Prohibition did not work.

But still, the Alcohol and Beer Companies are one of the top 5 lobbyists against legalization of pot.

Along with police unions, private prison corporations, pharmaceutical companies, prison guard unions.

Making pot legal takes money out of their pockets.

Did you see the contracts with the private prisons with the government and states. They have to keep a 90 percent lock up rate for funding. Is this country going mad when were betting on people going to jail.

The problem is that there are people with a lot of money and influence making a fortune on illegal marihuana while we all foot the bill. The average US voter is so dumbed down that they can't see the forest for the trees. The USA has become the best country that money can buy and nothing is going to change because big money controls both parties.

There is no common sense in Washington. They have forgotten who is in charge of this country. As a reminder to them, it's "WE THE PEOPLE". Vote out all incumbents, get involved in your local governments. My ex-wife used to always say that and I quote " this country is run by people who go to meetings" end quote. Go to your local zoning meetings and have a say. VOTE, study the measures that you are going to be voting on, talk to people about what they think.

The drug war is a total bust. A waste of billions of dollars that could be used for feeding, clothing and housing our population.

Legalize hemp and you put the US on top in very few years. There is 100's to 1000's of uses for industrial hemp, but no, Dupont might lose money.

I don't smoke, drink, or take drugs but it's time the federal government stays out of state issues and put an end to this ridiculous war on drugs; a war that they will never win. The bottom line is it's all about the money; the Justice Department need the funding they get for arresting people that chose to smoke marijuana, a drug they've been studying for 50 years (and countless amounts of money) trying to prove that it is harmful with no success.

I have come to the sad realization that WE THE PEOPLE... has been changed to YOU THE CHUMPS...

by corporations and those that are voted into office.

And yes, I also believe it is now also

...and that government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the for the corporations, shall not perish from the earth.

Welcome to the new United Corporations Of America

In God we trust...all others pay cash.

Compare pot to all other mind altering substances, and honestly it's quite innocuous in contrast. Even compared to alcohol. It really makes me wonder what is it about marijuana that gets government types SO up in arms about the stuff? They act as if it's the absolute worst drug in the world. C'mon, it's just weed, wtf? Is there something deeper, more esoteric about marijuana that makes politicians feel threatened?

I could run off all my personal theories on the subject, but rather than do that I'll just ask everyone to really think about it. Why are the feds blowing the threat of pot so far out of proportion? It just seems suspicious to me, there's more to it than what they are talking about.

Alcohol, a substance that makes people FAR more stupid than pot, and violent on top of that, is almost encouraged in our culture. While marijuana just makes people somewhat lazy, hungry, and non-violent is treated like the greatest threat to society. Something is wrong with this picture.

BTW, I no longer use pot, and don't intend to use it again for my own personal reasons, but I see no reason why others should not be allowed to toke up whenever they want.

As a 70-year-old retired drug and alcohol treatment and prevention professional who has seen drug use pros and cons for many, many years and has often thought about marijuana's history and place in current
society, I have come to this conclusion: Marijuana should not be made legal because it is "less harmful than legal tobacco and alcohol," should not made legal because it is a "useful medicine," should not be made legal because it will "reduce cartel violence in Latin America," and it certainly should not be legalized because it will "produce revenue through taxation." All these may be true - but they should not represent any argument against current marijuana laws.

Marijuana should be made legal for one reason only: the marijuana laws, from their inception in the 1930s, are based on bigotry and lies. And the enforcement of those laws have clearly demonstrated that bigotry and dishonesty.

Further, since the 1930's, more laws and restrictions against marijuana use have been enacted, creating an elaborate structure of codes and regulations that is built upon a manure pile of original gross
misrepresentations by those who sought power by creating public fear and using racist images to promote that fear. Unfortunately, ill-informed legislators have listened to them.

While I am not trying to make a direct comparison of drug laws to the horrors of slavery, the nit-picking arguments by those now opposed to changing these odious laws do remind me of the pre-Civil War arguments against ending that immoral institution. The larger concept of the evil of slavery was usually lost among the detailed issues such as "property rights"(e.g., the Dred Scott Decision), the impact on national wealth, the perception of non-whites as less than fully human, and especially, fear of the chaos the freed slaves would cause upon emancipation (that is, become "legalized"). So too, should marijuana laws also be viewed in their larger historical and societal context, rather than the misleading details proposed by those arguing pro and con.

All laws restricting marijuana should be completely and immediately revoked from federal and state laws. They are a corruption of the principles of enlightened democracy in general and our nation in particular. Only then can new legislation be developed and enacted based on truth and science as it should in a democratic society. The nightmare scenarios devised by those opposed to marijuana are all too familiar - we have heard them before, just in a different context.

I am not currently a user of marijuana, but I wish I was. In my profession, they require drug tests, and since marijuana use can be detected in your system for up to a month, I can't risk it. Not even one joint while sitting on the pier fishing on a Sunday afternoon.

But you know what? Since alcohol leaves the system in a day or two, I find myself working along side some heavy duty alcoholics, because they can pass the drug test. I work with high voltage power lines, and I would rather be working along side somebody who had smoked a joint the last weekend than somebody who had finished a fifth of vodka last night. Seriously, you can smell the alcohol in their sweat, and for the hard core types it's at least noon before you can count on them for anything.

Now, if they had the freedom to smoke pot, they would probably still have a drink or two, but then they would eat a bag of chips, pass out early, and then wake up rested and refreshed the next morning.

The government needs to be put in its place asap. Another reason I am voting for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

I suffer from severe night blindness. Marijuana is the only thing that helps.

"the Obama administration won't take any legalization measure lying down". Nope, that's a great way to spill the bong water!

I am 100% for the legalization of pot. I don't smoke it but I tried it when I was a kid ( Man, I just realized how longs ago that was...ouch ) I just never liked it. That still did not stop me from growing a few plants for my friends.

99.99% of my fiends still smoke it and out of force of habit they STILL pass it to me when we get together. More people use it than people may think. A LOT more.

I don't think that legalizing pot will create as much revenue for states as people may think.

If you can follow instructions and make home brewed beer you can follow directions and grow your own pot. Certainly enough for personal consumption.

Does anyone really think that all those grow lights that are for sale in Walmart and Home Depot are for growing house plants? Really?

Sure, some older people and people that use it mainly for health/pain relief will opt to buy it and not grow it and the states will collect a few bucks. But look around and really see the popularity of people home brewing and times that by 100,000 for the other " recreational " people that will chose to grow their own.

And for the life of me I can't come up with any down side.

i don't think it will create that much revenue either because half the fun is creating your own garden and most dispensaries are a total rip off. stop this sham program of quasi medical use and just get it legal already.

The only way we are going to be able to wean the Feds from their addiction to the benefits of keeping pot illegal is a Constitutional Amendment.

Let the rehab begin.

Jeff N

You hit directly on the unfortunate truth about why pot hasn't been legalized. It's too easy to grow, therefore it's too hard for anyone to really make money off of it. That, and the fact that it could easily replace quite a few things that are currently huge profit producers. Just look at the biggest lobbies against it.

I don't use it, have never used it, and don't ever plan on using it, unless I come under a medical condition that it is known to aleviate the pain, and suffering of. That being said, I don't condemn its use. It is, after all, a natural product that no one has ever shown real evidence of it being harmful. As an Oregon voter, I am voting yes on this years ballot measure 80, to legalize "pot." If it passes, and a store opens in my town, I will stand between the feds and the store front. I do not get involved in this kind of crap, but I think the feds need to stand down on this one.

It's a joke that it is illegal!! The Feds have ruined so many decent peoples lives prosecuting marijuana use! It is less a problem than alcohol, and the only reason it is still illegal is because of ignorance and lobbying against it by others that wish alcohol to be the only thing that people can relax with!

I've never heard of anyone smoking pot and killing the family with an axe!! ALCOHOL DOES THAT!

It's about time the old fashioned right wing ingorant people got out of THEIR OWN WAY and get off the pot is evil B.S.!!

Millions of musicians use it, and still use it and make the most beautiful music in the world! It's TIME!!

Lose the lies and face the facts! Marijuana was never the drug that people claimed it was in the 50's and 60's not to mention the 21st century!

We know what Mitt will say though... He's still got his head up a smelly place with regard to women and progressive thought. Vote Obama!! Somebody with intelligence and a brain of his own (no mind control religious BS)!

The reasons stated by Jeff N. concerning why pot remains illegal describes how the entire US government works; everything is for sale. Congress is one big whore house, as is every branch and every large industry with the capital to buy these clowns masquerading as representatives of the people. The only way to undo the plutocratic oligarchy that controls this country is to support third party candidates and boycott the two criminal organizations known as the dem and gop parties. Go outside the corporate media that serves as mouthpiece for the plutocrats to get your news. Independent sources are out there disseminating the truth. I think I'm going to vote straight green party this year. I know Rmoney is scarier than O'bomber, but maybe we need a rmoney administration to blow this thing up real good, so we can start over. The US will be like the Cubs, in a constant and massive rebuilding project. And maybe in another hundred years, they will both be back on top. And for the record, I support complete legalization and taxation of pot as a recreational commodity, and the freedom to grow it for personal use, as I have since I smoked my first joint in 1969. Seems like only yesterday ...

It is obvious to just about everyone I speak with about the topic of marijuana prohibition that it is a complete failure on many levels. The war on drugs is a war on the people.

First, it is unconstitutional since the Constitution guarantees citizens life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We can use an ancient and relatively innocuous herb if we choose, it is not the place of a police state to dictate to citizens they cannot use it.

Second, the original prohibition of pot was done without legitimacy and for nefarious reasons. Based on this it cannot stand.

Third, we stuff people like commodities into the prison industrial complex machine for profit. The war on drugs and corresponding drug prohibition polices effectively have created a modern day form of slavery - incarceration of large numbers of people for profit.

Fourth, we as human beings have co-evolved with marijuana and the plant possesses many beneficial characteristics and effects for human beings. Pot is a plant that should not be our enemy but rather an extremely ancient ally.

Lastly, the cultural, legal and institutional justifications for prohibition of pot are illogical and unsupportable scientifically.

The government needs to listen to the people that constitute this country and end prohibition of pot. In the very near future people will demand the government act on the will of the people and end this corrupt war on drugs. Indeed, it's already begun.

@Bill Crane, Jeff N, worn out, and so forth...You are absolutely correct about the lobbyists, the racism, and all the other things in your posts. Please add Wm. Randolph Hearst to that group. Hearst owned vast tracts of forest to sell, and as pulp, for his many newspapers. (He was also the founder of Kimberley-Clark paper products.) Superior paper is made by hemp fibers, and he wanted to maintain his hold on the paper industry, so he campaigned in his papers against hemp and cannabis (because you can also make paper from its by-products too). Lurid stories were written about "reefer madness" and especially rapes and murders by blacks and Hispanics under its influence. And of course, 'If you read it in the paper it must be true', so the campaign successfully contributed to the demise of hemp and cannabis through the influenced opinions of the readership.

I am not any sort of 'conspiracy theorist' but the truth is that key members of government offices did conspire with Dupont, Hearst, and others, due to family ties and 'conflict of interest'. Hemp production would have redeemed us during the Depression, but Dupont had just created and patented plastic made with coal and oil, and some of its biggest investors were feds. I also find it interesting that Prohibition ended on alcohol in 1933, yet less than 5 years later, hemp, that had been benefiting humankind since prehistoric times, and was actually a required crop in Colonial America, was suddenly discovered to be "the most dangerous substance on the planet", much more so than the now legal alcohol, which is a million times more destructive.

I really don't understand why our government can't cut through all the bs of the past and do the right thing. Legalization of hemp would allow all kinds of new industries, and thereby increase the economy. (Henry Ford built one of his first cars from hemp, said to be stronger than steel, and which also ran on hemp.) But the question is the answer...the billionaires that own Dupont, and Kimberly Clark and the Automakers, the pharmaceutical companies, and on and on, are the ones that own the government, and they aren't about to lose their golden goose to a plant that they have worked so long and hard to malign.

P.S. Fabulous post, Overlord. Your points are dead on.

The federal government is against legalization of Marijuana because smoking it inspires free and independant thinking. The federal Government still wants to be able to control people and what people are thinking.

If the federal government was really against marijuana they would secure the border, instead of allowing the sale and export of assault weapons to the mexican drug cartels who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people including u.s. border patrol agents.

This useless scum bag, Eric Holder, and his pathetic "Justice Department", would be well advised to do the greater public good & his duty ;

,,,BY DOING HIS JOB AND PROSECUTING THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES OF THE "TOO BIG TO FAIL" BANKS WHO ARE GETTING AWAY WITH THE LARGEST FINANCIAL CRIME IN HISTORY !!!!!!!!!

He has NO BUSINESS sticking his worthless nose into state laws that govern their citizens, passed by legal votes by those citizens.

(It is Obama's responsibility to get rid of this useless turd, Eric holder.)

For anyone caring to read about his total disregard of civic responsibility,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,Please view the following link;

________________________________________________________________

http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/videos/too-big-to-prosecute-eliot-spitzer-and-matt-taibbi-decry-eric-holders-wall-street-fraud-inaction/ .

_________________________________________________________________

.

Dump Eric Holder !!!! Stay out of the states legal affairs you worthless POS !!!!!!

.

If you can follow instructions and make home brewed beer you can follow directions and grow your own pot.

You say you grew some before, but you left out the fact that it stinks while growing. Not many people will tolerate the smell after a while.

Not to mention, laws will be put into place to prohibit growing, or at the very least, growing within city limits. Just because it's easy to grow, doesn't mean just anyone can grow quality cannabis. I can sure make a mean grilled cheese, but that doesn't make me a 4 star chef.

How many of you complaining actually vote?

Lets CUT big BAD government and END job-KILLING regulations — STARTING with CUTTING the BIG government DEA and ENDING the job-KILLING regulations AGAINST marijuana!

As "freedom loving" Americans, aren't you AGAINST big BAD government, AGAINST job-KILLING regulations, AGAINST government telling YOU what you CAN and/or CANNOT do (with your OWN body), and AGAINST government restricting YOUR personal rights, liberties, and freedoms?
And as "freedom loving" Americans, aren't you FOR small government, FOR ending regulations, FOR the free market, FOR capitalism, and FOR more personal rights, liberties, and freedoms?
So as "freedom loving" Americans, you SHOULD be FOR marijuana!

It SHOULD be LEGAL! Isn't America SUPPOSE to be the BEST land of freedom, rights, and liberties...?
You "patriots" just so LOVE America, just so LOVE freedom, and just so LOVE small government. You hypocrites SHOULD just so LOVE pot!
Marijuana could be THE answer for/to today's slow economy. First, legalizing it would CUT and SAVE billions in taxpayers money. Second, it would actually MAKE billions for taxpayers. And third, Americans SHOULD have the FREEDOM of CHOICE to use it!
Just think of ALL the jobs that could be created. Marijuana growing/farming, equipment, trucking, stores... I think marijuana is a MILLION jobs industry!
America is NOT as free as some of the "patriots" LOVE to say and think...
It should be my GOD given RIGHT to be allowed to use and consume the marijuana PLANT!
Lets see, God created everything huh? And everything that God creates is good huh? Well guess WHAT, your God created MARIJUANA! I guess your God isn't so perfect huh? I guess your God did EVERYTHING right BUT made a mistake with creating marijuana huh? Marijuana is NOT a man-made DRUG, it is a NATURAL herb created and given by your GOD!

Marijuana is GOD's gift to man. It is GOD's creation. As GOD's creation and gift to man, it has healing powers. It opens your mind up to GOD's way--love and peace. It brings you closer to mother nature.
Also, not to mention marijuana can cure the sick and alleviate the pain of the dying, but we don't allow it... Instead, we allow BIG private business health-care industry PROFITEERS to PROFIT on the SICK and DYING by DENYING the use of this SAFE, WORKING, NATURAL medicine!

