and these were skilled workers doing complicated tasks.
I've seen enough families evicted because the wage earners couldn't rouse themselves enough to go to work. Enough divorces, enough dead children because their parents forgot, enough homes burned to the ground because someone was to sotted to put out a candle or unplug the iron. The one person I cannot forget is the 13 year old boy who went to court to get custody away from his pothead father and given to his grandmother instead. I remember all those cases, but somehow I can't forget this child's face as he pleaded with the judge to get him away from his pothead daddy. Skilled workers, yeah sure, and they leave the baby on the roof of the car as they drive off.
What can happen is that the United States becomes another Yemen, but bigger. Or, it can divide even further, potheads can be rejected, marginalized, separated and like rocks in a stream, the rest of us can go on around them and over them, until they die, which hopefully will be like, Mindy McCready, Whitney Houston, Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix and all the rest, long line that is, while they are still young and haven't done so much damage.
I'm sure the only issue with that kid was his dad smoked pot. The things you are talking about sound more like people with serious alcohol and drug problems. People who only smoke pot are typically very sociable, easy going people. They share their pot with others.
How about separating retards like you from the rest of us decent people and I don't smoke or want to smoke pot?
Not everyone who uses pot thinks they act like a Cheech and Chong stereotype. They act like a Ridgemont High stereotype instead. That's the way they should be treated too. A pothead is someone that currently uses or has ever used. If they used once the tendency is always there and they cannot be trusted.
You win. This is the stupidest thing ever posted on the internet!
Note: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson smoked cannabis regularly.
How totally ignorant. It's a PLANT we can't make ingesting plants illegal. Sit down shut up and eat your foxglove cookies.
The problem isn't marijuana. It just sits there growing. The problem is that such a large number of people have to get high. They are people who mostly will never be able to function.
Thankfully they tend to die young but until they do they get to burden the rest of us with their miserable existence.
The obvious answer is to warehouse them. This is something they are doing in the Netherlands. They are using old boxcars. In China it's forced labor camps. That's the future of legalized marijuana. Pick one.
Not everyone who uses pot thinks they act like a Cheech and Chong stereotype. They act like a Ridgemont High stereotype instead. That's the way they should be treated too. A pothead is someone that currently uses or has ever used. If they used once the tendency is always there and they cannot be trusted.
You win. This is the stupidest thing ever posted on the internet!
Note: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson smoked cannabis regularly.
Try to imagine brewing a pot of coffee using twenty times the appropriate amount of grind, boiling it for hours, then pouring some into a large cup filled half full of sugar, mixing it up and drinking the whole thing. You probably would end up in an emergency room, too. But the experience does in no way reflect on the proper use of coffee.
She prefers her coffee weak...where I prefer (very) strong coffee. No relation to the thread...I just thought it was funny. 
I know of the Wheat case and your leaving out that the farmer had signed into a government/usda contract and that is key info for the ruling in that case as far as i know.
The law isn't what you think it is either friend and from the way you write about the law it seems to me that you are way off base on many points especially the constitutional reach of gov authority and also in the area of how 'rights' are adjudicated etc.
Have you ever filed a civil challenge in effort to protect a certain right?
Or maybe more accurate to your wording you apparently believe you get all your rights from gov?
Either way you are quite wrong as are most of the posts I've read of yours.
It's your analysis of government authority that is way off. You act like government has no purpose to regulate an orderly society and our Constitution prohibited the federal government from doing so. Such things as making laws for the general welfare don't exist in your mind, because you believe you have a constitutional right to grow drugs, hence the plant defense. There are plants that are very dangerous and it's the job of government not to allow the general public to own them. I mentioned the ability to make WMD biological weapons from plants, but what about an invasive species. Does your plant theory only apply to plants that make drugs and why is it limited to plants? If you think people have the universal freedom to property rights, then all chemicals, animals, bacteria and viruses should be included. I guess people have the right to own nuclear weapons too.
