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 ...
An inalienable right to do drugs? You've got to be kidding.
Don't be obtuse.
All I sought was a verifiable source for your claims as to the specifically mentioned Founding Fathers growing / smuggling C. indica. (Because if that could be proved beyond reasonable doubt, it would provide more ammunition for me as well.)
It was at that point you became defensive and smart mouthed, when you could have simply posted the link you (finally) referenced in your last comment to me.
(As an aside, anyone, myself included, who has defended a thesis or research paper in front of one's peers knows that the burden of proof is borne by the one making the assertions. Suggesting for someone to seek out the verification for himself is at best amateurish.)
Is Cannabis a dangerous drug that should be prohibited?
For adult use in my opinion, no!
Does Cannabis Prohibition contribute to teen Meth use?
In my opinion, yes it can. I've known more than one dealer who carried multiple product lines, and they had no objection as to whom they sold.
Is Cannabis Prohibition based on fact or propaganda?
Both. Anslinger's diatribes were extreme distortions. But its illegality functions as a price support. That's a fact. And 1000's of palms get greased to keep it that way.
Should we base our laws on reason or myth?
Reason is fine, but when the entire system is rigged, it doesn't carry a whole lotta weight.
Why would anyone you join you in supporting the death penalty for an unconstitutional law?
Actually, we may soon need a Constitutional Amendment allowing a death penalty to those among us who knowingly work for infringements on our inalienable rights. -- In effect they are advocating the overthrow of our Republic.
An inalienable right to do drugs? You've got to be kidding.
No kidding. We have an inalienable right to be free of unreasonable regulations that infringe on our life, liberty, or property rights.
Those who disagree with those Constitutional principles should live elsewhere.
I've heard that Australia is looking for government loving serfs.
More likely, banning a substance weeds out those who are not as irresponsible and reckless.
Most likely, both effects occur; those who use a substance despite its illegality are motivated by its illegality into using less responsibly, e.g., consuming more quickly to lessen the chance of being caught in possession.
Every adult has an inalienable right to perform any act that doesn't violate anyone else's rights; doing drugs does not violate anyone else's rights (except in the case of parents who render themselves incapable of meeting their obligations to their children, but banning drugs for all adults is no better a solution to this problem than banning alcohol for all adults would be).
Great post.
Here's another medical use for alcohol. Treating alcoholics who go into the emergency room to an alcohol drip to keep them from going into DT's and further stressing them out.
Again, enjoyed your post.
They didn't smoke it back then, they made weak tinctures of pot leaves(yes,just like tea) and drank it.
If you say so. I don't know anything about Libertarians.
Another outright lie. Where did I call you any names? You have no morals or ethics at all.
Thanks. Good talking with you.
Inalienable rights are those God-given individual rights which cannot be taken away without due process in a court of law.
Smokin' dope ain't one of them.
HOLY SMOKE------>ping
Why would anyone you join you in supporting the death penalty for an unconstitutional law?
Actually, we may soon need a Constitutional Amendment allowing a death penalty to those among us who knowingly work for infringements on our inalienable rights. -- In effect they are advocating the overthrow of our Republic.
An inalienable right to do drugs? You've got to be kidding.
No kidding. We have an inalienable right to be free of unreasonable regulations that infringe on our life, liberty, or property rights.
Inalienable rights are those God-given individual rights which cannot be taken away without due process in a court of law.
Show us the Constitutional due process used in making the war on drugs.
Smokin' dope ain't one of them.
So you and big brother claim, without Constitutional foundation for your infringements on our liberties.
Unfortunately,all you pro-pot people,when talking about how it was medicinally used 300 years ago,don't know what you're talking about and should just keep quite.
I've been posting to these threads longer before you EVER found FR,so no,I'm not "late";just adding a bit of factual history,as is my wont,to the crazies posts.It helps the lurkers to see the facts,instead of your gibberish. ;^)
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.