Now get this BIG government OUT of MY life!

Legalize - Regulate - Educate - Medicate

Empty the prisons! End the police state!

We , as a nation, are infested with criminal banks who have robbed the citizens and taxpayers of BILLIONS of dollars, and the Justice Department does NOTHING !!!

Instead, these worthless TAXPAYER PAID minions are set to waste valuable time and public funds to harass States (who govern their citizens/voters).

Eric Holder, & the "Department of JUSTICE" have been handed, on a silver platter, all of the evidence necessary to prosecute some of the largest financial criminals in our nations history, and he sits on his worthless ass and does NOTHING.

Instead, Holder ignorantly thinks it is wiser to grandstand by sticking his nose into State Law , legally passed by voters of those states.

Our Nation would be better served by throwing Eric Holder in jail for corruption and criminal lack of civic duty than to arrest even one citizen for minding his own business and smoking a joint.

.

DEMAND THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ARREST ERIC HOLDER !!!!!!!!!!

.

m hegreberg...........They intend to vote, but usually forget to......................

Jeff N.-1053549

Excellent postings. Sorry I can't say more, it takes toooo long :o)

Ally Brown

All that kind of thinking gives a vote to obozo!

m hegreberg

How many of you complaining actually vote?

____________________________________________________________

MM-584706

m hegreberg...........They intend to vote, but usually forget to......................

__________________________________________________

Hey geniuses,,,,,,,

,,,,,,, what does it matter if one votes or not when our corrupt federal government walks all over what citizens/voters decide ????????

.

The real question is; Who is the Federal Government to say if a legal vote is valid or not ?????

.

Eric Holder is responsible for sending hundreds of lethal weapons to Mexican Drug gangs,,,,,

,,,,, but manages the nerve and hypocrisy to prosecute voters for causing no harm by smoking a joint.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Is this really the kind of MORON we want heading the "Department Of Justice"???????????????

_______________________________________________________________________________

Are we REALLY that ignorant as a nation ???????????

(Oh,,,,, I forgot,,,,, we elected Bush twice !!!!! I guess we are that ignorant as a nation. Never mind!!!!)

.

As a former pot smoker, I tend to disagree with a lot of the pros on legalizing pot.

@ Rhazes I suffer from severe night blindness. Marijuana is the only thing that helps.

Go see a doctor and have the cataracts removed.

Be careful of what you wish for. If the government ever legalizes pot, it will be taxed the same way tabacco is.

Also, if it is legalized, then the use should be treated the same way alcohol is. No smoking and driving, and the penalties should be just as severe. Pot is a mind altering substance, so the laws should be the same.

"I hope that the government does legalize pot so that all of the non-smokers who are looking for work will have less competition. This will also make promotions much easier for those of us currently working. Stand any regular user of marijuana next to a non-smoker, non-drinker, and the difference in their work performance and appearance is noticeable. Unfortunately, I see overall production in the United States dropping in the next few years."

Ok so you really believe that the war on Pot has stop anyone that wants to use it from using it?

And why would you stand up a pot smoker next to NON smokers and non drinkers? Why not next to smokers and drinkers. I also can assure you there are many that smoke pot that you can not tell do, no matter who you stand them next to.

You are basiacially uninformed and a chump for the War on Drug gang.

Please, Pretty Please....all you lefty-loonie marijuana partakers, vote for Pro-Pot Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson to send a message of your displeasure to the P.Obama Regime and its Chief Federal Pot Law Enforcer at the DORSEJ (Department of Racial, Social and Economic Justice) Eric MY PEOPLE WithHolder....Thank you and have a bong-filled smokey happy day..... :-)

"Go see a doctor and have the cataracts removed.

Be careful of what you wish for. If the government ever legalizes pot, it will be taxed the same way tabacco is.

Also, if it is legalized, then the use should be treated the same way alcohol is. No smoking and driving, and the penalties should be just as severe. Pot is a mind altering substance, so the laws should be the same."

I don't think night blindness is caused by cataracts.

You can't seriously believede it ok noew to drive and smoke pot do you? You can be charged with DUI for any number of things other than Alcohol and yes it includes pot. I have no problem with it being treated and regulated like other legal drugs.

There are two ways to make an amendment to the US Constitution.

1 If congress takes it up.

2 If two thirds of the states demand one.

So, If 33 states legalize pot with a demand to make it legal to the federal Government, they would have no choice but to take up the matter. However, if three quarters of the states legalize it with a demand to the government it would be considered ratified and become an amendment.

Medical Marijuana should be legalized everywhere for SENIOR CITIZENS so that MEDICARE CAN PAY FOR IT!!!

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 . . . KEEP THE DREAM (and ME) ALIVE . . . YOU PAYING FOR ME!!!!

soarer

Did you see the contracts with the private prisons with the government and states. They have to keep a 90 percent lock up rate for funding. Is this country going mad when were betting on people going to jail.

This reminds me of the Judge in PA who was recently convicted of taking kick-backs for Sentencing non-violent Offenders to lengthy terms in a Privately-run Lockup.

Here we have an administration adamantly against any relaxation of marijuana laws despite a having president that acknowledged he has spent much of his college years "choomin".

The only reason that there can be is that there's big money to be made by keeping the stuff illegal. In the end, it's always about the money, isn't it?

Marijuana laws...the Feds will enforce vigorously. Immigration laws though...mmm....not so much. Glad they got their priorities straight. <sarc>

Legalizing marijuana brings down prison spending, paperwork for police, and you can place an import tax on it like all other imported goods.

A danger to society? I'd really like them to explain that one, and give me also a compare and contrast powerpoint that justifies weed as a danger to society as opposed to alcohol and mescaline.

RandomJ 1.30

I can only add to your post by saying that a body of people that possesses only the freedoms the government allows are not free at all. For them, freedom is an illusion.

I am a fiscally conservative, Republican. I have never used pot and do not plan to start. I am, however, much more of a libertarian when it come to personal activities. Here is my idea.... Legalize pot, nationwide, regulate it and tax it heavily! If anyone grows it and does not pay their "share" of taxes, open them up to action by the IRS. (That is a lot scarier than action by the ATF!) And to guarantee that the Federal government will support it, 50% of the revenue would go to the government to fund healthcare, either Obamacare or a replacement program from the Republicans.

BTW, I also believe that the government should do the same with prostitution! (Once again, I do not partake and do not plan to do this!) If we need revenue we should look at the "black market" areas of our economy before we try to tax the hell out of everyone!

Wet Willy

The only reason that there can be is that there's big money to be made by keeping the stuff illegal. In the end, it's always about the money, isn't it?

____________________________________________________________________

Good Morning Wet Willy,,,,

,,,,,, good post and spot on.

The only thing that matters in these country these days is the power of the "Federal Reserve Note" .

.

HEY EVERY BODY,,,,,,,, here is the direct email address the Eric Holder and the MORONS at the "Justice Department". :

_____________________________________________________

askdoj@usdoj.gov
_____________________________________________________

.

I would ask any of you who cares, to write them directly and let them know what you think of the brilliant jobs they are doing.


Thanks !!!!

.

if thats the way the Obama administration truly feels then I can't give him my vote and neither will millions of people who helped get him elected last time. I would rather let Romeny and the insane right wing destroy this country, which they surely will if elected than to vote for Obama again if he is going to ignore the will of the people and continue fighting this war on pot. I am not some troll trying to sway opinion and you people know that, I am soundly against Mitt Romney, the republican party and their insane ideology but I WILL LET THEM WIN AND i WILL LET THEM DESTROY THIS COUNTRY before I give my vote to someone who has put so many innocent people in jail in the last four years. They came at me like I was a terrorist, 35 people in riot gear and hazmat suits, tazered my dog and had me face down on the ground with a boot to the back of my head while they destroyed my home all for a couple of tiny plants growing nexr to my tomatoes, I lost my home and am facing felony charges while the pedophile boy scout leader down the street got off with a slap on the wrist because he claims to be a good christian. We have the world so screwed up right now I could care frigging less if it burns to the ground, in fact that would be the best thing that could happen to humanity is if mother nature knocked us back to the stone age for a few thousand years so we can start over and perhaps get it right this time, electing Romney will assure that happens much sooner whereas electing Obama will just drag out our suffering for a lot longer. Screw it, lets just get it over with now.

In US Supreme Court decision after decision, one thing had been made clear; whereas interstate commerce falls within the jurisdiction of federal authority, the police power is predominitely a state power. In fact, in some cases, where the necessity of upholding public health and safety was deemed of import, the Court ruled IN FAVOR of a state law that infringed on interstate commerce, when no less infringing way was deemed possible. In those cases, the STATES police power was allowed to trump interstate commerce. The Fed doesn't always have the final say.

In any case, we're dealing with something here which is first and foremost recognized as falling in the jurisdiction of the state's authority. But here we have Eric Holder, butting his nose in, who would also but his nose into immigration laws in AZ and other border states, when the DoJ fails to do it's job in protecting the nations borders from what transpires on border towns. Just wonderful really. In all cases there's little respect for states rights; you know one of the big issues that came to a head during the Civil War...

john, it might well be time we do re-convene the Constitutional convention. And first on the list, Congress's ability to vote themselves a pay raise, vote themselves the cadalac health plan, and ability to vote themselves that retirement plan of theirs; even while they raid the SS fund at a whim, and leave the rest of us gnawing on the bones of whatever is left after they tax us to put it in their pockets (and the pockets of those who have lobbied them). I don't think it would be hard to find 80% of Americans in each of the 50 states who would agree these people shouldn't be able to set their own pay and retirement benefits, after working 3 day work weeks, and not even bothering to read the bills they vote upon, and sometimes shove down our throats at our own expense, and in many cases for themselves and for their pet PACs...

@BP

here is the link:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-causes-night-blindness.htm

Wet Willy... "A body of people that possesses only the freedoms the government allows are not free at all. For them, freedom is an illusion."

Well put. Reminds me of similar words from the late Jacques Cousteau: "Man cannot give freedom, he can only take it away."

of all the canidates that put their hat in the ring running for POTUS....Ron Paul was the only one some what in touch with the people and talked common sense for the most part and sees the folly of this nations continuing canabis policies not to mention trade and the economy , foriegn policy and defense , but to me he was purposely cut out by the media and was falsely portrayed as a bit of a loon loose cannon , why ?? could it have been the media get their $$$$$ from the advertising air time or assorted programming from the Alc lobby ? pharm lobby ? law enforcement lobby ?..industrial chem lobby ? military industrial complex lobby ? all you have to do is follow the friggen' $$$$$...those who think Obama is the pro pot guy are really beyond stupid(follw the $$$$$) , he has the feds cracking down on the states that have med clinics for crien out aloud and wants to take on the states that are for legalisation , what folly !...and Romney he's a dudley do-right bimbo and hasn't got a clue either way or hasn't said a thing about legalisation as far as I know....write in for Paul if you really want to send a message you want to see a noticable change in the policies of are gov't it would at least send a friggen' message to the 2 "money whore parties" currently in charge of the system we have..".WE THE PEOPLE" seems to be forgotten for "The guy with the most $$$$$" in Washington DC...time to overhaul and lay off or fire congress & senate for lack of performance for the people...new all of them...no more Pelosi's Rieds & Bohners and the whole host of other clowns

Iamnotyou... "The federal government is against legalization of Marijuana because smoking it inspires free and independant thinking. The federal Government still wants to be able to control people and what people are thinking." Oh, yeah, there's that little problem to deal with. People thinking too much. Can't have that, now, can we?

"A man who does not think for himself does not think at all." Oscar Wilde

"The difference between allegiance and blind allegiance is simple -- it's about putting those critical thinking skills to good use and mindfully analyzing the ethics of a situation before showing support." Krystie Yandoli

senatorshmoe... "overhaul and lay off or fire congress & senate for lack of performance for the people...new all of them...no more Pelosi's Rieds & Bohners and the whole host of other clowns"

And then... term limits. We tell them "the rules." "Serve" your two terms then go home and get a job. It was never intended to be a career.

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office." H.L. Menken

Legalize the goddamn thing already and let's see how much revenue will be gained, versus the feared harm of doing it!

Legalizing pot will create a ton of revenue - from the reduced cost of locking people up, if nothing else.

Sam-3910152 - The problem with term limits for our representatives is that there is no term limit for lobbyists.

If every two or four years you have a brand new crop of lawmakers coming into Washington, the only real power there will be ALEC.

Which writes "sample" legislation on behalf of its corporate backers. Unless you put strict limits on lobbying and corporate money in the legislative system, this country will be nothing more than the United States of Incorporation.

Thanks to the GOP, it's going to take a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. And if that's not done before term limits are put into place, you'll have no voice in your government at all. Ever again.

I don't think the Obama administration is opposed to legalizing pot.

I do think that they don't want to admit it before the election. Because there are a whole lot of grandmas on Medicare out there who don't agree.

I'd be willing to bet, though, that you won't see some big federal enforcement action if states choose legalization.

At least it's a better bet than putting Robme and Ryan in power - you know where the evangelical crowd stands on "smaller government" when it comes to moral issues.

LOS ANGELES - A top Justice Department official has said in a television interview that the federal government is ready to combat any "dangers" of state-sanctioned recreational pot, amid criticism of the Obama administration for its relative silence on legalization drives in three states.

Big Government not so good is it? They want control of every part of our lives.

Oh the social injustice....oh the government trying to keep me down...oh the humanity.

Pot is NOT going to be legal any time soon. Those three states can try all they want, but their federal funding will go away...you though property values were low and taxes were high in those states now? Just wait.

Why does everyone of these people who find 'the government's position' refuse to link President Obama with his position on marijuana? It is President Obama's Justice Dept seeking out all marijuana users to please Mexico.

Make it legal. Even if it is "bad".

If people want to drink cocaine mixed with rat pee then jump off a house, so be it. Stop creating laws that protect people only from themselves.

And to the, "oh but what about the childrennnnnnnn" people. It is the parents job to decide what their kids do or do not do.

Ron Paul for president (even if the republican party railroaded him out of the nomination). The only one with half a brain about federal legalization of marijuana.

RealAmericansFirst:

Sam-3910152 - The problem with term limits for our representatives is that there is no term limit for lobbyists.

That is so true. The only thing term limit prevents is representatives making a career and retiring from their seat.

We must find a way to change the laws with which our representatives are able to operate, or we just have one corrupt body being replaced in a corrupt system by another corrupt body.

Legalize it and then tax the hell out same as tobacco and liquor. Not only will it make money for the government but it will blow some of the dealers out of the water. It's far fetched to say that legalization will cause more people to smoke, people who want to smoke already smoke and just for the record I don't the smell makes me sick.

"We're going to take a look at whether or not there are dangers to the community from the sale of marijuana and we're going to go after those dangers," Cole told "60 Minutes"

Want to see dangers to the community? Look at all the wasted resources and damaged lives caused by the unwillingness of your office to focus on real crime.

necktie party

I do not use, however, if you presume to believe that you have the moral obligation and right to legislate how others live, then by precedent of law, they also have the same right to prescribe how you live. Think about that before you prescribe your own personal brand of social engineering.

Same goes with gay marriage, it is not and should have never been the mandate of government. The only reason they are involved is due to lobbyists, and they should never be given control of policy, foreign or domestic.

Eric Holder should be fired or something. How does he still have a job? Obama should have never saved him from the courts. This and some other issues are why I call Obama a sell out. If only I had some better choices that might actually raise taxes on the rich instead of coddling them.

