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 ...
You don't ADD anything. You just continue with your anti-pot rants.
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?
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?
Your arguments are generic.
Heh.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 10th amendment specifically says "all"?
Seems to me the 10th is pretty vague. As is the 9th. Intentionally so.
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.
Edited for clarity.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
I expect people would want credible procedures in place to prevent the crop from being pilfered by underaged "smokers".
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.