Posted on 02/13/2005 11:35:17 AM PST by kennedy
ASPEN, Colo. (AP) - Cheech and Chong may have joked about marijuana in their movies, but the comedians say they didn't touch the stuff when the cameras were rolling.
"We tried one time and we wasted so much film," said Tommy Chong, recalling a scene in "Up in Smoke." "We were in the car waiting for the cue, you know. And the camera's rolling and we're sitting there, you know, and neither one of us heard the cue."
Chong and former partner Cheech Marin appeared together for the first time in 20 years at the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival.
Chong said he isn't ashamed of introducing millions of Vietnam-era kids to marijuana. "When you think of how many kids died drinking alcohol, I feel I've saved millions of lives," he said.
Marin said their humor was appreciated by an unexpected group: "Cops were our biggest fans. Because they dealt in what we were dealing with everyday, but in reality... they saw the essential humor and they laughed."
Marin and Chong, who recently completed a nine-month sentence for trying to sell marijuana pipes on the Internet, said they are writing two new films, "Grumpy Old Stoners" and "Lord of the Smoke."
You got that right! Why are there so many apparent pot heads on FR? Look how many posts on this thread are against any law to control pot.
Why are there so many apparent prohibitionists on FR?
Look how many posts on this thread are against any effort to have government obey our Constitution.
If the majority are so opposed to the laws, why not try to change them through the system to better conform to their habits?
Rest assured, most true conservatives support & defend the Constitution, and work to see the 'wars' on guns, drugs, etc, - end.
If the Feds are failing at the WOD, why are so many of the big traffickers in jail? Sorry, but these are questions that do come up. I will be sure to read all answers and think them through thoroughly. Keep in mind, I don't care about your habits, except if they impact me and mine (taxes and I hate taxes).
Your taxes are high, in part, because of these endless socialistic 'wars'. Our Republic is dying from over-regulation.
"Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. That power to regulate includes the power to prohibit.
Deal with it. You don't like the law, change it."
Will you have the same feedback when the bible is prohibited using the same law?
And of course you thus have no problem with 98% of the drug war that is being fought by the states?
Many LEO's would have arrested him for posession. As long as you have the drug in your system, you're in posession of the drug......
".... knowing our kids are not going to be victims of drug pushers!!"
Have you ever actually encountered a "drug pusher?"
"I see. So if Congress passes a constitutional federal law, and the law survives numerous court challenges all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, then the citizens of the states must also comply, correct?"
Then you agree with the court's decisions regarding abortion?
Are you sure about this? Many body builders and athletes travel to border towns in Mexico to buy steroids. They inject them in Mexico where it is not illegal and then come back across the border.
Yes. I know several people that ended up in front of a judge for posession, when in reality they were not caught with any un-ingested drug.
No man I'm Dave!
That means genuine Kentucky bluegrass that grows wild
on the back forty fence row and is cured in that old
step-van that grandaddy junked in the back yard should
be fine then.
Wait, what's that plane spraying?
No, I have NO PROBLEM w/ the states fighting their own individual drug wars however they choose (provided that cruel & unusual punishments are not used in the process). It is their right & responsibility to do so: if a conservative state like UT decides to use the death penalty against drug dealers, they have the right to do so; & if a liberal state like California decides to legalize everything, they have that right as well. But either way, BOTH states should be ready to deal w/ the consequences of their actions.
If I had my druthers, I'd orefer a state policy that is somewhere in the middle of these 2 extremes:
--the federal government should beef up its border security
to fight the importation of illegal drugs & aliens, & do
it NOW;
--conservative states can keep their own state drug policies
in effect if th people so desire;
--liberal states can re-legalize responsible marijuana use
(both medical & recreational) for adults over 21. The
people & their state legislatures can argue over the
details.
The druggies could then move to the states that will be more tolerant towards them, & the Drug War worshippers can do the same for themselves.
The 9th Amendment prohibits the central government (not the states) from misconstruing the main body of the Constitution. For instance, the feds (not states) can't make laws against alcohol, weed, or slavery and say the Constitution doesn't say you can drink alcohol, smoke weed, or own slaves. Get it?
The 10th says that it's constitutional for a state to prohibit, or allow, anything it wants to so long as the power doesn't conflict with the Constitution.
States powers can extend anywhere they wish it to unless, or until, it conflicts with the Constitution. There is no such restriction when it comes to mind altering substances.
The states are the righful, constitutional decision makers regarding drug policy, & if the feds would do its role by protecting our national borders from invasion by illegal immigrats & drugs (which it could do a whole heck of a lot better if it would focus its efforts on that alone), that sounds like a good deal to me.
Like I told WildTurkey (read the post I left for him, please), he Drug War worshippers could move to DRUG-FREE states & fight their own Drug War w/ abandon...or work w/ your own state legislatures to create your drug-free utopia.
On the other hand, the druggies could move to liberal FREE-DRUG states & live happily ever after. The Drug War worshippers would be happy 'cuz THEIR states would then have fewer druggies to deal w/...& the druggies would be happy 'cuz they wouldn't hafta face the threat of prison for their drug use. SEPERATE BUT EQUAL, you could say.
P.s.
As a guy who loves climbing & the mountains ("Rocky Mountain High, Colorado..."), I'll take your "snow line" remark as a compliment. But please remember this: I am NOT asking you to "support legislation that makes it legal". What I AM asking is what I said previously: STOP supporting policies that will have us thrown in jail, or cause us to lose our property, kids, jobs, etc....ESPECIALLY if we live in a state that is different from yours.
If so, why haven't the people in an act of righteous indignation risen up at voted the offending laws out of existence? Todate in three out of four times the pot issue is brought to the people, they vote pot down in overwhelming numnbers.
Some conservative you are...
Look in the mirror............
No they don't. In at least one case, the Feds stepped in and said that while it may not be illegal on the state level, it would remain so on the federal level. This involved medical usage of marijuana. Doctors who prescribed it would face DEA violations.
Lemme say it again:
I'm VERY tempted to say "IT'S A DEAL!"...but I can't, 'cuz I'm not asking you to join our side. We live in different states, so feel free to fight as tough a Drug War in Illinois as you wish.
But I live in Arkansas. I am not under your state's jurisdiction, & the federal government has no rught to interfere. All I am asking you to do is STOP having the feds stick its nose into an issue that the 9th & 10th Amendments have left w/ the states. Simple enuff???
Me and my old lady
We both like to go outside
But sometimes people space us out
So we, we get up and leave.
Or something like that.
James Madison in Federalist No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Yep.. Some powers are "prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States". See the 10th.
-- The BOR's enumerates some of those prohibited powers , but does not deny that there are "others retained by the people".
See the 9th Amendment.
The 9th Amendment prohibits the central government (not the states) from misconstruing the main body of the Constitution.
It says:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Nothing in there specifying States or central government, - thus it applies to ALL government at any level.
Just as our enumerated RKBA's, -- unenumerated rights are not to be infringed upon, denied or disparaged. -- Get it?
For instance, the feds (not states) can't make laws against alcohol, weed, or slavery and say the Constitution doesn't say you can drink alcohol, smoke weed, or own slaves. Get it?
Yep, I 'get' your prohibitionistic zeal. Sad.
The 10th says that it's constitutional for a state to prohibit, or allow, anything it wants to so long as the power doesn't conflict with the Constitution.
It gives no prohibitory power to states. Do you agree that Calif can prohibit assault weapons, thus conflicting with our 2nd Amendment?
States powers can extend anywhere they wish it to unless, or until, it conflicts with the Constitution. There is no such restriction when it comes to mind altering substances.
'Reasonable regulations' can be made on restricting substance abuse. -- On that we agree.
Fiat prohibitions are not reasonable, and violate our rights to due process.
The plain language of the Constitution.
No paulsen, unlike government, some people actually mean exactly what they say.
Government has tried to obfuscate the meaning of law to the point that Americans voluntarily give up rights they never even knew they HAD.
You obviously know the different type of persons according to law, so why all the games?
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.