Over 1 trillion dollars of that 16 trillion debt that we have is DUE TO THE WAR ON DRUGS. How much would the government make off the taxation of its sales? How is it better for our government to get LESS money versus the pharmaceutical companies? Why do we give money away to corporations that our government could make and then need to borrow money from other countries it to pay for our spending? The tax rate of pharmaceuticals is a joke compared to what most "sin" taxes are and that was just changed not to long ago. They used to get away without paying any tax to the government since it was for medical use.

Sending people to jail, paying for all the arrests, paying for the courts, all subsidized by the taxpayers costs people money. They cannot make that much from the fines and it just allows them to justify spending taxpayer money instead. Just like those union bosses that people love to complain about they found a way to sustain themselves without having to really work for a living. Just look at who opposes the legalization and how much money they stand to lose. As long as we let our lives be ran and controlled by this thing called money they have you "by the balls". They know they have them and are squeezing the chit out of them trying to get you to cave in to their crazy/unreasonable requests. Why did you let them put their hand on your balls in the first place? Maybe pay attention to the Republic that our founding fathers gave us since even they stated it would require the diligence of the people. What happened to that diligence in the 60's? Were we all to busy have a good time, watching sports, working, etc. to pay attention? It benefits the people in power if the masses are stupid and easy to control. Lets them get away with murder so to speak.

Question if taxes were higher and people could not keep all the money would they lie, cheat, steal, etc. as much? Would they sell out America all so they could become rich and be successful? Why do we give them that opportunity in the first place? How many more years are we going to follow the failed polices of an actor/football player? What made him so smart and why is raising taxes on the rich so hard to do? The idea that they would not do anything to sustain their life or to exist unless they get rewarded for it is laughable. The reward is being able to live and have a better life then if you lived all alone by yourself like a hermit. Women are a pain in my butt, but I live a better life due to them. (But when I am a pain in the butt they leave me...:P.)

BP-2252891"I hope that the government does legalize pot so that all of the non-smokers who are looking for work will have less competition. This will also make promotions much easier for those of us currently working. Stand any regular user of marijuana next to a non-smoker, non-drinker, and the difference in their work performance and appearance is noticeable.

I can run laps around you...I promise....and not ever has anyone suspected...because...the world is exactly the same either way....its you who are acting different...Im not busy trying to point out your inefficiencies, but youll spend your time trying to find mine...seems like alot of busy work to me...how much do you actually get done

OREGON! LISTEN UP! Election Day is Tuesday, November 6, 2012 when we finally say F**K YOU to the corrupt DEA and their $40 Billion yearly money toilet. Wednesday, 07Nov12, is LOCK AND LOAD DAY! Legalizing pot will just be the start. We've still got our psychopathic county sheriffs (who crave that DHS military hardware) and Feds all over the state who may take some stronger medicine to give up their self-serving 'War on Marijuana". A good move would be for those in Washington County to say NO! NO! NO! to the Sheriffs money sucking phony "Enhanced Patrol" tax on this ballot. The "Washington County Sheriff's Task Force against Marijuana" will not be needing those many Deputies and funding and this sheriff, Garrett, can't seem to grok that WE HAVE TOLD HIM NO! several times already. He's wasting our gold and needs to learn the value of our tax money. I have ALWAYS voted for these levies even though they increased my property tax for no apparent gain. No more. Garrett's throwing our money away and, worse, he's ignoring us. His time will come. For now, VOTE! Throw these psychopaths off the gravy train along with their greed-driven Corporate sponsors. MAKE HISTORY, OREGON! Hold that finger high and proud toward ethanol producers, prison cartels, police unions, 100% corrupt legislators, and all of the other liars and freeloaders who make a buck hurting innocent people. Oregon as Concord Green! I love it! Next, the biggest parasite of all...The Fed and all of the goldman-sucks sociopaths. Time to clean house here in America. HOO-RAHH!

Oh, and in case you missed it, the Salt Lake City Tribune (Utah newspaper of record) just endorsed BHO! B'wah hahaha. They said essentially that the romney appeared to be an opportunist slimeball, or newspaper words to that effect.

Also, if you somehow got this far without reading all of the excellent comments above, go back and take a look. Thoughtful and to the point, all. Apparently Rove's paid net trolls didn't bother with this article like they do with any story with 'Obama' in it.

Necktie party post # Whore-re-gon, cloderado??? Really?? Get over yourself!!! Grew up in Colorado and have resided in Oregon since 1978. Nobody in either state is loving your disrespect.

Am voting FOR legalizing marijuana here in Oregon.

William Bjornson, WTF with the misspelling of Oregon???

MisterJ-1780316

...

A danger to society? I'd really like them to explain that one, and give me also a compare and contrast powerpoint that justifies weed as a danger to society as opposed to alcohol and mescaline

You want to know how dangerous it is? Go see a movie called "Reefer Madness" it will scare you straight!

OVerlord - "First, it is unconstitutional since the Constitution guarantees citizens life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We can use an ancient and relatively innocuous herb if we choose, it is not the place of a police state to dictate to citizens they cannot use it." I hate to point this out, but the constitution DOES NOT say anything about Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness.

This statement is actually found in the Declaration of Independence - "IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Your statement - "Third, we stuff people like commodities into the prison industrial complex machine for profit." is a complete fallacy. People are sent to prison for violations of the law. Law abiding citizens are not jailed and shipped off to prison. Those that are arrested, tried by a jury of thier peers, are thus sentenced. In the case of a plea bargain, there is always an affidavit of proof filed by the prosecution, which contains the facts that would have been proven in a court of law to a jury of the accused peers. The Prison System does NOT go out and shanghai people to toss em in prison. The originating act, or action, sits solely and squarely on the shoulders of those who willingly, consciously, and maliciously committ acts that are violations of the law. The Important Piece of NON RHETORIC here is SENTENCING and GUILT is decided by the JURY or JUDGE after the accused is FOUND GUILTY.

Your statement - "Lastly, the cultural, legal and institutional justifications for prohibition of pot are illogical and unsupportable scientifically" may have some truth, but you also need to realize the basis for our current laws making marijuana illegal. Specifically, for your education and others, the current CSA (controlled substances act - is OUR legislation to outlaw drugs and other substances that were agreed upon (treaty) through the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the World Health Organization were empowered to add, remove, and transfer drugs among the treaty's four Schedules of controlled substances. The International Narcotics Control Board was put in charge of administering controls on drug production, international trade, and dispensation. This is of significance because it is an international treaty that was ratified by the US Senate, under the authority and auspices of established constitutional power.

I do recognize the medicinal value of cannibis, and I do support those that have a MEDICAL NEED for the benefits of cannibis, but I do not support the recreational use of ANY MEDICINE. In my view, recreational use of medicine amounts to drug abuse and addiction, and ANY responsible person would not advocate for the abuse of medicine.

Your last statement - " In the very near future people will demand the government act on the will of the people and end this corrupt war on drugs." In my humble opinion has already been acted on with the defeat of legalizing recreational drug use in California as an example. The will of the MAJORITY of People that is. The 2nd part of your comment, corrupt war on drugs would seem to indicate that you are in favor of legalizing ALL recreational drugs to include Methamphetimines, LSD, Heroine, Cocaine, ect. Or are you "confused" in that statement, as the "war on drugs" includes ALL drugs not just pot.

I must admit,you are 100% correct concerning the "controlled substance act(s)", but you are decidedly incorrect concerning the reasons for the act. Propagana and fear produced the majority of the decisions made by that control board, and they were also influenced by the major pharmacutical companies. Don't you find it the least bit odd that, equally dangerous and powerful drugs are easily and readily obtainable? All one needs do is obtain them through government regulated channels, and you can use all the drugs you care to use.

Further, if you advocate for all drugs being illegal for any recreational use you must include them all. I coudn't help but notice you did not mention alcohol which is indeed a drug, is legal, and is used entirely for recreational purposes.

Finally, all the substances you mention are derived from plants in their original form and were used in homeopathic medicine compounds for thousands of years prior to the government sticking it's big hairy nose in the mix. What people want for the most part, is for the government to get out of the business of regulating every aspect of our lives, deciding for us what is "good" or "bad" and let us make our own decisions about how we choose to live. As long as no one is harmed there is no need for laws governing one behavior over another, if in the event the behavior does cause harm, prosecute that crime. Drug crime did not exist prior to the government's interference, and if the huge profits from illegal drug trade were eliminated, so there would go the crime. The Controlled Substance Act(s) enacted by the Federal Government and the several states prosecute behavior prior to the showing of any actual harm caused, and that is a dangerous practice, because it creates a situation whereby others dictate a people's personal decisions. Once given this power where would it end?

Moony - It is finally nice to see an intelligent reply, and not some spouted rhetoric. I mentioned the other drugs because there is a couple of organizations that ARE in fact trying to legalize ALL recreational drugs, to include the ones I listed, as well as ecstacy. And you are correct, I see alcohol as the most widely abused drug. In fact, if one looks at the costs of the repeal of alcohol prohibition and it's costs specifically to those who don't drink, I would say repeal was a bigger failure than prohibition itself. It does essentially boil down to temperance, self control, and responsibility. And these are 3 traits that are sorely lacking in society as a whole.

In regards to alcohol, there are solutions. But people - specifically drinking establishments and liquor stores place profits over public safety. Some of the easiest solutions would NOT cost the bars and casinos a dime truthfully. I have advocated for a check your keys system, which would not only shield the bars from "over serving" issues to protecting patrons for getting DUIs, and the public from becoming victims in drunk driving related crashes. Now while this discussion is specifically about the legalization of marijuana, there are a lot of similarities and considerations that SHOULD be looked at prior to legalization. There are hidden factors - related increases for example in the number of drugged drivers (which increases our car insurance rates). The increases in drug related health issues (which again will increase our health insurance rates). The increases in crime (even though these drugs would be legalized - addicts would NOT cease using crime as a means to finance their habits). The issue of organized crime (cartels and such) that as we saw with the repeal of alcohol prohibition, providing a "legal shop front" from which to launder money for other illicit activities (like the mob did with Casinos in Nevada, New Jersey, etc.) There would still be a "black market" for drugs attempting to undercut taxation, regulation of such substances, just as there is with moonshine.

The issue becomes one of slippery slope. And since the only "real working model we have" is alcohol, we can see the rise in issues, costs, and unforeseen consequences that resulted from that repeal. We should learn from history, not so much in using it as fear, but using it to mitigate the problems that arose from that course of action.

If you desire for my explanation of Check your Keys - I would be more than happy to explain it.

I raised a few concerns and explained them more indepth in 2.22 and 2.24 below, complete with snippets and links to where I obtained the information for my position. Again, while we may disagree on legalization, it is nice to actually engage with someone that seems to have a level of objectiveness and educated thought.

Will the Watcher I understand and appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Clearly you have put some thought into your response and stated it clearly and concisely. But I do tend to disagree with some of your points. You state that the repeal of prohibition has created more problems than prohibition itself. Yes there are problems with its legalization in the form of DUIs, abusive alcoholics, and increased health issues however those issues existed even during prohibition at about an equal rate as it exists today without prohibition. Also we have virtually eliminated the deaths and injury caused by illegally brewed and contaminated products produced in homes and garages all across this country that was not controlled, taxed, or licensed in any way.

Clearly for any society to expect temperance, self control, and responsibility to result from simply making a law against something is kind of naive. People simply disobey the law and take it very much underground. It is kind of like telling hormonally charged adolescents to just say no to sex and deny them any forms of protection. It just ain't gonna happen. Once such activity goes undergound that is when the real problems start that are not out in the open and are subject to terrible violence that affects even the most innocent among us. Children being shot in their beds as they sleep or gunned down as they walk home from school is becoming a common occurance in my city where gangs are fighting for turf or customers are being ripped off and starting a gun battle on our streets.

You also indicate that you would expect increases in the numbers of impaired drivers, increases in drug related health issues, and increases in crime. However when Portugal decriminalized all drugs the results were totally counterintuitive. The number of addicts declined, drug related crime nearly ceased to exist, and thanks to mandatory treatment of those using the health issues were brought under control. As for the black market it simply vanished because since drugs were provided so cheaply there was no profit motive for them to continue because they simply could not compete. A can of cocaine could be made as cheap as a can of Comet cleanser. That argument simply is not valid since we no longer have a bootlegging problem with alcohol and we no longer have violent crime to pay for a drinking habit as you surmise. I haven't seen real "moonshine" in years, only the knock off that liquor stores sell as a gimick. It is just too risky and booze is cheap and easy to obtain if you are an adult.

That is another factor. It is easier for a adolescent to obtain a lid of marijuana or a bag of coke today than it is for them to obtain a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of beer. In fact we recently had a drug bust here locally where the street dealers and runners were all under the age of 16. So the idea that prohibition is the better approach simply doesn't pan out. It never has and it never will.

Now your idea about "check your keys" is a good one and some places have that kind of a service. You actually blow into a disposable breathalizer in order to get your keys back. However that requires some voluntary participation and not everyone complies. Also the cost of the breathalizer kits is high and it is added into your bar tab so most folks just pass. Regulating morality and the human vices is difficult but it can be done if simple common sense is applied.

I rather like the Civil War story about the Union commander in Nashville who was suffering more losses to venereal disease than to battle wounds among his troops. First he tried a kind of prohibition by rounding up all of the prostitutes, putting them on a river boat, and shipping them out of town. When they couldn't find a willing port of call they eventually returned. In frustration the commander turned the issue over to the field physician. He initiated weekly health inspections with permits issued to the prostitutes who also paid for this service and the venereal disease rate dropped to almost nothing and the few cases that did pop up were from illegal prostitutes who had not been inspected. However after the war ended and the troops departed the local authorities ceased the control efforts and reverted to a prohibitive stance. Within 6 months the venereal disease rate among the prostitutes was once again at epidemic levels. Control and regulation is the only real solution in such cases whether it is drugs, alcohol, gambling, or prostitution.

Alcohol and gambling have now become money makers for the respective states and even the federal government in the form of taxation. All that is left is drugs and prostitution and presently there is just too much illegal money changing hands in high places for that to change any time soon. To expect something like Portugal's approach here is just as naive as "just say no" is. LOL

Will the Watcher:

I also have a post towards the end of page 19 you may find interesting!

Now your idea about "check your keys" is a good one and some places have that kind of a service. You actually blow into a disposable breathalizer in order to get your keys back. However that requires some voluntary participation and not everyone complies. Also the cost of the breathalizer kits is high and it is added into your bar tab so most folks just pass.

Also, if "check your keys" were required, so-what? How many copies of your car keys do you have? I have four - 1 on my main ring, one in my wallet, just in case I lock my keys in the car (been there done that), one on my wife's key ring, one in the kitchen drawer. Now, I am not one to skirt such a good idea, but that is not to say there aren't those who would.

Additionally, four people go into the bar. Who drove whose car? Who is driving home? Could change once out of the bar.

Good idea, needs work. Does depend on the honesty of the patron. It would be nice if it were a voluntary feature at all bars.

Obama my support for you is already low as it is.

As a cancer survivor, I was dismayed to find that Obama has been tougher on medical marijuana than any Republican ever. Now he insists that he will not accept states rights on this issue. Crazy that Romney is the only one that might support compassionate care for cancer patients.

As President he took an oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States. The Federal Laws against pot is just one of them.

"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it's against federal law. I can't nullify congressional law," Obama said.

this has nothing to do with managing pain. it doesn't have to be medication. it is far less harmless than drinking or "using" cigarettes (i'll use their language on that one), so why one and not the other. only idiots think otherwise, so if i want to smoke just because then stay the f out of my business. obama has been completely useless on this issue, and as a "black" man he should know how disproportionately applied and abusive these marijuana laws are but i guess he's too busy catering to the demographics he feels he doesn't have in his pocket. clown.

