[skeptoid]

It must work.
He doesn't look sick to me.

Grant M. Haller / P-I
Vivian McPeak, who co-founded Hempfest in 1991 to promote
marijuana legal reform, uses medical marijuana in his home office
before visiting a doctor in Edmonds.

[Drango]

Mostly Ron Paul supporters?

[skeptoid]

Go in depth at this P I article. Lots of links, and another shot of Vivian McPeak... 'stayin' healthy'.

Vivian McPeak puffs out a cloud of smoke. (Grant Haller/P-I)

[robertpaulsen]

The people who want to legalize hemp get very upset when you confuse that with marijuana.

So, what's Hempfest all about?

[Grunthor]

“Where there’s smoke, there’s Hempfest”

Isn’t it a little early for the Libertarian Party Convention?

[robertpaulsen]

"To do so, McPeak has invested thousands of unpaid hours, living on disability paychecks for ailments he said he remedies with medicinal marijuana."

He can invest thousands of hours ... but he can't work at a real job? Why can't he get a job as an event organizer?

[theBuckwheat]

Laws restricting pot and pot smoking test the Ninth Amendment (”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”) and Tenth Amendment (”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”) views of conservatives, who are mostly social conservatives but are willing to trade liberty for their ability to use big government law to restrict behavior they do not approve of. In this, they are willing to use big government as a tool just as much as the liberals.

If we went back into history, to say, the amount of liberty that we all had as citizens right after the Civil War, the federal government did not claim to have the power to regulate any drug, let alone impose a regulatory scheme on the mere possession of the seeds, stalks and leaves of plants it did not like. In fact, since it lacked the power, it took an amendment to the Constitution to impose a federal ban on alcohol, in that failed social experiment commonly called “Prohibition”.

If it is so compellingly important to ban pot today, let us secure the proper Constitutional authority to do so and not seduce the people by prostituting the Courts into making rulings to ban pot where no authority really exists at present in the text of the Constitution.

Those who detest pot smoking and “pot heads”, and wanting to control pot because they think it is a “gateway drug” (which it very well may be for some people) while nodding in agreement at the unconstitutional laws we have to control drugs are no more consistent with the law than are the gun grabbers who ignore the plain text of the Second Amendment.