Marijuana Lobby Grows in Sophistication (After you smoke a joint, I do Too!)

FOX News ^ | Friday, January 28, 2005 | By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

[.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.

[nopardons]

Not necessarily...no.

[mugs99]

That's okay...I post for lurkers to read...

Not many lurkers here in the smokey back room!

IT WAS USED FOR ROPES.

George Washington grew Indica at Do using the Sinsemilla Technique. This technique requires that you destroy all the male plants, thereby losing half your crop. Not a good idea if you're growing rope! This method is used with Indica to obtain Prime Smoking Bud.

I've already referenced George Washington's diary on this thread. You've chosen to ignore it. I think George is a better source than your home remedy recipe books.

That's ok though, you just keep on posting for those lurkers...I'm sure they're getting as big a laugh at you as I am.
...

[nopardons]

You never know how many lurkers there are,anywhere on FR.

Haven't you gotten the word? Supposedly diaries don't count now,for factual info.Don't blame me,I didn't say that...it was one of your own.

Oh yes,that's right,I had quite forgotten...what you post needs must be taken as gospel,but anything I've posted is trash. Yeah,right,okay,silly me. LOL

[mugs99]

silly me.

ROFL!
You're finally making sense.

[nopardons]

Opppps.......left off the (/sarcasm). Sorry,I do keep forgetting that you aren't intelligent enough to recognize sarcasm and/or irony,without someone poking a a red hot poker up your nose.

[mugs99]

ROFL!
Red hot poker up my nose?
Hey, one of those recipes will make for some really great brownies...Thanks!

[tacticalogic]

Not necessarily...no.

Strange. I've generally found that when I want to direct a comment to a particular individual or individuals, it works best to address the post that contains the comment to them. It kind of lends an aura of coherency to the thread.

[robertpaulsen]

"and the goverment is still lying today."

Fine. Then point out today's lies.

I don't see the relevance in bringing up arguments made 70 years ago, unless you're saying those exact same arguments are being made today.

Since you're not, you're just wasting my time.

[PaxMacian]

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson

[mugs99]

you're just wasting my time

Then why do you keep posting to me?
You admit the goverment lied in the past about Marijuana...but it's been seventy years so that makes a law passed on perjury ok today?
...

[mugs99]

A simple truth by a great man...Wish we had a Jefferson in our times!
...

[jmc813]

You need to show up on drug threads more often.

[Know your rights]

Inalienable rights are those God-given individual rights which cannot be taken away without due process in a court of law.

I don't agree that proper procedure is by itself sufficient justification for taking away God-given individual rights.

[robertpaulsen]

"I don't agree that proper procedure is by itself sufficient justification for taking away God-given individual rights."

Me neither.

But Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process Clause guarantees not only that proper procedures be used, but that it also guarantees that a person’s life, freedom and property cannot be taken without appropriate governmental justification.

But you knew that.

[robertpaulsen]

Fine. Then point out today's lies.

[tacticalogic]

You need to show up on drug threads more often.

I think she may be shouting at them from another thread.

[nopardons]

Long before you and many of those posting to this thread ever heard of FR,let alone joined,I was to be found on dope threads.I've seen ALL of the pro arguments,long before newbie posters even tried to come up with them,and shattered them.

There's just so many times one can type the same thing,before ennui sets in and one becomes bored to tears.That's why I have stayed off such threads for years and only pop onto one rarely,now. :-)

The major problem with these threads,is that almost nobody knows factual history;most only know and repeat propaganda,delusions,and outright lies.

[Churchillspirit]

I think she may be shouting at them from another thread

LOL!!

[tacticalogic]

The major problem with these threads,is that almost nobody knows factual history;most only know and repeat propaganda,delusions,and outright lies.

Rest easy. The "drug warriors" have left one robertpaulsen in thier passing to educate the great unwashed "druggies" in the matter of interpreting history and the English language, parts of which is seems even the standard reference works have gotten wrong.

[jonestown]

robertpaulsen opines:

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.

436 jones

---

I don't agree that proper procedure is by itself sufficient justification for taking away God-given individual rights.
473 know you rights

---

"Me neither", paulsen irrationally claims:

"But Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process Clause guarantees not only that proper procedures be used, but that it also guarantees that a person's life, freedom and property cannot be taken without appropriate governmental justification."

---

And as you well know robert, but refuse to admit, - "appropriate governmental justification" was never given for the drug wars prohibitionary 'regulations'.

- None is possible. Such fiat prohibitions on articles of 'dangerous' property such as drugs [or guns] are unjustifiable infringments on our individual rights to life, liberty & property.

Give up on your neo-prohibitionary communitarian crusade at FR, paulsen.

No one is buying your bull.