Sorry, but big pharma, the prison industry, and alcohol companies have too much to lose if marijuana is legalized. If marijuana were illegal because it's actually dangerous, then so would cigarettes and alcohol. But unfortunately there are too many parties who's interests are at stake for it to be legal. Which shows us how things really run in our government and why we are in desperate need of a new government structure.

I agree, our government has suffered a hostile takeover by the super-rich corporations (they are now "people") and we have only the illusion of control. We don't, they spend billions of dollars creating the "greatest show on earth" to brainwash us during elections as they gerrymander the results behind the curtain. The Republicans do this manditorily and no doubt some democrats have done it as well.

America is in big trouble and the war on drugs is a festering symptom of the corruption. I'm not a huge fan of Obama's drug policy but I understand he enforces it out of principle. Romney on the other hand I believe will solidify the Christian Corporate States of America plutocracy if elected and we will never see the end of the war on drugs in our lifetimes. He will stack the Supreme Court with so many extreme right-wing justices that individual rights will be lost to corporations permanently.

Crazy that Romney is the only one that might support compassionate care for cancer patients.

Yes that is "crazy"...it would NEVER happen. You've really got to be kidding.

Ok, a couple of things here, which will probably piss off the pro pot folks. I don't support the legalization of ANY recreational drug and my position on the matter isn't one based on being ignorant or anything like that.

To say pot should be left up to the states and that it is unconstitutional for the Government to regulate it, is an argument that has hit the Supreme Court a number of times. Specifically the reason WHY it is not unconstitutional sits in the Commerce Clause. The governments RIGHT to regulate commerce between the states, like it does with wheat, barley, beef, pork, milk, and even toilet paper. So that argument of the law being unconstitutional has been argued and lost by people with more of the alphabet behind their names than us dumbasses, jaw jacking here.

The argument concerning that harmless plant is the same "argument" that was the catalyst for the repeal of alcohol prohibition. And truthfully, that harmless "drink" has been anything but. Alcohol Prohibition Repeal DID NOT stymie or run organized crime out of business. It actually allowed organized crime to open businesses that were and are routinely used to launder money from thier other criminal activity. Likewise, the idea of taxation, like on booze is a myth. It actually costs MORE MONEY to enforce drunk laws, and costs more money to the average citizen than revenue brought in for booze. Now keep this in mind, IF by legalizing booze we actually cost ourselves money, could the same be said for pot, or any other recreational drug?

During alcohol prohibition, the number of DUIs and Deaths as a result of drunk driving were far far less, PER CAPITA, then they are today. The reason was quite simply booze was illegal, and it forced people to drink responsibly (meaning getting caught drunk brought some pretty serious consequence) far more so than the multitudes of repeat drunk drivers we see today.

The notion of smoking a joint not causing cancer is a fallacy as well. People seem to forget the paper they roll that joint with contains the same carcinogens that cigarette paper carries. It is produced with the same chemicals, the same processes, ect. And the argument about smoking it in a bowl or a pipe still brings with it leaching of metals being inhaled into the lungs. All smoke, be it a fire, cigarette, pot, BBQ, or what have you causes damage to the lungs. That is a medical fact.

There stands another issue, and one that really shouldn't need explaining, but, for the sake of argument, if you legalize recreational pot, you open a pandora's box to other recreational drug users wanting THIER drugs of choice legalized, like cocaine, heroine, meth, and others. The argument has already been raised about if you legalize one, then why should the others remain illegal. And I know some of you might not agree with that stance, but you also need to realize drug users don't really give a damn about the differences, what is good for one is good for another.

And finally, as I know I am probably going to get flamed here, but truthfully if we are being "dumbed down" by the government, if we are already being taken advantage of, being constantly lied to, misled, and ruled by keeping us ignorant, then why would we want to make it easier by being high, stoned, or otherwise chemically influenced? I mean really, for those of you that get high, do you really give a sht about what is going on around you while you are high? Probably not. So why put yourself in a position where it becomes easier for the government to keep us stupid? And even beyond that, isn't drug use a coping mechanism? A "recreational endeavor" that we do to forget about a @!$%#ty day at work, or unwind, or the host of other reasons that we are trying to "avoid" dealing with something else? At what point, truthfully, do we actually start dealing with the realities of life?

And even IF pot was legal, taxed, regulated and sold in stores like cigs, what makes you think those that "can't" afford it are actually not going to engage in some criminal enterprise to obtain it, if they don't have the money to buy it? I mean seriously, let's look at gambling and booze. The main 3 reasons why people committ embezzlement is gambling addiction, alcohol problems, or drug addiction. Those crimes aren't going to stop. And the argument that people can grow thier own is another load of @!$%#. They could grow it themselves NOW, but that sure as hell don't stop people from breaking into cars, houses, and the like to steal things to go buy pot. Here in Montana, just in this past year, a vast majority of the break ins have involved stealing to buy dope, and we have a medical pot law here. And still, the crime continues, and has actually increased in regards to the greater availability of weed.

I just put these things out there in hopes to solicit a good and meaningful discussion, in hopes that some might actually give some thought to things that may have never crossed thier minds before.

Obama my support for you is already low as it is.

You smoked before you posted that crapola right?

Personally I used to smoke a lot of the best weed, and I mean a lot and the best, but I quit back in the early early 90s, I don't know I just kind of lost interest. Then a few years ago I tried it again a few times for old times' sake, having come down here to Texas and talking to my construction worker friends and hearing tales of 300 dollar pounds and 100 dollar eight balls of cocaine...But to be honest, I found that pot is a very strong drug (and this was regular!) I realized that i must have been very messed up as a youth (which I was, lots of family/money probs etc) to ever smoke as much as I did. Just my 2 cents.

The notion of smoking a joint not causing cancer is a fallacy as well. People seem to forget the paper they roll that joint with contains the same carcinogens that cigarette paper carries. It is produced with the same chemicals, the same processes, ect. And the argument about smoking it in a bowl or a pipe still brings with it leaching of metals being inhaled into the lungs. All smoke, be it a fire, cigarette, pot, BBQ, or what have you causes damage to the lungs. That is a medical fact.

Sorry, your assertion is completely incorrect.

Marijuana is commonly vaporized (without burning) and does not have the harmful effects associated with smoking. There is not one single serious danger of vaporizing pot and there are many benefits.

It is not your place to impose your opinion on others... especially when your argument is based on false assumptions.

And even IF pot was legal, taxed, regulated and sold in stores like cigs, what makes you think those that "can't" afford it are actually not going to engage in some criminal enterprise to obtain it, if they don't have the money to buy it?

It's a weed!!! It grows just about anywhere. It doesn't even have to be commercialized but can be grown by people all by themselves! They won't have any reason to commit crimes to obtain it. Again, bad argument against it. Besides, pot is not expensive... you could make the same argument about alcohol but I doubt any major crime is committed to buy a fifth of gin and it seems ludicrous to suggest someone would resort to crime to buy a $5 joint.

There stands another issue, and one that really shouldn't need explaining, but, for the sake of argument, if you legalize recreational pot, you open a pandora's box to other recreational drug users wanting THIER drugs of choice legalized, like cocaine, heroine, meth, and others.

Fallacy. Pot IS NOT cocaine, heroine, meth or any other drug... it IS pot. Stop conflating different substances it is illogical. Other drugs can be dealt with drug by drug based on the science.

Will

I understand your argument and see your point. And yes you do have a point. but for a century now alcohol has been legal. I dont think anyone will disagree that it is a gateway drug. It will make you do all kind of crazy things. Ive seen it do way way more damage than pot has. And it is still legal. Organized crime was giving way to illegal drugs even before prohibition was repealed. And talking about drugs people will kill for narcotics. I doubt that cocaine, heroin or meth will ever be anywhere close to being leagalized because they cause more damage than alcohol and pot together, As far as drinking responsibly. normal people drink responsibly. alcoholics dont never did never will. Somehow i think the reason that duis went up was because cops stopped letting them go and because after the depression there were way more cars on the road. I appreciate your comments though because i did stop and think about them. You have valid points.

I pray that all the folks that are against pot suddenly come down with debilitating migraine's or headaches or get an illness that makes them throw up. Or maybe severe glaucoma's. And the only thing that will ease that is to smoke pot.

As for the expense of it. Have you been into a bar or had a cocktail with a nice meal? A drink costs anywhere from $2.50-$8.00 a piece!! But I see lots of lower income folks sitting at the bar every day indulging. On my dime!

Take off the glasses and take a reasonable look at the situation. The stymie on pot is all hype and terror due to big company's losing revenue on their drugs with all the side effects. Do you mean to tell me you would rather take a compound that is made up in a lab with 100 side effects than use a natural substance for medical issues. ??

People seem to forget the paper they roll that joint with contains the same carcinogens that cigarette paper carries.

Guess you never heard of vaporizing it. Those that choose to use papers or cigar leaves remain ignorant to the safest way to smoke. Besides, why should you care how others ingest it? You're against it no matter what.

And still, the crime continues, and has actually increased in regards to the greater availability of weed.

You can't state this without providing data to compare. So for now, you are just "firing for effect" to elicit the response you're looking for. Provide a link to the studies done to validate your claims.

During alcohol prohibition, the number of DUIs and Deaths as a result of drunk driving were far far less, PER CAPITA, then they are today.

Seriously? Provide your data for the recorded DUI deaths during prohibition. I can't believe you're even using this as a defense. How many millions more people are driving today, versus a time when having a car was a luxury?

You still have not offered any comparing data to back your claims. Why?

if you legalize recreational pot, you open a pandora's box to other recreational drug users wanting THIER drugs of choice legalized, like cocaine, heroine, meth, and others.

All the drugs you listed need to be processed. Cannabis is ready to use right off the stem. You use straw man arguments and unsupported claims as your entire reasoning.

So until you even attempt to back up any of your claims, you should not even be taken even remotely seriously. Just saying "That is a medical fact" doesn't make it one. If you're going to bother to type as much as you did, at least give everyone the respect to at least provide something to back what you're saying.

Thanks NYMike and TheOverlord for exposing these baseless, preposterous arguments against Legalization.

Let me add; what gives anyone, {be it Government or Person}, the Right to Outlaw a Plant? A Weed which grows in Nature all over the World. Probably the most useful Plant known to Man considering the amount of Products and Substances which can be produced with Cannabis/Hemp.

I'll tell you what is really crazy! I live in Colorado, where there is a ballot initiative to fully treat pot like alcohol. This would legalize up to a certain amount of pot and regulate it, tax it, and legislate a legal age of 21. The democrats are avoiding it like the plague, but, I have heard several prominent, conservative republicans come out in support! So much for the liberal mantra of conservatives "hating on" private choices!

To Lawrence Kansas: Re: President Obama's oath to support and defend the Constitution and laws of The United States.

President Obama vociferously publically and on national television 'condemned The First Amendment in the strongest possible terms, because it protects conduct offensive to Islam (burning Koran)

President Obama vowed to Karzai and then did track down and hold responsible US troops who included Korans in their US Military regulations required burning of trash in war zones (which necessarily includes Bibles) in violation of the establishment clause.

President Obama vowed to the General Assembly on The UN on 9/25/12 that "The future must not belong to those who defame the prophet of Islam."

Also, his multiple directions to defy US law.

President Obama does not give a damn about US law, The Constitution or limits on The Presidency, he does give a damn about Mexican drug profits.

Dan M-1100664

I'll tell you what is really crazy! I live in Colorado, where there is a ballot initiative to fully treat pot like alcohol. This would legalize up to a certain amount of pot and regulate it, tax it, and legislate a legal age of 21. The democrats are avoiding it like the plague, but, I have heard several prominent, conservative republicans come out in support! So much for the liberal mantra of conservatives "hating on" private choices!

Republicans today say whatever they feel like at the time and never commit to their positions. Any conservatives talking positively about pot legalization are outnumbered 10 to 1 and any Republican backing legalization will backtrack faster than you can say Romnesia.

Democrats would love to support the decriminalization and eventually legalization of pot but they know they will be attacked for it by the Republican Culture War. No, Democrats simply don't want to touch it... just like they won't touch ANY gun control issues for the same reason.

You're right on one thing though, the Democrats are avoiding the subject like the plague... in this case the plague is the Republicans.

President Obama vowed to the General Assembly on The UN on 9/25/12 that "The future must not belong to those who defame the prophet of Islam."

Are you serious with this bull@!$%#? Obviously his point is that terrorists defame their prophet, Mohammed, by killing innocent people in their (un)holy war. All your comments boarder on treason and epitomize the lunacy of the Teabag right-wing movement.

Just another example of the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS president doing his thing !!! His version of helping to get the economy working and putting people to work !!! HAAAAA

Overlord, the dems will never try to legalize pot because they need to have more perceived "victims" for them to save! The many top Republicans in Colorado have come out in support of legalization, but, the Governor and the mayor of Denver have come out in opposition! And believe it or not, the Dems believe that legalization would be "bad for business"! The Republicans who support legalization believe that individuals can take better care of themselves than "Big Brother"! They also believe that this false dilemna creates billions nationally in prison costs, legal costs, and a severe reduction in tax receipts! It is plainly the Democrats (politicians) who do not want this legalized!

You're insane. To claim democrats are opposed to legalized pot and republicans for it. Can anyone pretend the party of the moral majority and right wing christian religious groups would ever support pot use? Obama can't support legalized pot because he couldn't get reelected if he did. He might if reelected but it wouldn't matter anyway as another poster noted drug laws are enacted by congress not the president. Nice try trying to paint the republicans as the pro pot party on this blog but that's nuts and you know it.

OK Overlord, since you find it necessary to ridicule what I had hoped would be a frank and intelligent discussion, allow me the opportunity to put forth a few facts with sources here.

My contention concerning the steady increase in DUIs (PER CAPITA - that is the key word ignoramouses missed) meaning it is a comparison statistically speaking based on number of incidents vs total population, which is then extrapolated into percentages.

"Prohibition did work in lowering per capita consumption. The lowered level of consumption during the quarter century following Repeal, together with the large minority of abstainers, suggests that Prohibition did socialize or maintain a significant portion of the population in temperate or abstemious habits" ... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

"Cook County Deaths due to alcohol During and shortly after prohibition" http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/e1920/chicagodeaths.htmhttp://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/e1920/chicagodeaths.htm

Carcinogens found in cigarette paper - "Rolling papers are most commonly made with wood pulp, hemp, flax, or rice straw as a base material. Some companies may use esparto, which might lead to a slightly higher carcinogen level when burned. - source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_paper

"Tobacco and cannabis smoke contain the same carcinogenic compounds - and depending on which part of the plant is smoked, cannabis smoke can contain more of them - but, whereas nicotine activates these carcinogenic compounds, THC has been shown to inhibit them in mice cells. THC is very likely to have protective effects against the carcinogens present in smoke in humans too, but cannabis smoke remains nonetheless carcinogenic. "- source http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/32229.php

Arguments to Legalize ALL recreational Drugs - "It is possible for someone to believe that nobody should ever do drugs but also to support the libertarian proposal for ending the Drug War and legalizing all recreational drugs...I hate “recreational” drugs, and I do not think that anyone should use them. But I firmly believe that recreational drugs of every type should be legalized." Source http://www.libertyunbound.com/node/652

Common methods of using Marijuana - "Marijuana is used in many ways. The most common method is smoking loose marijuana rolled into a cigarette called a “joint” or “nail.” Sometimes marijuana is smoked through a water pipe called a “bong.” Others smoke “blunts”—cigars hollowed out and filled with the drug. And some users brew it as tea or mix it with food." Source - http://teens.drugabuse.gov/facts/facts_mj1.php

Crimes involving THEFT of Pot - "Documents filed in district court Tuesday charged two high school students from Butte with multiple felonies after they allegedly broke into a local marijuana shop and sold the drugs to students who bragged about it online." Source http://mtstandard.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/students-face-felonies-in-pot-theft/article_a892ce6e-0206-11e2-91ba-001a4bcf887a.html

"MOSES LAKE - Two men were shot in at a home in Moses Lake when they allegedly tried to steal marijuana...Three males reportedly forced their way into a house in an attempt to steal narcotics, resulting in an altercation between the homeowner and the suspects, Moses Lake Capt. Dave Ruffin said." Source http://www.columbiabasinherald.com/news/crime-fire/article_adf001cc-67b2-11e1-94eb-0019bb2963f4.html

"

WOOLWICH, Maine — The Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Department is investigating the theft of medical marijuana plants from a Middle Road home.

