Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marijuana Lobby Grows in Sophistication (After you smoke a joint, I do Too!)
FOX News ^ | Friday, January 28, 2005 | By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

Posted on 02/01/2005 10:22:25 AM PST by .cnI redruM

WASHINGTON — Pot. Cannabis. Hemp. Weed. Grass.

The herb takes many names. But in the nation’s capital, where the marijuana lobby (search) was once the recreational diversion of Playboy Magazine's Hugh Hefner, pro-pot special interest groups have crystallized the divergent issues behind the plant and gained a seemingly unified voice.

________________ Puff, Cough, Puff, Cough________________

"It’s a no-brainer. It makes no sense putting old and sick folks in jail for an herb that makes them feel better," said Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project (search), which was established in 1995 by Rob Kampia, a former mainstay at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, the first pro-pot lobby in Washington, D.C.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: authoritarians; bong; civilliberties; druggies; ganja; getalife; gotthemunchies; heycheech; justsayno; loserdopian; losertarians; nazis; normal; passthecuchie; pot; potheads; prohibition; seedless; smokemifyagotem; sweetleaf; toke; twigsnseeds; warondrugs; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 481-498 next last
To: robertpaulsen

You don't ADD anything. You just continue with your anti-pot rants.


201 posted on 02/02/2005 9:00:31 AM PST by Beckwith (Barbara Boxer is the Wicked Witch of the West . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The state where you live is required to protect those rights outlined in the state constitution (plus those forced on them by the 14th amendment). That's it.

You called it, my liberty is one of them. Or did the drugs you do cause you to forget?

So, under your bizarre theory, they certainly don't have to defend your crazy made up "right" to stop people from ingesting substances. So, now what? You going to sue them if they miss a few drugged out folks like you?

202 posted on 02/02/2005 9:00:38 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"I also think prudence dictates that we start by relegalizing marijuana and see what we learn from that."

No, prudence dictates we maintain the status quo, lacking a compelling reason to change.

I haven't seen a compelling reason to change from you or anyone else on this board as to why marijuana (not crack cocaine, not all drugs, not those drug less harmful than alcohol, not "soft" drugs), marijuana should be made legal.

If your argument were "marijuana would replace alcohol, 1:1", I would call that a compelling argument. "Marijuana cures cancer", I would call a compelling argument.

"Because, dude" is not a compelling argument.

Your arguments are generic. It costs money. It interferes with freedom. It's unconstitutional. The WOD is intrusive.

Those are good arguments for the legalization of all drugs. I'm not at all interested in debating the legalization of all drugs. What is your argument for the legalization of just marijuana?

203 posted on 02/02/2005 9:09:56 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
No, prudence dictates we maintain the status quo, lacking a compelling reason to change.

Your arguments are generic.

Heh.

204 posted on 02/02/2005 9:14:19 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
Yes, I agree that the 10th amendment is very specific in its generalization.

You're certainly not saying that the 10th amendment is specific as to the powers to which it is referring, are you?

Begs the question.

205 posted on 02/02/2005 9:14:29 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I'm not at all interested in debating the legalization of all drugs.

Of course not, it's a loser for you. It's one you can't win. You know it, so you try to obfuscate. If you admit that all drug laws are wrong, you have to admit that pot laws are wrong as well.

Your childish assertion of rights you make up out of whole cloth sinks your little authoritarian tugboat.

206 posted on 02/02/2005 9:16:10 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yes, I agree that the 10th amendment is very specific in its generalization.

ROTFLMAO, it gets more fun by the moment.

You're certainly not saying that the 10th amendment is specific as to the powers to which it is referring, are you?

Of course he is, the language is quite specific. ALL is the magic number.

207 posted on 02/02/2005 9:19:57 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
"Liberty, correct. Damn, for a druggie, you finally got one right."

Wow. This goes beyond the state. You have a U.S. Contitutionally protected right to do drugs!

I'll tell you what. You get the USSC to state in a court opinion that the due process clause of the 14th amendment recognizes that smoking dope is so fundamental to the concept of liberty, that it is hereby incorporated and now applies to the states, then I'll agree with you.

Short of that, the state retains the power to regulate drugs.

208 posted on 02/02/2005 9:20:44 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
No, I'm not at all interested in debating the legalization of all drugs because it ain't gonna happen. Maybe .01% of the people want this, and that includes you.
209 posted on 02/02/2005 9:24:33 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
"Of course he is, the language is quite specific. ALL is the magic number."

The 10th amendment specifically says "all"?

Seems to me the 10th is pretty vague. As is the 9th. Intentionally so.

210 posted on 02/02/2005 9:29:20 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Wow. This goes beyond the state. You have a U.S. Contitutionally protected right to do drugs!

YOU claimed the government had a responsiblity to defend my liberty. I agreed. Now you have descended further into your drug induced haze.

Short of that, the state retains the power to regulate drugs.

No they don't. They have no legitimate power to usurp rights, with or without a group of liberal judges.

But I'm happy you finally have admitted that the Federal wod is unconstitutional. It's a start.

I still love this new assertion of yours that pot isn't part of ALL drugs.

211 posted on 02/02/2005 9:29:32 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
No, I'm not at all interested in debating the legalization of all drugs because it's ain't gonna happen. a loser for me

Edited for clarity.

212 posted on 02/02/2005 9:31:14 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Seems to me the 10th is pretty vague. As is the 9th.

Only to you. And only because even though you don't believe it yourself, you are forced to pretend that to prop up your bizarre theory.

213 posted on 02/02/2005 9:32:46 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
"YOU claimed the government had a responsiblity to defend my liberty."

Yes, liberty as defined by the government. They're not going to let you define it!

Hell, you'd say your right to liberty included the right to do drugs! Of course, it you can convince the federal court of this, you're on your way.

214 posted on 02/02/2005 9:37:39 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So you contend that the words "The Powers" mean only some powers but not all powers?

Maybe it should say "SOME of the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's what you think?

215 posted on 02/02/2005 9:37:52 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Hell, you'd say your right to liberty included the right to do drugs!

Actually YOUR right. I have never used them, but since you have, I assert your rights. Included in those rights are the right to ingest whatever substance you choose without government permission. The constitution recognises this in the ninth amendment.

Of course, it you can convince the federal court of this, you're on your way.

The federal courts do not grant rights. In your bizzaro world, you wish it were so, but it's not.

Did your favorite liberal judges grant you your rights? Did they grant you the right to "raise your children" in a world of your dreams? If so, I'd be interested in that delusion just for fun.

216 posted on 02/02/2005 9:45:11 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Hi Heels

There is nothing to bet on. Who believes that someone was giving away IN BARRELS something costing 10-25 dollars per dose in the sixties.

Urban myth or drug-induced delusion who knows for sure?


217 posted on 02/02/2005 9:58:55 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

218 posted on 02/02/2005 10:05:23 AM PST by mugs99 (Restore the ConstitutionLegalization sends a message to teens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
Why would anyone go to the trouble of growing and cultivating if bags were available at the liquor stores? I don't see too many stills around these days 'cuz it's easier to buy jack than to make it.

The only difficult aspect of growing marijuana is growing it indoors to evade detection. If people could grow it outdoors, legally, it would be quite easy and cheap to do; much more so than distilling liquor. No exploding stills to worry about, either.

219 posted on 02/02/2005 10:12:59 AM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
If people could grow it outdoors, legally, it would be quite easy and cheap to do; much more so than distilling liquor.

I expect people would want credible procedures in place to prevent the crop from being pilfered by underaged "smokers".

220 posted on 02/02/2005 10:16:08 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 481-498 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson