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."
I saw this morning that Brian Wilson won a Grammy last night for best rock instrumental for "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow" from his Smile LP, and Wilco won best alternative rock album for Ghost.
Hey, people laughed when I bought hundreds of copies of Gas Music from Jupiter, but I know one day thay'll be valuable!
Ear-ache my eye!
Man, how many smoke filled, black-light lit dorm rooms did I sit in listening to Firesign Theatre? I wonder if they would be as funny to me straight as they were back then?
Cheech and Chong came to UMichigan in the 70s. The only thing I remember was some bit about technicolored tampons, which I recall being funny, but a friend of mine was incensed that they would even mention the subject. We were a more innocent folk back then.
LOL, I remember the album, but refresh my memory on a trivia question-
was that the one with the giant rolling papers, or was it Up In Smoke?
It's been......well, a VERY long time.
Dictionary? Why pick up the dictionary when I have the U.S. Constitution itself:
"... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes ..."
"WHERE in the US Constitution is the jurisdiction, power, or authority to tell the people what they can posses or ingest?"
You just posted it:
"interstate commerce (is) commercial trade ... regulated by the federal government..."
To regulate includes to prohibit. Don't you even read what you post?
If you can't tell the difference between an artificially created state and a living, breathing human being, I'm done wasting bandwidth on you.
But like I said, RP: the Constitution says AMONG the several states, not WITHIN a state. The Founding Fathers wanted to PROHIBIT the state governments from currying favor w/ other states via trade or taxing their citizens more if they buy products from one state vs. another--a FREE TRAFE ZONE was to be the original intent of the Constitution.
Notice that their intent was, as usual, was to enhance individual LIBERTY by prohibiting state governments in this issue. It wasn't to prohibit individuals (again, you are twisting the words of the Constitution to fit a Drug War agenda).
When the Founders used the word "regluate", they meant TO MAKE REGULAR....not to prohibit. The prohibition part was left to the states. When marijuana is grown w/in a state, & does not cross state lines, Congress has no legitimate right to be involved, as the 10th Amendment makes clear...& when the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE has been expressed w/in a state to use marijuana for medical purposes, which the 9th Amendment says they have a right to do, the feds cannot legally destroy that right w/o blatantly stomping on the 9th Amendment.
That is correct. Congress is prohibited from regulating purely intrastate commerce.
Unless.
Unless Congress is regulating interstate commerce and the intrastate commerce is having a substantial effect on their regulatory efforts.
By your statement above, you do agree that Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, correct? What happens if a state then permits some intrastate activity that substantially affects Congress' constitutional regulatory efforts? Should that be allowed?
Should a state, or states, be allowed to undermine and subvert Congress' constitutional efforts?
Yeah, but look at what weed did to your brain. Of course, I KNOW you never did any harder stuff.
Young man, give me that knife
Tphwippppp.... DOINK!
Thank you!
Mark
Actually, from presedence, there isn't any. That's why prohibition required a constitutional amendment, which was later rescinded, taking away that power. Too bad the government doesn't agree, and they're the ones with the big guns and prisons.
Mark
Young man, swallow what is in your mouth!
*Gulp* Gee, tanks a lot sistah!
*Hey Billy -- swallow these, swallow these*
You betcha!
When the Congress oversteps its constitutional authority, the states have the right--or beter yet, the OBLIGATION-- to "JUST SAY NO!", & refuse to help them in their illegal actions.
You're sounding like FDR when you use the excuse that anything that even merely AFFECTS interstate commerce gives the feds ultimate authority to regulate & even prohibit an item. W/ that line of thinking, then EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN should be placed under federal control, because somehow, someway, state lines were crossed when producing or buying a product...or even the items that were used to help produce it.
People growing their own marijuana for their own personal use in no way affects interstate commerce. The STATES have the authority of prohibiting it if the people so desire.
_____________________________
You just posted it:
"interstate commerce (is) commercial trade ... regulated by the federal government..."
To regulate includes to prohibit.
Listen to Mama, robbie; --- she nailed you to the wall with:
"If you can't tell the difference between [regulating] an artificially created state and [prohibiting] a living, breathing human being, I'm done wasting bandwidth on you."
Simply put boy, you been shown the dunce corner.
True. - Same principle applies to making your own booze, -- or guns.
The STATES have the authority of prohibiting it if the people so desire.
Never give an inch.
States have no delegated power to prohibit making & using most anything. -- They can only 'reasonably regulate' most activities, restricted by Constitutional due process.
Should a state, or states, be allowed to undermine and subvert Congress' constitutional efforts?
If the feds are going beyond their constitutional limits, by all means, YES. Congress has so defiled its constitutional responsibilities that I think the states should stand up & say NO MORE!
But the problem is that the feds have addicted state governments to getting their piece of the federal pie that they cannot help but keep their hand out asking for more federal highway funds, & on & on. I'd like to see the states begin to refuse to pay federal gas & other taxes until the feds quit abusing its authority, but that ain't gonna happen.
You want to be part of society, protected by society's laws? Then live by them.
You want to take your "living, breathing human being" up into the mountains and live your life? Well then, you can smoke dope to your heart's content as far as I'm concerned.
(BTW, it's not illegal to ingest drugs. Never was. Ingest away.)
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.