The burglary marks the second time this month that thieves swiped marijuana being cultivated legally for medical purposes in Sagadahoc County. The Richmond Police Department handled a reported burglary of five large, legally grown medical marijuana plants from a Front Street residence taken the night of Sept. 9 or morning of Sept. 10." Source http://bangordailynews.com/2011/09/27/news/police-beat/second-medical-marijuana-theft-reported-in-sagadahoc-county/

I could site alot more of these, BUT I think you get the picture.

SO OVERLORD, I have provided my sources to support my assertions. Don't tell me that I spread fallacies when I bring FACTS to the table. AS I INITIALLY SAID, I am not trying to persuade or dissuade, but I am merely trying to put forth an INTELLIGENT discussion about the issues surrounding the whole legalization movement. I will not hold my breath for the apology that should be forthcoming. Unlike many others that post, I do not put forward any argument that I have not researched and have a basis of facts from which to engage in a discussion.

Incidently, for your further edification incase you or others doubt the government's ability to regulate marijuana under the commerce clause, the most cited court case is "Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes." Another case includes Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. (in this case AGRICULTURE - which POT being grown for "consumption" falls under agriculture).

Increases in Marijuana related DUIs - "With the growing prevalence of cannabis use in California, including medical cannabis use, this type of DUI is prosecuted increasingly often." Source http://www.lieberlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-2019671.html this is a defense attorney's website incidently - thus an acknowledgement that POT RELATED DUIs are on the rise.

NOW, do you all think we can have an intelligent discussion on the issues surrounding the legalization of marijuana.

Will the Watcher

NOW, do you all think we can have an intelligent discussion on the issues surrounding the legalization of marijuana.

not when all you have is propaganda and oppression through legislation. who cares if something has carcinogens? its my body, my choice not yours so go hump a tree on that one. alcohol prohibition did not work in any way, shape or form and the federal government had no authority to outlaw alcohol consumption and neither do the states. NO ONE CAN TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANT DO WITH MY BODY!! anything else is slavery. federal nor state government has any authority to tell a citizen what they may consume freely, they can only warn if unsafe and prevent manufacture and commercial sale if dangerous to PUBLIC health. crimes related to marijuana are also a failed argument because what you are implying is it is the user/possessors fault for having a product that is wanted. you can apply that to legal products, crime is crime and you dont tell the citizen you cant do something because someone else might take advantage and commit a crime.

your sources are all biased and speculative, basically propaganda.

Incidently, for your further edification incase you or others doubt the government's ability to regulate marijuana under the commerce clause, the most cited court case is "Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes." Another case includes Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. (in this case AGRICULTURE - which POT being grown for "consumption" falls under agriculture).

what part of 'home grown' does interstate commerce take effect? do you know what interstate commerce compared to intrastate is? there is a huge difference. here is what the US constitution says. now tell me where the government has the authority to regulate intrastate commerce or the economic engine of a state?

Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

"among the several states" means interstate, not intrastate. the SCOTUS has failed in their constitutional duties time after time and as examples i will point to slavery, jim crow laws, affirmative action, abortion, education. just a few things that the SCOTUS has done to erode our constitution with politicians helping hands.

you cant even bring yourself to understand the reason why cannabis was made illegal in the first place, it had nothing to do with it being a 'drug.' i bet you didnt know that prior to 1900ish the whole world used hemp products and even in WW1 and 2 we used hemp when it was needed but abandoned it after the war. bangladesh means the 'people of marijuana' until the US government forced the bangladesh government to wipe out their hemp fields, which resulted in massive landslides and hundreds of deaths.

the reason why it is made illegal is because it would foster a new era of advanced tech that would reduce our need for finite fuels, reduce the cost of manufacturing thousands of products, reduce emissions, reduce health care needs, cure illnesses and disease and give us access to thousands of more advanced products that what we currently can develop with current resources. it would make some people rich while making others poor and the powers that be cant have a cheap renewable resource taking their profits, its basically about control.

cannabis L. is not a drug, it has no THC. its cousin cannabis sativa L. and varieties is what one would ingest to get 'high'. you must understand that this is a plant we are talking about and its not processed or anything, you can pick a bud from the side of the road and smoke it.

so why would the federal government outlaw a plant that does not have any 'drug' in it? industrial hemp (cannabis L.) is illegal.

why is 'marijuana' a SCH1 drug? its a non-narcotic.

instead of blindly listening to people who only want to control you, why dont you actually read history. i guess our founders were idiots when most of them grew marijuana and expressed its uses to the people. i guess our colonial colonies were huge "druggies" when they grew marijuana and even used it to pay taxes. i guess for 6 thousand years of hemp use on this planet, we all were just stupid drug addicts right? it took the US government less than 150 years to convince us that what we have been using for the past 6 thousands years was wrong because it was a 'drug.'

lol and you believe the federal government has the authority to do what they are doing huh?

And Mike, see my post above as well for the PROOF you desired as well.

And for both of ya, "The most common method of ingesting marijuana in the United States is to smoke it in a joint (cigarette), a glass pipe or a type of water pipe known as a bong. Smoking is a quick and efficient way to deliver an optimum therapeutic dose of cannabinoids, because the patient is able to feel the effects almost immediately, and can stop as soon as the desired relief is achieved. The trade off is an increased risk of bronchitis or other respiratory irritation." - Source http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/page/articles/health/ingestion-methods

and this one SHOULD get your attention - "Like tobacco, marijuana smoke contains toxins that are known to be hazardous to the respiratory system. Among them are the highly carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, a prime suspect in cigarette-related cancers. These toxins are essentially a byproduct of combustion, separate from the pharmaceutically active components of marijuana, known as cannabinoids, which include THC. Although there is no proof that marijuana smoking causes cancer, chronic pot smokers have been shown to suffer an elevated risk of bronchitis and respiratory infections. Respiratory disease due to smoking may therefore rightly be regarded as the primary physiological hazard of marijuana." Source (wait for it, wait for it... http://www.canorml.org/health/vaporizers) that's right boys NORML, your pro pot source...

But you are correct in your point that vaporization is the safest method of using marijuana. The trouble is, IT IS NOT the most common method, and vaporizers are NOT cheap.

If you remember the point I made concerning DUIs, and the link I provided concerning the RISE in Marijuana DUIs, here are some facts and figures concerning alcohol and its costs. IAlcohol is a factor in 35% of the United States crash costs. Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public more than $110,000 billion in 1998, including more than $40 billion in monetary costs and almost $70 billion in quality of life losses. Alcohol-related crashes are deadlier and more serious than other crashes. People other than the drinking driver paid $51 billion of the alcohol-related crash bill.

A drunk driving crash costs innocent victims $26,000. Comparable crime costs per victim: assault-$19,000; robbery-$13,000; motor vehicle theft-$4,000. Yet, the drunk driving crash is the only one of these crimes that is often not a felony for the first offense. Source http://www.1800duilaws.com/common/econeffects.asp With this in mind, and here is the unknown, which I am hoping to have a legitimate discussion about, where opinions based on these FACTS may be reasonably inferred, IS IT POSSIBLE the number of drugged drivers related crashes increase and cause the same or economically similar issues as does boozed up drivers? And before you say NO ONE has ever died as a result of a person high on pot being involved in a "DUI related type fatality", there have been 3 that I can recall off the top of my head here in Montana this past year. One of which was an 8yr old boy struck by a speeding, high on med pot, motorcyclist. Another was Judy Wang, a mother of 3, and a public servant (court clerk), killed by a speeding, late for a bong party (admitted in court by the offender) high on pot driver that hit her doing 85 in a 35, and the 3rd was a pedestrian struck by a med pot user, who was under the influence at the time of the crash.

While these incidents are NOT as frequent as DUI (booze) related crashes, they do happen. Do you think it is possible or probable that the frequency in which they occur will increase IF marijuana is legalized? I can also point you to another story where a med pot user got mauled by a bear (he worked/volunteered at Great Bear Adventures near Glacier National Park) - story here http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/03/montana_man_mauled_by_bear_after_smoking_pot_gets_workers_comp.html

Do you think the frequency of THESE types of things (workers comp issues) will rise with the legalization of marijuana?

It is this kind of stuff, that I am putting forth for some intelligent thought and discussion about, you know the "stuff people don't think about" NORMLly (pun intended).

Swag - truly ignorant honestly. The argument of it being your body and you can do what ever you want is rightfully your choice. That is not at issue. Where it does become an issue is when you do whatever with your body that affects others. Since you are apparently too ignorant to comprehend cause and effect, or lack the intellectual capacity to understand let me put this in simple easy terms for you.

The costs of insurance are based on what EVERYONE does. Thus, for those that do not drink for example, those that do and cause accidents have a direct effect on the insurance premiums of those that don't. Likewise, the costs of health insurance increase, the costs of life insurance increase - more accidents, more deaths, ect. I hope you are smart enough to grasp that concept.

And since apparently you have not bothered to look at my bio, I hold bachelor degrees in Business, Criminal Justice, and Legal Studies with Minors in US and World History. I am pretty well educated and fully understand the differences between intrastate and interstate commerce. However, if you were even remotely intelligent enough to click on the Ashcroft v. Rausch link and read the court's findings and the explanation of thier findings you would have the answer as to why "home grown" is covered under the commerce clause. But you apparently are too wrapped around the axle to even bother to remotely try and see anything in an objectionable, intelligent manner.

Like I said before, I am not advocating for or against legalization. I personally don't think it should be legalized because of things that are not addressed and are not at this point quantifiable, as mentioned in 2.24. Now, where I will agree with you, and though it is NOT related to Pot, drugs, booze, or other addiction related behaviors, is in some of the "government related ignorances." For example, I have a herd share (own a portion of a dairy cow herd), I raise chickens, raise my own beef and pork. Basically a homestead "family farm" type thing. We are told milk straight from the cow isn't safe. Fresh eggs aren't safe. Beef and Pork that haven't been treated with antibiotics and hormones aren't safe. But sure as hell, people since they got here were eating and drinking those same "unprocessed foods" and had lower incidents of cancer, lower incidents of obesity, lower incidents of diabetes, heart disease, ect. In fact, since we have started raising and growing our own food, my health has improved, i have lost weight, cholestrol is down (even though i eat bacon and eggs 5-6 times a week). So I am not foolish enough to "believe" everything the government says.

The whole point of the conversation I am trying to elicit is the consideration of things that are NOT so much on the surface, but the things that have an INDIRECT impact on the topic. Things that are "incidental" and "consequential" to legalization. And trust me, I certainly know and understand quite a bit more than you give me credit for.

For those that don't understand the legal citation given, the court decided Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154—155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if
it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. In assessing the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect
interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. E.g., Lopez, 514 U.S., at 557. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that
failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. (Pp. 12—20 of the decision).

What this basically means, and where I disagree, is that the government can (and has the authority under the commerce clause) regulate not only pot, but vegetable gardens, home farms, home egg production, making your own clothes, ect. ANYTHING basically that you do that could influence intrastate commerce, i.e. by producing your own, you are not buying or spending (self sufficiency), the government under that clause can force you to stop. Now as assinine as that sounds, that is the gist of those court decisions.

Since you are apparently too ignorant to comprehend cause and effect, or lack the intellectual capacity to understand let me put this in simple easy terms for you.

so nice of you to use rhetoric but yet want a civil discussion, you have already lost. being high does not relate to effecting anyone other than oneself, you cannot say that because im high i have a higher chance to harm others, its just not true and never will be. if i was to get high and drive, there are already laws against intoxicated driving. what people like you want is control over behavior that you do not like, you are a tyrant.

The costs of insurance are based on what EVERYONE does.

not a valid argument for controlling behavior and choice, what you just argued amount to tyranny. insurance companies are discriminatory and optional, not mandated and never can be. you do not pay for any of my needs so you have no right to tell me how to live.

And since apparently you have not bothered to look at my bio, I hold bachelor degrees in Business, Criminal Justice, and Legal Studies with Minors in US and World History. I am pretty well educated and fully understand the differences between intrastate and interstate commerce.

no, you do not understand the difference or you would not have made the point you did. the commerce clause is only for interstate, not intrastate. i have little reason to take a corrupted SCOTUS's screwed reasoning, just like politicians judges can be bought. if i grow a plant in my house and smoke it, the federal government has no authority to tell me i cannot. so did you agree with the SCOTUS on slavery and segregation? because they upheld it for a long time even though both the US constitution and the DoI forbids it. how about affirmative action? is that in the constitution? it seems equality is just a word used to garner power.

i see you failed to address anything about the history of hemp or how it became illegal. do you think marijuana is a recent find? do you know anything about the plant other than what government has said? you bring up carcinogens, larceny and impaired driving as reasons for prohibition but those are not valid reasons for controlling peoples behavior, you go after the ones who commit crimes when they happen, not try to assume crimes are going to take place because of xyz and my health is of my concern not yours, you dont pay a dime to me so you are not going to dictate how i live.

your posts are nothing but paste and cut government propaganda full of vitriol but yet you say you wanted a civil discussion, i waste my time but it was time already wasted.

What this basically means, and where I disagree, is that the government can (and has the authority under the commerce clause) regulate not only pot, but vegetable gardens, home farms, home egg production, making your own clothes, ect. ANYTHING basically that you do that could influence intrastate commerce, i.e. by producing your own, you are not buying or spending (self sufficiency), the government under that clause can force you to stop. Now as assinine as that sounds, that is the gist of those court decisions.

and this this where the courts are wrong and as american citizens we do not have to allow this. the constitution is not a mystic document that needs interpretation, it clearly says "among the several states" and our founding fathers clarified the meaning in writings, it means interstate by definition. federal government does not have these powers.

the SCOTUS cannot give new powers to the federal government, SCOTUS is only a check on the powers that are in place already. SCOTUS saying that federal government can control anything that 'could' influence interstate commerce is a not an interpretation of article 1 section 8 of the US constitution, its basically a new power over the states and citizens. if that 'interpretation' were true then it would apply to foreign countries as well because the commerce clause also states "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," wouldn't that broad use of economic influence also be applied to other countries? would we tell these countries how to operate then?

why are the citizens allowing the courts to create new powers? why are the courts allowing the federal government to create laws not within it power? we have a US constitution for a reason and its been violated dozens of times over our entire history and as long as the people can eat their bread and watch their sports, its just another day lost and another day closer to the end.

if any discussion of importance is going to take place then the history of the cannabaceae plant family needs to be the first topic, we have been using this family tree for 6 thousand years until one day the US federal government said it was a dangerous drug worse that anything else and a gateway to a crime ridden drug filled life and they outlawed it and forced by treaties, the worlds' eradication of it.

the benefits of hemp far outweigh any negatives, we are only hurting ourselves by allowing any government to outlaw its use.

Ok Swag, let's get a few things straight here.

"so nice of you to use rhetoric but yet want a civil discussion" - your initial response "not when all you have is propaganda and oppression through legislation...your sources are all biased and speculative, basically propaganda..do you know what interstate commerce compared to intrastate is? there is a huge difference." I found to be insulting, rude, and devoid of any intelligent consideration. I likewise returned the insults to your intelligence, so YOU can see how it feels to have someone question what it is they have tangible knowledge of.

