Posted on 10/22/2012 9:09:50 AM PDT by Jayster
"There' a rising tide of acceptance of the fact that people are going to smoke marijuana, and it's like the prohibition against alcohol in the 1930s. There's a recognition that perhaps the laws are causing more harm than the drugs themselves," says Rick Steves, author and travel host.
Steves and others attended "The Final Days of Prohibition" conference in downtown Los Angeles in early October. The conference was put on by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and Reason TV was on the scene to ask about the future of marijuana laws in the U.S., particularly in the upcoming election where the states of Oregon, Washington, and Colorado all have marijuana legalization initiatives on the ballot.
About 3 minutes.
Produced by Paul Feine and Zach Weissmueller. Edited by Weissmueller.
Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Feeding your needy ego today, eh? ... Use a smidge of manners and post at someone else when a poster asks you move along ... unless of course you are so needy that you cannot help yourself and must heckle folks to feed your spiritual illness.
I read a story here just the other day about giving “medical” marijuana users extra food stamps.
Some did, sure.
as if the smell that permeated their clothes, hair, and lungs wasn't a dead give away. [...]
Co-workers who stepped out for a J always thought they were pulling a fast one on the rest of us
If they "thought they were pulling a fast one" then they weren't "volunteering their use" - ergo, not all users volunteered their use.
And those who waited till they got home, and kept themselves unsmelly, flew under your radar.
I always thought I was pretty creative when I smoked pot.
Now when I look back at the things I did while smoking pot, I think its quite possible that I was suffering from oxygen deprivation.
This is a public forum - if he wants a private conversation he can take it to FReepmail.
unless of course you are so needy that you cannot help yourself and must heckle folks to feed your spiritual illness.
Spare me your pop psychology and your delusions of adminhood.
“They don’t want sharp minds like the Jefferson/Franklin/Washington/Paine/Lincoln variety.”
Actually - during the time of the forefathers, there was no law against growing pot. In fact, the laws at the time dicated that landowners HAD to use a certain amount of their acreage for hemp cultivation (because at the time, the hemp rope was crucial for all of the naval logistics that came from a society based on maritime trade.)
Franklin, Jackson, Jefferson, Lincoln, Madison, Monroe, and Washington are all cited as having smoked cannabis with some regularity, with Lincoln on record as saying that one of his favorite things to do was to sit on his porch and smoke a pipe of “sweet hemp.”
Current politicans who have admitted to cannabis use include George W Bush, Sarah Palin, Barrack Obama, Al Gore, Newt Gangrich, Rand Paul, Bill Clinton, and many more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_politicians_who_admit_to_cannabis_use)
Liberty means that people have the rights to make up their own mind on issues instead of having the government dicate what is acceptable.
((shrug))
Rubbish. Last time cannabis - a known and accepted ingredient in many legal products - was rechristened as "marihuana" by out-of-work ex-Prohibitionists and criminalized with scare stories about crazy Mexicans and white-woman-seducing Negro jazz musicians. (And robbery to pay for drugs is fueled by anti-drug laws keeping prices high.)
Wow, you sure need to justify yourself there, dude/dudette. You’re turning downright obnoxious to try and bully posters. Such neediness!
So the founding fathers thought liberty meant you could smoke hemp but that you were not allowed to not grow it on your own land?
Liberty seems to be a highly subjective concept. My definition doesn't include allowing the free trade of intoxicants any more than it includes bringing back cigarette ads on TV game shows.
Boy, the whiners are out in force today.
Have a hankie.
So is advertising your main concern about legalizing marijuana?
Who takes care of all the health issues related to chronicically inhaling a carcinogen?
ObamaCare?
Who does it now for the legal drug tobacco?
We can and likely will glose the prohibition of marijuana but we cannot get rid of the police state establishment it has spawned. That cancer has metastasized and infects every law enforcement agency in the country with SWATumors.
You raise a good point - but tumors need to be fed, and ending marijuana prohibition would mean no more "civil forfeiture" of boats because a seed was found on board.
Civil forfeiture has already spread beyond drugs. Loss of MJ will cause that to metastasize quickly.
I imagine if it were legal, cheap and readily available, more people would find different, less unhealthy ways of ingesting it, than smoking it.
If someone wants to knowingly behave in risky behavior they should take responsibility for that behavior.
Doesn’t matter if its tobacco or marijuana or whatever.
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.