A government that behaves the way you claim our government should and is suppose to behave isn't functioning. Your concept of government is anarchy, where it's prohibited from making common sense laws and gives unlimited freedom to it's citizens. According to you, the Constitution didn't give Congress the authority to make any law regulating human behavior, because you won't read what the Founders said. The Founders had enough sense to know people needed government or they wouldn't have bothered to form one. They knew laws were needed to regulate human behavior. Try reading what they said, before and after each part of the Constitution by doing some actual research and not lazily taking a viewpoint based on talking points from some extremist site. Here is our Constitution and Bill of Rights based on what formed it and the minutes of the meetings where it was worded. The link also contains the historical evidence prior to and after writing each item in the Constitution.
Founders' Constitution
If you people want pot legalized, why can't you use reason? You aren't going to convince people that our government doesn't have the authority to prohibit the possession of a plant. Pot is unique in that it can easily be grown, but drugs like coca and opiates aren't. You aren't going to get rid of a black market by legalizing those drugs. Drugs like meth also are too dangerous to be legal. It would be smart to decriminalize with treatment these street drugs, but it isn't smart to legalize them. Pot should be legalized, except for exports, so it's value will drop to it's production value. If someone wants to smoke pot, they should be allowed to grow all they want and only have a sales tax when sold. They can put the pot in tobacco shops and keep it from the general public. The fact is, they should do the same thing with cigarettes, including only having a sales tax. There should be excise taxes on these or liquor. If governments want revenue then progressive taxation on income is the method to raise it.
We aren't going to solve drug problems with legalization. Opium poppies can be grown in the US, but producing opium is too labor intensive for it to be produced here. It isn't like a heroin addict will grow his own drug for consumption. The same thing applies to crack, but I doubt we could sufficiently grow coca outside of Hawaii. Legalizing those drugs isn't going to stop the drug cartels or make the drugs cheap. Those drugs will be around as long as countries are allowed to produce them and they can only be stopped at the source of production.
It would be easy for the world to rid itself of crack, because the plantations producing it are easy to find. A coca bush takes about a year and a half to two years to grow. Only new growth leaves are picked and the bush will grow to tree size and live forty years or more. The point is the bush/tree can be easily cut down. Opium poppies are a different story and once an area is planted, it takes a sustained effort to remove that perennial plant. It's pie in the sky thinking to believe legalizing these or harmful drugs like meth will solve the problems associated with them. It's stupid too to claim efforts to stop such drugs aren't working, so we should stop trying. It may suit your libertarian fancy to think your methods would work, but legalizing those types of drugs would just make a bad situation much worse.
I think your high on yourself and your perception of your own edu because your analysis of my views and the ultimate purpose of gov and where gov authority begins and ends are all incorrect. Maybe you spent to much time in the class room rather than in real life practice in the court room?
Do you have any court experience?
Do you have any experience working with gov?
Do you have any experience being discriminated against to the point of life in prison for violating illegitimate laws that are based in anything but serving and protecting the people?
Maybe you are just a fascist or some such thing I dont know, but I do know that i dont have enough rope to pull you back into relevance and reality.
Oh and I'm unaffiliated, not 'libertarian' or any other ridicules theater club label you can think of to suit your realities needs.
Breed you should not
Not everyone who uses pot thinks they act like a Cheech and Chong stereotype. They act like a Ridgemont High stereotype instead. That's the way they should be treated too. A pothead is someone that currently uses or has ever used. If they used once the tendency is always there and they cannot be trusted.
You win. This is the stupidest thing ever posted on the internet!
Note: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson smoked cannabis regularly.
In fact smoking it was of its least used purposes when TJ and GW grew it, they mostly used it for clothes and cordage and paper etc and dubya thinks they invented gov to outlaw such activity
I've seen enough families evicted because the wage earners couldn't rouse themselves enough to go to work. Enough divorces, enough dead children because their parents forgot, enough homes burned to the ground because someone was to sotted to put out a candle or unplug the iron. The one person I cannot forget is the 13 year old boy who went to court to get custody away from his pothead father and given to his grandmother instead. I remember all those cases, but somehow I can't forget this child's face as he pleaded with the judge to get him away from his pothead daddy. Skilled workers, yeah sure, and they leave the baby on the roof of the car as they drive off.