"what people like you want is control over behavior that you do not like, you are a tyrant." - another insult and you still have no clue as to the unintelligent morosity of that statement. So to be fair, since you can not see the forest through the trees, "control over behavior that you do not like" in your exact words is what the law is. It is the rules you set for your children. The rules you set as an employer. SO unless you allow your kids to run rampant, by your own admission YOU are a tyrant as well. Controlling behavior is infact the very basis of having laws, otherwise you have anarchy. And even then, people will control behavior they do not like. So consider what you say, before you say it. And I am far from a tyrant - I have already agreed that I believe those court decisions reach beyond what I think is proper.

" see you failed to address anything about the history of hemp or how it became illegal", - The history of hemp is not what is at issue. And I do realize the history of hemp, which would ONLY strengthen the argument for the government to control it under the commerce clause, IF you even bothered to read the court decisions and look at it with an objective, not subjective, view.

"you dont pay a dime to me so you are not going to dictate how i live.' - Here again, you demonstrate a complete ignorance of a great number of issues. 1st and foremost, I most certainly pay a dime to you and to every other person who lives in this country. I pay that dime through deductions in medicare, in social security, and even in MY insurance premiums. I have been driving since I was 16. Never had an accident, never had a ticket, but my premiums increase. WHY? Because those "claims" that are paid out to those that have had accidents, that have had health issues as a result of something they did with THIER bodies, have cost insurance companies money, which is then recooperated through the premiums we pay. Likewise, our taxes pay for police, fire, and the other public services that have to respond to, and deal with the things YOU do to your body. YOU are not an island, but a cog in the mechanism of society as a whole. Therefore, what you do or don't do, affects the people around you, and people that don't even know you.

"your posts are nothing but paste and cut government propaganda full of vitriol but yet you say you wanted a civil discussion, i waste my time but it was time already wasted." - Again, nice insult and I feel the same way, wasting my time trying to educate people who have demonstrated the inability and unwillingness to even begin to take an objective look at what it is they spew about. The "cut and pastes" were to single out the very points of contention that stood as to where I garnered my position, AFTER being told to PROVIDE PROOF and LINKS. And I would also bring your attention to your government propaganda comment - I pointed to News Articles, I pointed to NORML ( a pro pot organization - which of course is propaganda), I pointed to statistical data (unbiased - raw numbers), to the actual court citations (far from propaganda), and to non profit organizations that are fighting to legalize recreational drugs.

"the commerce clause is only for interstate, not intrastate." - this comment certainly proves that you did not bother to read the courts findings, or even the cut and paste from the court findings to show HOW the courts link the two together.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," wouldn't that broad use of economic influence also be applied to other countries? would we tell these countries how to operate then?" - To answer your question YES WHEN IT COMES TO HOW WE DO BUSINESS and it is done through trade agreements, tarriffs, and sanctions. It is why you don't see toys coming from china containing lead anymore as an example. It is why you see import taxes, it is why you see customs inspections and why you see things like British or Canadian Beef being stopped from being imported.

"if any discussion of importance is going to take place then the history of the cannabaceae plant family needs to be the first topic' - I would disagree. The first topic of discussion should be WHY is it important to legalize or illegalize it. What benefit or what danger it presents.

"the benefits of hemp far outweigh any negatives, we are only hurting ourselves by allowing any government to outlaw its use." - this is your opinion (thus propaganda) and a subjective view. I will agree, canabis does have some medicinal value, but in the same breath, isn't the consumption of "medicine for recreational use" the definition of drug abuse and addiction? Which brings us back to the questions I raised earlier concerning the COST to the rest of us that do not choose to engage in such an activity?

In the end it all boils down to selfishness. Pro Pot people want it and they don't care how it affects anyone else. And that is the nature of addiction...

Will the Wagger,

We get it. You are an extremely Anal Control Freak. Good effort though.

Will the Wagger,

All that Keyboarding for one-vote up proves nobody really cares what garbage you are trying to endorse...:)))))

But the truth of the matter is Transvestoria you can't argue with the facts, nor can you dispute the truth in what I put forth. "Thanks NYMike and TheOverlord for exposing these baseless, preposterous arguments against Legalization" Not so baseless or preposterous when the proof is provided now is it? I would even venture to say the "exposing" shows just how uneducated YOUR argument is, especially when NORML acknowledges the cancer causing pathogens FOUND in your beloved weed. But hey, they must be proposeterous too.

Trouble is your uneducated rhetoric came back and bit you in the ass with your argument, and you don't like it. As far as garbage goes, well if the truth is garbage, I would feast on that any day of the week, rather than suffer through nibbling on the smells good @!$%# of the fallacies that fall from a drug addicts table.

Hey will, if you ever get back to this:

Your arguments lack common sense. A "criminal" will break the law, regardless of the reason for doing so, whether it's to finance a drug habit or feed his family. Crimes involving drugs occur because drugs are illegal. What criminal would rob a bank if money grew on trees?

Also, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate your garden at home, whether or not you choose to make your own clothes, etc. Commerce laws only regulate whether or not you can transport these products interstate for the purpose of selling them.

Otherwise I agree with most of the other posts, you are all for government control.

You apparently believe people are too ignorant to make their own decisions.

Not at all Moony. Let's just for example look at the crime of embezzlement. The 3 main reasons people commit embezzlement is Drug Habit, Gambling Habit, or a Booze Habit. I am not talking about the "big time banker embezzlement here, but the "local" typical stiff type stuff. Gambling is legal. It is addictive. When the cash stops flowing to feed that habit, they steal. Same with the booze habit. Drugs are no different. When you lack the funds to "feed" your monkey, you will resort to crime to feed your habit. And no, I am not just talking about pot, but all drugs. Even the prescription stuff you see people resorting to crime to feed that addiction.

Crime - burglary, theft, robbery etc, will always be the result of a criminal desiring to take from those that have it and they lack the ability to obtain it legally. That is the nature of the crime. I think it is worsened by the element of addiction.

In regards to the commerce laws, you are wrong. In Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, the appellee’s own consumption was the issue. Filburn owned a family farm, raising cattle and poultry, growing wheat and such for that enterprise as well as grinding said wheat to make bread, cakes, cereal, etc. Further this case did question the sustaining of the federal power to regulate production of goods for commerce, and extending that federal regulation to production not intended in any part for commerce, but wholly for consumption on the farm. It also included a definition of "market" and its derivatives, so that, as related to wheat, in addition to its conventional meaning, it also included to dispose of "by feeding (in any form) to poultry or livestock.

Thus, the implications are pretty self evident, under this ruling, to include the "exchanging or giving of gifts" that would deny profits that could be garnered IF businesses were denied the opportunity to engage in commerce, that results in the "self sustainability" aspect.

I am not for government control as some elude to. I am for obeying the law. Laws are not just enacted for the sake of it. There is ALWAYS a reason - usually as a result of someone or something that has occurred that has caused or could potentially cause social discourse. Sometimes the government does over reach, sometimes they don't reach far enough. But I always, always question to the motives, so I am not blind or some "drone".

And yes, in many respects people are too ignorant to make sound, rational decisions because they, for example, can not even properly distinguish between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, can not accept facts when they are presented to them, instead choosing to rely on rhetoric and self desires. And yes, we can certainly see people will make decisions based on their own selfishness when common sense should prevail.

But I am not of the opinion that people, when looking at things in a reasonable and objectionable manner are ignorant. It is the rejection of that objectivity that makes them ignorant and certainly I would not trust the decisions people make without that objectivity.

As far as the commerce end of this deal is concerned, you referred to court decisions involving the:

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938

This is an article about the "Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938". For the act by the same name in 1933, see Agricultural Adjustment Act.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Pub.L. 75-430, 52 Stat. 31, enacted February 16, 1938) was legislation in the United States that was enacted as an alternative and replacement for the farm subsidy policies, in previous New Deal farm legislation (Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933), that had been found unconstitutional. The act revived the provisions in the previous Agriculture Adjustment Act, with the exception that the financing of the law's programs would be provided by the Federal Government and not a processor's tax,^[1] and was also enforced as a response to the success of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936.^[2]

I do not see in this any remarks concerning regulation of any private person utilizing their own home grown products for personal use. If I missed something.....?

This act also refers to the earlier act of 1933:

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA) was passed to
assist American farmers who suffered the twin tragedies of both the Great
Depression and the Dust Bowl. The goal of this relief package was to restore
the purchasing power of farmers to their pre-World War I levels. In U.S. v.
Butler (1936), the act was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which
ruled that it "invade(d) the reserved rights of the states to regulate and
control agricultural production." In 1938, another AAA was passed by
Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court in Mulford v. Smith (1939).

It doesn't appear to me that any of these decisons were based on the actual concepts of the Constitution, they merely reflected what the government wanted to happen at the time:

[The Congress
shall have Power] "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

Those are the words. Now in regards to the decisions by the Supreme Court, "commerce" means:

Encarta Dictionary:

1. Trade in goods and services.

"The large scale buying and selling of goods and services"

I don't see a regulation on the rights of an individual to "grow his own" anything in there. You are 100% correct though, SCOTUS has changed what those few words mean into something the framers never intended. You have to think, back when this document was originally ratified, the majority of the people in the U.S. "grew there own" everything. Logically, then, they would never plan to restrict this practice.

Just wanted you to know, I am very capable of reaserching a subject before I engaage in "explosive rhetoric"

You and I agree on most of these issues though.

In addition I feel it is important to state that, as an officer of the court, and as a rule, and due to my responsibilty to clients, I have a duty to uphold the decisions of any court and advise my clients accordingly whether I agree with them or not.

One issue I run into frequently is legislation which intends to follow what the framers decided would be the right practice, but they missed the boat entirely. A large amount of Court Decisions are based on an interpretation of those intents, guesswork really, based on the logic and sound judgement of the justices who make those decisions. and decisions are reversed, and remanded in equal numbers.

I find it is more in how you approach an issue, and how you write a document, and how the court interprets what you have written, which determines the outcome, more than it is what the law actually says. this may seem a bit "hit or miss" to some, but it really is how the "law" works. That is why "good" lawyers succeed where others fail.

Agreed moony. It is the court's interpretation, and as I stated, I think they reached outside the realm of reasonable interpretation in Filburn. But it does raise the debate as some spout to simply legalize and tax like alcohol and tobacco. On it's face, it sounds plausible. But truth of the matter is it is impossible, and nothing like tobacco or alcohol for that matter. Unlike tobacco, marijuana can be grown, harvested, and consumed in a closet with a grow light. A few seeds and you can keep your own private grow operation lucrative without ever needing to "purchase" again. It is alot like, for example, a vegetable garden using heirloom seeds. Once the initial purchase is complete, you harvest your own seeds and never truly have to buy again. But unlike those heirloom seeds, the nature of marijuana and the ease of its growth and relative "confinement" in a necessary growing environment would preclude that notion of "taxation". It is also unlike tobacco, where large fields are necessary for the growth of that plant. And certainly, as both you and I know, there has to come a point where it either becomes a "carte blanche" or it is regulated, in this case, through its criminality.

I understand people want the right to decide for themselves. I get that. I certainly understand that. And I to a degree agree with that. Where my issue truly comes in, is when this freedom or if this freedom becomes a reality, is the secondary effects that we saw with alcohol, specifically the rises in DUIs, the rise in insurance costs, increased rates in assaults, domestic violence, addictions, the impact of social order, and the like. These costs or "consequences" as I see them are not even being discussed, thought about, or otherwise considered. The discussion always ends with I want my pot and everything else be damned.

You, being an officer of the court, know the ramifications and the untold stories that occur on the other side of the issue of over indulgance, intemprance, and the lack of self control. And certainly I think you can understand my "disdain" as it were for the mindless ignorance of just spewing whatever sounds good. I am a creature of facts, of history, law, and intelligent thought. And you are correct in your assessment of the AAA of 1933. It was cited in the decision of Filburn as the basis for the decision. But where I think they overstretched is in the "disposal of" argument. Likewise in Raich, the court added another layer with the "class of activity" finding. And I believe, though I disagree, the "extended legislation from the bench" truly allows the regulation of any activity that would, could, or even remotely infringes on the Government's Right under the commerce clause.

I know the argument I made concerning gardens seemed like a stretch, but if you actually read the decisions in both Filburn and Raich it matters not whether you intend to market (sell, trade, or otherwise dispose of - consume for personal use) that product but it's implied "threat" to the market of that commodity. Thus, we get back into what I consider to be the true disparagy - the government's inability to tax it, and therefore it's position to criminalize it, even beyond the scope of the CSA if the CSA was non-existant.

What do you think?

Certainly "food for thought". The secondary consequences which I haven't seen much of in these posts are numerous. Most of these people are either unaware of the dark side of the issues, or they won't admit it to themselves that it exists, because no matter how "harmless" they believe a little recreational smoking can be the truth is that what may have begun as a little teenage party favor turned into far more for a large number of people. I'm 57 now, and I have lost many friends and even one family member to addiction and the resultant conseqences of overdose, car wrecks under the influence, etc. And you are correct, all of these issues affect society as a whole.

Many of these cases were people who started out "small" so to speak and wanted more, then more, then more until "chasing the dragon" became the focus of their lives rather than pursuing careers, education, paying their bills, and just plain taking care of themselves. These people do become a burden on society as a whole more so by draining public resources than anything else, because once they no longer care for themselves, society ends up being their caregiver.

It would probably at this point be difficult to compare marijuana to alcohol and tobacco vis-a-vis legalization, regulation and taxation, but not impossible. Despite the ease with which one can brew, distill, or ferment their own libations, liquor stores and taverns thrive. There are those who would "grow their own", but there would always be those who find it more convenient to purchase their "product" through outside sources. Some people simply don't want to be bothered with the effort and time involved. I know peopel who keep a small vegetable garden in their yard, but they still purchase the majority of their food at a grocery store. I know people who like to sew, but their closets all full of store bought goods. I don't know anyone who is, or claims to be totally "self sufficient".

And here again from:

Encarta: Regulate; 4. to organize and control an activity or process by making it subject to rules or laws.

This would appear on the surface to allow the government to control the "thing" itself, but coupled with the word "commerce" defined above, it would only give them this control in the course of the "large scale buying and selling" of this "thing". It's just my interpretation, but if I were deciding on this point, as long as the activity didn't involve "buying or selling", I would conclude that the activity would not include an activity that did not involve "buying and selling". The stretch here, (again my opinion), is that the Court concluded that the power granted the government the authority to "regulate" an activity even if such activity on the part of one party merely affected the same activity of another. I would probably be writing the dissenting opinion, in other words.

And yes, I have read many briefs wherein a judge has taken one line of a statute just like that to reach a decision.

I would have to agree wholeheartedly that the majority of the posts I have stopped to read on this subject have been written by those who barely read the article, made a snap judgement (based on emotion mainly), and fired off a post without giving the entire issue much thought. Good discussing this with someone who chose another route.

re 2.38

I know the argument I made concerning gardens seemed like a stretch, but if you actually read the decisions in both Filburn and Raich it matters not whether you intend to market (sell, trade, or otherwise dispose of - consume for personal use) that product but it's implied "threat" to the market of that commodity.

Your point re gardens is not a stretch. the decision so much as blatantly stipulates that the gov can come in and destroy your veggie/fruit garden as a threat to interstate commerce. Your apple trees? gone!

That potted thyme on your window sill? A threat to the commodities market!

But then, the second amendment would come into play.

Regardless, it would be in the interest of the country (except those in the legal/penal professions) to legalize growing pot/hemp. The costs for investigating, trying, incarcerating people how "toke" would vaporize. The costs of the thefts would disappear (grow your own). The gang wars/violence over pot would end. The price would drop to ... free! Like apples - if you grow your own (until the gov says, "nope, can't do that!").

But then, one could still regulate it to a commercial crop status, tax it and recoup the losses of so many years of stupidity in trying to eradicate it.

As to:

1. increased numbers driving under the influence? ROFLMAO! Those that will, do now - just like with booze. Same with working on the job. The insurance rates already cover that eventuality.

2. Increased rates in assaults? People stoned on pot get happy, yeah, somewhat stupid, generally relaxed and easy to handle. Never heard of a pot fight. Bar fights? Often. Pot fight? Never - except for the wars between illegal dealers/patrons/cops which would go away with legalization. Ever heard of an assault to get a six-pack? Neither have I. Legalize pot and it becomes like a six-pack.

3. Domestic violence? See above re assaults. The only violence is when the stoner won't/can't work and the "significant other" pulls out the frying pan. The stoner who can not control him/her usage is generally too laid back to fight.

4. Addictions? Those who will be will be - legal or not. Like booze, sex, extreme sports.

5. re the impact of social order, and the like. What added impact do you seriously envision? I envision:

a. Lower crime rates as people will not be smuggling the stuff.

b. Less time spent chasing the part time toker - with resultant savings of tax dollars, and the time saved spent on chasing serious crimes.

c. Less time in court, thus freeing up cost/time for the cases of serious crimes

d. Lower incarceration rates - with resultant savings of tax dollars - imagine how many cells would be freed up, guards not needed, prisons not needed.

e. Companies do drug tests. Get stoned? Might not get hired - uuuhhhmmm like now. But then no a,b,c,d. How does this affect the social order over what it is now except as noted in a,b,c, and d?

f. Got any idea of how many professionals already "toke" on their day off/after hours? Legalization will have little impact (none) there. By none I mean, what one does outside of work, which does not impact work/anybody else has no "affect on the 'social order'".

g. Tax revenue from legitimate sales vs tax spending on current ineffective enforcement.

--- Some suggest they expect total anarchy if pot were legalized. I hope you are not one of these. Sorry, I did not have the time to read through all the posts to see one way or the other.

--- Personally, I would expect little impact (almost zero) as those who would "partake" do, those who wouldn't, don't (like booze). Some may try it if it were legalized, but then they may not like it. At best, I would expect an increase in the sales of "junk food" due to the "munchies" - but that would be a "good thing" as far as commerce goes. At "worst" I would expect a decrease in the number of jobs (cost) needed to chase pot from seed to user [oops, did I suggest that is a bad thing?].

Gateway drug? Not one of the people I knew/know (uuhhhmm ... I can't remember their names) has tried other drugs - not one.

Not one has gotten lung cancer.

The only people I know who have died from cancer of any kind never did pot. Not statistically relevant, but a fact.

I wish my sister-in-law who died in agony from cancer had been allowed to mitigate her pain with a "hit" once in a while. Nope, had to spend thousands on "acceptable" pain relievers vs having a plant in the back yard/on the window sill. All to save big Pharma.

Gee in WWII (as I am sure others have said above and below), it was patriotic to grow hemp for ropes. Now it is a crime. Funny that!

PAX.

Will:

Just my two cents here.

While you bring up some valid points, I also disagree with others. Instead of debating you over these issues, I want to ask you some broader questions.

Do you think any of the issues you posted are reasons to continue the perpetuation of a fantastically failed and costly drug prohibition, especially pot? Wouldn't ending pot prohibition alone save tax payers billions and billions of dollars every year? You talk about the ramifications of ending pot prohibition and how MAYBE is may cost us in terms of insurance premiums and health care costs, etc., but are these reasons to continue a war on pot that does more damage than the drug itself? I just don't see the logic in ruining lives and continuing a violent drug war that has killed thousands over the reasons you have posted. Sure, we will always have societal costs with drug use but that will occur regardless of any laws so why continue with failed policies that do more damage and costs tax payer billions? Shouldn't we invest more in educating people about the dangers of drug use and use our resources towards rehabilitation instead of incarceration (which doesn't do a damn thing to address addiction)? How do you justify the perpetuation of drug prohibition that has killed thousands of people because of violence associated with illegal drug trafficking?

It just doesn't make any sense to me. We all know the only reason these insane policies are still in place is because of the profit motive of certain entities (prison industrial complex, etc.) and has NOTHING to do with public safety.

I would also like to ask you do you think because someone does drugs they automatically have a problem with addiction? Do you think because someone does drugs they are trying to escape something? i.e. Do you think some people might do drugs just-for-the fun-of-it and aren't trying run away or escape some issue or problem? You said you are against the use of any mind altering substances. Is that because you think everyone should live their lives completely sober? Why is that?

Just some questions I'm curious about.

It's interstate commerce... which is why the Washington state initiative states the weed must be grown in state.

The feds use the "interstate commerce" excuse to get their tentacles into everything.

The State must follow the Federal Laws, where there is a conflict the Federal Laws are always observed.

The State must follow the Federal Laws, where there is a conflict the Federal Laws are always observed.

Only if the federal law is constitutional. They can be challenged in court.

As to the "interstate commerce" part, that's easy. Just keep it illegal to transport it out of the particular state where it's legal. (Then the feds can camp out on the other side! LOL)

Jefferson, Washington and Ben Franklin all grew their own. Or did Jeff and Wash buy their weed at the Ben Franklin?

Bad argument as the constitution does not state a lot of things that preclude the states from making their own laws. We send representatives to Washington to make laws for all of us and those laws are binding and legal. You can take it to the Supreme court if you like or have your representatives change the law at the federal level

" the states can only follow federal laws". There is a federal law that restricts voting in the u.s.a. to only Citizens of the United states of America. yet the Obama* administration continually fights against the laws which would protect the elections and maintain the integrity of the election process in several states. There is an article that stated that Obama* requested the u. n. to oversee the elections in america. to insure that "anyone can vote" regardless of citizenship status.

Joe biden was at a campaign stop and this was on the news on TV, "President Obama* says what he means and means what he says".

so I guess he really meant it when he said, "it is not a tax" and "if you have a business, you did not do that, someone else made that happen"...(Obama*).

Voters need to wise up. The democratic party was against many of the Equal Rights Laws.

Will you stop spreading BS?

notme,

Romney was at a campaign stop,where he said,"The problem with Social Security, is that old people are living too long."

So what? This thread is not about that. It's about pot. Are you trying to say Obama is going to make us buy weed?

Romney was at a campaign stop, where he said,"The problem with Social Security, is that old people are living too long."

That quote by Romney is unbelievable. Actually, it is par for such a wicked man.

As for pot, if it doesn't pass this election, I am sure it will be an issue until it is finally legalized some time in the future.

Hmm The DEA doesnt care about the Vote of the people. Sounds like we need to Vote out the DEA. Since we make shure there familys have a roof over there head and food on their table. If Any of the founding fathers heard this they would dig themselfs out of there gaves and bitch slap Deputy Attorney General Mr. James Cole. He is the least American person in this country. I hope all of you feel the same. He is slowly trying to kill Democracy.

Grandpa, he is not spreading BS! What he says is absolutely true! There were more Republican votes for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. It is also true that when states like Arizona mirror federal immigration laws they are penalized. How can following, to the letter, federal laws, be penalized? Republicans are more in favor of the individual and Democrats are more for the collective. We are not ants, forced to live in government supplied hives, we need our freedoms and to protect our country from the socialist cancer being spread by Mr. Obama and his ilk!

Sorry Beth, but, we do seem to have a federally-mandated legal drinking age! I used to live in Wyoming and the drinking age was 18. The federal government forced the state to raise it to 21 by threatening to take away all of the federal highway funding. A federal law and being forced, under the point of a "tax gun" to change your own law, has little difference to the average person!

The coming scenario is clear. Washington State passes its legalization law and collects the stated taxes. The Federal Government steps in and declares that the received taxes themselves are the result of illegal drugs and moves to confiscate them from the state. Then the fur will begin to fly.

Sorry Dan, but I knew someone would fall for it. No, there is NO FEDERAL DRINKING AGE. Each state has their own, and even if they were "blackmailed" into it by the feds, they are still separate and individual state laws.

You might also be surprised to find out that 21 is not exactly the drinking age in each state (including Wyo.)

http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002591

Beth - "As to the "interstate commerce" part, that's easy. Just keep it illegal to transport it out of the particular state where it's legal. (Then the feds can camp out on the other side! LOL)" - you are completely devoid of facts on this issue.

Incidently, for your further edification incase you or others doubt the government's ability to regulate marijuana under the commerce clause, the most cited court case is "Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes." Another case includes Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. (in this case AGRICULTURE - which POT being grown for "consumption" falls under agriculture).

For those that don't understand the legal citation given, the court decided Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154—155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. In assessing the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. E.g., Lopez, 514 U.S., at 557. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. (Pp. 12—20 of the decision).

As I stated in #2.26 above, this basically means, and where I disagree, is that the government can (and has the authority under the commerce clause) regulate not only pot, but vegetable gardens, home farms, home egg production, making your own clothes, ect. ANYTHING basically that you do that could influence intrastate commerce, i.e. by producing your own, you are not buying or spending (self sufficiency), the government under that clause can force you to stop. Now as assinine as that sounds, that is the gist of those court decisions.

Unfortunately the only LOL will be the feds prosecuting, then it won't be so funny, when you not only go to prison, but loose your 2nd Amendment Rights to own, possess, or use firearms IAW (in accordance with)

18 USC § 922(g) & (n), to wit, Drug user or addict - shown where paraphernalia is seized, subject tests positive for drugs and/or subject claims drugs were possessed for personal use.;

And in my humble opinion, there is NOTHING funny about loosing a fundamental constitutional right to self defense.

Get a grip Will -- it's SARCASM!

Again with the citations WILL

Sheesh, just because that language appears in a SCOTUS decision doesn't make it right! It is NOT what the Constitution actually says, it is NOT what the framers intended and it would not be the first time the Supreme Court got something wrong! It was never the intention of the framers to allow the Supreme Court to make new law, their job is to uphold what is already there!

And they fail so very often.

So true, so true.

Not suggesting anything, but ...

being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Free, as in (IMHO) not overly intruded upon by the awesome power of the Fed Gov.

Fortunately, we have the capacity to over rule the gov peacefully by a multi-state demand for and amendment to the constitution to overrule SCOTUS when the severely phucque-uhp.

Here's the breakdown of who voted what on the Civil Rights Act:

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Will never happen. The reason is the government created a lot of new jobs on the drug war. This will never end because the Government has invested to much money into the war to allow it to be taken away from them. I see the federal government setting up shop in Colorado on the first day it becomes law. They will harass every shop till they don't open up shops anymore. Also Mexico will be losing billions of dollars in there economy and our government is in bed with them.

THis article claims that there are no states in the U.S. that have taken the step to legalize marijuana. Alaska, anyone?

IF Obama* is re-elected he will change more than his opinion.

You will be required to buy things that you do not need, and this has been done already with Obama*care which the supreme court clearly stated would be unconstitutional except for the tax. Obama* said "it is not a tax" and then assigned an Assistant U.S. Attorney to fight For the Tax.

If you want to see what the democrats do..look at this law..

dhfs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid1/recpubs/erp/phc12032

It is in every state now. written by democrats only and passed into law by Bill Clinton 1996.(You remember Bill Clinton, he was the democratic president who was Impeached).

This is a federal law that requires the state to place a lein on any property owned by the person who sign up for medicaid. This includes art, jewelry, real estate, and even the clothes that the person is wearing. Read it for yourself if you have doubts. it is on your states department of health and human services website.

More BS!

It is in every state now. written by democrats only and passed into law by Bill Clinton 1996.

So, iamnot, if the righties disagreed with this law, why didn't they re-write or repeal it? They had 8 years to do so.

There are many ways to prevent this law from being unacceptable to most. It's part of estate planning. And before you condemn this foresight, I'm sure you must realize that it is the same sort of planning your rich, right-wing overlords do every day, so they will never overturn it on their watch.

Camtownraces, I know for a fact (I live there) that Colorado has a proposition on its ballot to treat pot like alcohol! We already have a large, legal, pot growing infrastructure for medical pot. I believe that this will pass (as it is leading in the polls) and Colorado will be the first to feel the hypocritical rage of the Obama-lead Justice Department. This will happen even if Obama loses in November! They want to make sure that they have a nice supply of "victims" to protect and those smoking pot need to be protected from themselves! They will be put into the same part of society who smokes tobacco, eats Big Macs, and who drinks (Gasp!!!!) super-sized sodas! They need to be protected from themselves by their loving "Big Brother"!

Warren, I truly could not agree with you more! Why does this country use the vast majority of the entire world's prescription opiates, but, they cannot see fit to use a much safer product with pot! BTW, I have never used pot and do not plan to start!

Warren - not to poke fun however "they can kiss my white ass...they're going to miss a lot of goddamn terrorists if they spend all their resources on disabled Americans who are entitled to our constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." further you state, " Opioid drugs make me violently ill, and make me viciously angry at the same time.", well it sure sounds like canabanoids haven't helped that anger issue either... :)

Mr. Levine

Ummmmmmmmmmmm

You don't have a "Constitutional Right" to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", that is merely a statement in the "Declaration of Independence". I am not disputing that contention, because I agree with you. People should be able to make their own decisions. Especially if they are made responsibly!

Further:

The government isn't trying to "make" you do anything. It is "prohibiting" you from doing something. There is a difference!

Just saying.

yeah, like developing technologies with the hemp plant such as bio-diesel and giving farmers another cash crop.

loulow- ditto

This article claims that no state in the United States has taken the step to legalize marijuana. Alaska anyone?

Alaska's was a court ruling that made possession not a state crime. That's different from legal for sale and taxation.

Alaska the last frontier show has people arrested ll the time for small amounts of MJ but it is only a small fine. States have to walk a fine line because of the feds cutting off funding etc. On the other side of the equation I have seen people stoned that have no business operating machinery when they are high either from MJ drugs or Beer etc.

I thought I read it was legal to grow a small patch in Alaska? I could be wrong that was yrs ago I read that.

When the state of Michigan passed the medical pot law I read something very interesting. The article explained the law, stating how the growers could supply the patients. The paragraph right after this, the county prosecuter was qouted "we consider that a felonious grow operation." There are too many people benefitting from this prohibition for it ever to be legalized. It is hard to play cops and robbers if there aren't as many robbers.

"The establishment" fighting to maintain their power and relevance, so passé.

Ever notice the guy doing 45 mph in a 55 mph zone?

Yeah, 99% of the time they're either drunk or old.

I've occasionally spent a few extra seconds at a stop sign, waiting for it to turn green. It's never even come close to causing an accident. Studies done on driving under the influence of marijuana show that people drive a little slower and more cautiously, and maintain a little more distance from the vehicle they're following, with greater awareness of potential danger in developing situations which they're approaching. They also exhibit no measurable loss of psycho motor skills. They lose a little peripheral vision. Basically, stoned people drive more safely than sober people, let alone drunks. Concern about how many are or will be driving stoned is misplaced.

nope they are stoned.

Many innocent americans have died because an Illegal alien was driving the wrong way on the expressway.

9 in the millwaukee area this year alone. including children and babies in car seats.

Yeah, I was going to say the other thing I've learned about the "drug war" from living here in TX is that the reason the republicans, at least those from pst decades, want to leave well enough alone, is because having the big TX connection, anyone who knows anything about drugs knows TX is probably the main pipeline through which it all comes to the rest of the US, and no-one with any connection to that income is gonna mess with those trillions...

When pot was outlawed, outlaws became kings.

Replace the word waste with graft and corruption and then you get a better idea.

They are not interfereing in states states are interfereing in the federal governments right to enforce the laws on the books and states are wrong to do that. The way to do it is to convince your represetatives to change the friggin law and let the states then make their own laws on it. You will never see that happen because the Christians will stop them from doing just that. BTW I know more christian pot heads than non christains.