What can happen is that the United States becomes another Yemen, but bigger. Or, it can divide even further, potheads can be rejected, marginalized, separated and like rocks in a stream, the rest of us can go on around them and over them, until they die, which hopefully will be like, Mindy McCready, Whitney Houston, Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix and all the rest, long line that is, while they are still young and haven't done so much damage.
I'm sure the only issue with that kid was his dad smoked pot. The things you are talking about sound more like people with serious alcohol and drug problems. People who only smoke pot are typically very sociable, easy going people. They share their pot with others.
How about separating retards like you from the rest of us decent people and I don't smoke or want to smoke pot?
Whatever issues there were, all came from pot addiction and yes, non drug users like myself WANT to be separated from drug addicts. We will do it ourselves if there is no other alternative.
I can attest that potheads want to share their pot. That's how the old lady got dragged out by her ankles and dumped in the hallway.
Lets have another stoner lie.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written on hemp paper.
Just another lie, part of the stoner mythology.
The proper preparation of coffee does not make you high. It does not cause any cognitive impairment. The proper use of marijuana does.
That's the difference. As the presidebt himself said. That's the point.
Lets have another stoner lie.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written on hemp paper.
Just another lie, part of the stoner mythology.
The proper preparation of coffee does not make you high.
It does not cause any cognitive impairment. The proper use of marijuana does.
That's the difference. As the president himself said. That's the point.
As long as you don't injure others, or put them in harms way I believe in freedom - the drug war has been badly lost with a huge amount of casualities. Is anyone tired of the shit?
?
Let's outlaw booze - it's deleterious affect are horrible. Nevermind; we've been there, and done that - turned out like shit just like the drug war.
How about the anti depressants? There was never that many depressed people until they started prescribing
that shit?
I could care less what you put down your throat, up your ass, or in your lungs
Isn't doing the same thing over, and over while seeking a different affect
Lets have another stoner lie.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written on hemp paper.
Just another lie, part of the stoner mythology.
They were drafted on hemp paper. The final versions were written on parchment.
The proper preparation of coffee does not make you high.
Do you or do you not understand that caffeine is psychoactive drug?
It does not cause any cognitive impairment. The proper use of marijuana does.
That's the difference. As the president himself said. That's the point.
Have you ever had a THOUGHT, dude?
Hemp has never been used for commercial high-volume paper production due to its relatively high processing cost.[47] Currently there is a small niche market for hemp pulp, for example as cigarette paper.[48] Hemp fiber is mixed with fiber from other sources than hemp. In 1994 there was no significant production of 100% true hemp paper.[49] World hemp pulp production was believed to be around 120,000 tons per year in 1991 which was about 0.05% of the world's annual pulp production volume.[50] The total world production of hemp fiber had in 2003 declined to about 60 000 from 80 000 tons.[48] This can be compared to a typical pulp mill for wood fiber, which is never smaller than 250,000 tons per annum.[49][51] The cost of hemp pulp is approximately six times that of wood pulp,[50] mostly because of the small size and outdated equipment of the few hemp processing plants in the Western world, and because hemp is harvested once a year (during August)[citation needed] and needs to be stored to feed the mill the whole year through. This storage requires a lot of (mostly manual) handling of the bulky stalk bundles. Another issue is that the entire hemp plant cannot be economically prepared for paper production. While the wood products industry uses nearly 100% of the fiber from harvested trees, only about 25% of the dried hemp stem the bark, called bast contains the long, strong fibers desirable for paper production.[52] All this accounts for a high raw material cost. Hemp pulp is bleached with hydrogen peroxide, a process today also commonly used for wood pulp.