Blame the Christians that gave me my chuckle for the day, how delusional, call it what it is greed, graft and corruption, it is not contained to any one face.

giantego, the federal government is out of control on many subjects. Before the education dept was created, education was a state issue. Now we have one more layer in the education system, and you wonder why the money does not get to the classroom? If the federal gov't would stop meddling in state issues as well as over taxing the population, then the states would be able to tax at a level that would better serve the people. How much government do we need?

Before the education dept was created, education was a state issue.

And the only "History", "Biology", and the general science classes taught in, oh, most places most would call the "south" were in "Jennies-Ass" - oops meant "Genesis". No uniformity as to what constituted "edjumication". No science, no truth. IMHO.

Ever heard of the "Scopes Monkey Trials"?

Ever heard of the Bible being the book used to teach english, history, biology?

I grew up with the "history" of the bible in some of my classes. In Massachusetts!!!!

A Capitalistic Oligarchy is such a wonderful thing

count me in. We need real change, socialism sounds promising if run right.

And all this time, I thought I was a Progressive. I own a gun, Liberals don't own guns, do they?

yes we do

"Liberals" may not, but "Libertarians" do.

Lots of them!

To "MIKE X", Socialism is the worst failure in human history, read some you might get a clue!

Until the Supreme Court overrules the "Controlled Substance Act", as a violation of the 10th, the feds will try to enforce it..... sometimes.

IF Obama* is re-elected he will change more than his opinion.

You will be required to buy things that you do not need, and this has been done already with Obama*care which the supreme court clearly stated would be unconstitutional except for the tax. Obama* said "it is not a tax" and then assigned an Assistant U.S. Attorney to fight For the Tax.

If you want to see what the democrats do..look at this law..

dhfs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid1/recpubs/erp/phc12032

It is in every state now. written by democrats only and passed into law by Bill Clinton 1996.(You remember Bill Clinton, he was the democratic president who was Impeached).

This is a federal law that requires the state to place a lein on any property owned by the person who signs up for medicaid. This includes art, jewelry, real estate, and even the clothes that the person is wearing. Read it for yourself if you have doubts. it is on your state's department of health and human services website.

The states local law enforcement, just won't assist the FEDs on pot busts. Or call them to let them know about growers and sellers. There aren't enough FEDs to run months long investigations in more than a few cities at a time without help from the locals.

It is in every state now. written by democrats only and passed into law by Bill Clinton 1996.

So, iamnot, if the righties disagreed with this law, why didn't they re-write or repeal it? They had 8 years to do so.

There are many ways to prevent this law from being unacceptable to most. It's part of estate planning. And before you condemn this foresight, I'm sure you must realize that it is the same sort of planning your rich, right-wing overlords do every day, so they will never overturn it on their watch.

This issue is one that I'm not pleased with Pres. Obama over. He has not enforced his directive to leave those complying with state med law to be left alone by the feds. The feds on the other hand paint up wild scenarios and say it's taking place ALL the time....Now lets bust the dispensaries. GrrRrrRRrRrrrrr

All it would take is a stroke of Pres. Obama's pen to place pot into schedule 2 listing. That way, at least the Med use would be free for states to decide. He could also abolish the international treaty to ban pot. We, the USA started it, we can END IT! That would Free da Weed for the WHOLE WORLD!

May the Green Goddess fill your Heart with Love,

Da Pup

>:o):

if 95% of the ppl were pro weed then politicians would'nt be scared to endorse legalization. simply put more of the nation says no then yes, those that vote anyway. that's why it failed in cali.

Not true Mike, check the polls. The most recent national poll shows it's about 50% in favor of legalization, with 46% against and 4% undecided. This is the first time it's hit 50% and maybe the first time it's been more favora than keeping it illegal. The tide has turned and it won't turn back, unless corporate fascism runs wild, I mean REALLY wild, not the controlled wild that stole our democracy and a few freedoms. The reality is, lots of people have been using pot recreationally in this country for a long time, since the 60s, especially, and we're still waiting for the first report of adverse effects other than paranoia that steroid-ridden cops will kick your door down and shoot you down in cold blood. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

The government is afraid of offending the 46% xtian fundies, guys. They're a powerful group, despite the Separation of Church and State clause.

AND, because of TABOR, my property taxes MAY go down!

Marijuana is worthless for "pain management". I smoked the stuff for years in the '60's/70's and I do not recall any beneficial result regarding pain.

Now I sound like one of those who are against legalization, but I am not. I am for free choice, but the argument for pain management needs to just "go away". It isn't true, will never be so.

There are other far more viable benefits, which you would discover if your agenda were not focused on "getting high". That's actually a pretty stupid reason for advocating reform.

I personally find "pot" to be a seriously debilitating drug, which robs one of their motivation, and their ability to focus, but on the other hand, it is very relaxing, increases appetite, and have heard it is beneficial to those who suffer from certain pressure on the optic nerve from conditions of glacoma, and alleviating symptoms of migraine headaches.

I don't "want" it legalized I just want the government out of my life, and for them to quit making my decisions for me.

I am usually not political in my posts but here goes nothing. DEMOCRATIC policy is based on social dependency. they want to "fix" everyone, they believe they know what is best for all concerned, and if you would just let them "help" you, everything would be okay. It is firmly based in SOCIALISM. Read your fricking history!

REPUBLICAN policy is based on a "republic" form of government whereby people are responsible for themselves, "pull their own weight" so to speak. It is the form of government the framers intended.

Who cares what the politicians say every time it is election year? They all fail to fulfill their platform promises. Personally:

"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands........

Now what part of this are all you voters out there NOT getting? We were not founded on DEMOCRATIC principles, we were founded on REPUBLICAN principles.

We are NOT a "Democracy", we are a "Republic". The difference is monumental.

Those trying to change this to a "Democratic/Socialistic" government should NEVER be allowed to hold office. If the "Democratic" viewpoint had never been allowed to shape this country, we would not be in the mess we are in. They throw money at everything in the hopes that "something" will stick, They conclude,(erroneously), that if they put money into every social program possible, the "people" will benefit in some way, and they are ALWAYS WRONG!

I have some advice: STOP listening to the rhetoric you see on T.V.! Read your history!

Obama has increased our Federal Deficit twofold in fours years, (just an example of democratic policy) and his stance on the subject at hand is ridiculous. That is why I would advocate for legalization. NOT because it serves any useful purpose, but because I believe "We the People" have the Constitutional right to live as we choose, and NOT have our decisions made for us by some a--hole in Washiington!

BTW You who think Mr. Romney opposes "Planned Parenthood", and wants to take away a woman's "choice" couldn't be more wrong. His platform is merely to stop the government from funding those choices. And I could not agree more. why should the government finance your irresponsible behavior?

Get a clue people.

Marijuana is worthless for "pain management". I smoked the stuff for years in the '60's/70's and I do not recall any beneficial result regarding pain.

Specifics would help. Were you grievously wounded? Having cancer? Not having a source of pain? Weren't actually using "decent" pot?

I, for one, have a high tolerance for anesthetics. Just because. That means that when I have a tooth drilled, I have to have the "back room good stuff" (vs the normal lower level anesthetic) legally prescribed by the dentist. When I have a stent put in (3 so far) I have to have 2-3 times the usual dose of "joy juice". Not my choice, not the doctors', just the physical anomaly I/we have to deal with.

Just wondering what made your situation the way it was.

Actually Dave, let's make it more realistic. Charles Manson has better odds to have the term limits revoked and sit as our president for life before the government can do away with cannabis.

You must be on Crack if you believe that crap.

You need some tasty "wax" from my apothecary!

bepatient:

See its scar-a-dee kats like you who give power to government...grow a pair and think for yourself, discover your voice. Or better yet do some research into what the feds can and cant do, or into all of the medical benefits a natural herb like marijuana does. Most of the @!$%# the feds pull are "rules from their own made up playbook - - which they cant reveal for fear they'll be found out and run out... The more they try to force their scare tactics the more I laugh at them. Just look at the DEA - when they cant seem to get Americans to follow their orders regarding firearms, they go crying to "dad". When they screw up its all swept under the rug, by "dad"...but pay no attention to that, it not important and your still to young to stay up late and watch scary movies...

Go Back To Bed America, Your Government Is Telling YOU What To DO - I say NO, Make Me... Dont let them push you around or intimidate you, because why?? It gives them power. Taking away their power is all about this election year. Stand there and take it or give it back twice as hard - There is power in numbers, and the government knows there are more of U.S. then there are of them, so stand up and be counted or close your eyes and continue to be lead around and spoon fed the slop they cook up.

You do realize that our government is the BIGGEST Drug Dealer in the world and pharm co's are their main suppliers. The pharm co's job is to keep you hooked on meds with sides effects worse than your ailments and next thing you know your waking up in rehab...

So...sorry for the tangent, no disrespect - but when you vote in a new sheriff where you're from, make sure you vote for the one with the biggest desire to keep the feds out of state issues...

be patient no more, now is the time to act before all our rights are stripped

Way back during prohibition, there was a Federal Law passed called "The Racketeering in Criminally Influenced Organizations Act". That's right, The RICO act. There are also many state laws that do the same thing. I.E. The Wisconsin Organized Crime Control Act.(946.82). There was a law student in wisconsin who wrote a law that was made part of this WOCCA law. It is called "Misconduct in Public Office"(946.12). This law was written as a class project in 1975 and passed into law in 1979. The man who wrote this law is not a lawyer. The state Legislature and Senate supported this and the governor signed it into law. look it up and read it.

When a person or people are found to be repeatedly committing the same crime, it is an organized crime. I.E. 3 different victims by the same criminal, or 3 different criminals and the same victim, ect.

There are 4 police officers who are, right now, being prosecuted in Milwaukee. but that is a seperate story...

The reason that marijuana is still illegal is the fact that," Everything that a person gains from the sale of any illegal substance, can be confiscated and sold at auction and the proceeds go to the District Attorney to finance the prosecutions of others who are involved in a "continuing criminal enterprise". They Get Money...!! if you paid off your house, they can take that too, plus your car and anything else.

There were so many Democrats who tried to stop the 946.12 law from being included in the 946.82 law. The Governor, James Doyle (D-Wis) Reduced the penalties for violations of 946.12 as soon as he was sworn into office. class "E" to class "I"Felony. I.E. State Senator Brian Burke (D) was sentanced to 6 months house arrest for 19 Felonies and 7 Misdemeanors. (This same senator did lobby for stiffer penalties for posession of marijuana, and now works as a lobbyist).

The bottom line is that they want to control you and want more power to do that with, and they will break laws to do it.

be patient:

The second amendment ensures the government is kept in check.

thier attempt to use the military to control us will not work.

One day, the people will take up arms.

Corporate leaders, will be "dispatched", as well as those that support them.

There are alot of us war vets, that is why the armed forces will support us.

To see thier loved ones persecuted, will bring them to our side.

As well as the realization, of close to 200 million armed citizens.

The corporates are too smug,and need to be smacked down.

If the government can't keep drugs out of prisons how do expect to keep drugs out of society?

this is complete bs. screw the money involved. remove it from the equation. THE GOVERNMENT WORKS FOR US!! WE TELL THEM WHAT TO DO!!! WE DO THIS THROUGH A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS CALLED VOTING!! WTF?! The fact that some jackazz thinks pot is bad and it doesn't fit in WITH HIS/HER VALUES DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO MAKING IT OK FOR THEM TO DIRECT OUR VALUES THROUGH LAW!! PERIOD! This kind of crap really pisses me off. This is the USA, not nazi germany dammit.

You cannot be more wrong.

In California, Feds get mobbed by people from the community when they do a raid!!!!

It's legal, here in Colorado. You just have to have a friend who has shelled out for the licence. We just want to skip all that crap and have regular stores. The stores have a 10 year track record, and are doing rather well. We WANT "pot-tourism"!!! We're a tourist state!

Roadkill...would you believe that amsterdam closed the pot shops, aka "coffee shops" to tourists?

now tourists cannot smoke weed there.... legally...

They are going to lose a lot of money...

mike change your way of thinking please. it is not "they" who will legalize it. IT IS US! It is the Citizens of the USA that will legalize it. This slightly different view might not seem like a big deal BUT IT IS! We need to remember that. EVERY day. WE are the ones who direct our government. Reversing that is a really big fuxing problem. Can you say "hitler"?

Federal law is VERY clear.

Pot is illegal in all 50 states.

I have never seen anybody say no I won't smoke that joint because it's illegal. Are you for real?

Colorado is VERY "lawyered-up". We're ready to take this all the way to the SCOTUS, right on Nov. 8th! (We'll win by default... the 10th Amendment and all.)

Selective law enforcement... Bepatient..the illegal aliens are not worried. they will be at the Moneygram services again to send money back to mexico just like last week.

I see that most of the people responding to this, believe that the fed gov is oversteping or misusing their power. Did you guys all feel the same way when the states that passed voter registration laws and the fed gov filed suit? How about the people of wisc passing a right to work law and limiting what the union can do that represents gov workers? Were you with the people for all these intrusions into their states by the feds? Or is it you all all a bunch of pot heads?

unreal you completely missed the point on that one bud. go further than surface-deep. this issue, and the two that you point out, are about government oppression of us, the People. when certain state legislatures passed certain laws that opress the people, we absolutely expect our federal government to step in. after all, some states are pretty backwards still. this situation is similar in that we, the People, have spoken and we expect OUR government to do as we say. WE are the authority. we PLACE that authority with our government to enforce our word once spoken through the voting process. when government ignores us, we are in serious trouble! if you want that kind of government then go to cuba or the middle ages.

Colorado will pass it, and will wait 59 minutes to light up, with our "comrades" on the coast!!!!

I always liked Colorado. My two years in Manitou Springs were some of the best. Such fond memories of The Royal Tavern, Jesters, El Perdido's, Jose Muldoon's in Colorado Springs, Garden of the Gods, Flying W Ranch, fishing on 11 Mile Reservoir, sunburn from hell on Pueblo Reservoir on the 4th of July, hiking in the Rockies, the back road to Cripple Creek, and a thousand other things.

Now I find it's full of polite people who don't Bogart their smoke. What a great place! You're all welcome to come out to Washington and visit any time. We've got some of the greatest beer on earth to quench the cotton mouth and smoked steelhead will definitely cure the munchies.

Why wait the 59 minutes. Light up again when "the coast" catches up in time....Celebrate a second time!

Here are a couple of reasons our global governments will stop at nothing to prevent the people from using hemp or cannabis. I know this person personally. He legally medicated with concentrated cannabis oil, it is called Rick Simpson Oil, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI this video is worth watching.

I would not have believed it unless I saw it. My friend with Hodgkin's Lymphoma cancer had been battling the disease for over a decade using modern medicine with no success. In only 5 months using concentrated cannabis oil, he is now cancer free. the concentrated cannabis oil saved my friends life. Here is a quick testimony from him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0nwqBtxXKc&feature=plcp

How would they receive their campaign monies without the big pharmaceutical companies radiating us. With cannabis, the big pharmas would become bankrupt.

I have researched so much about what hemp and cannabis can do for us all. Our governments have sold us out. They cannot control us if hemp and cannabis is grown freely once again.

Actually, you can pay taxes on it. All one need do is declare it as farm income. The crop grown is not disclosed on any tax form.

They'll take your money and still auction the farm off.

They don't care what you think.

All jails are county institutions, most prisons are state. Where would the feds put someone that they busted for something that's not even a misdemeanor?

The Pinkerton were goon scumbags who killed women and children for a dollar.

You missed a few days in History Class?

Alcohol was made legal, and now there's a Jack Daniels bottle near you.