Posted on 09/21/2002 5:49:50 PM PDT by Libloather
Liberteens come, and Liberteens go. But they seem to have an awful time with their own (and biggest - maybe only) issue - pot.
As far as anyone can tell, not ONE person has been placed behind bars for smoking pot. But the Liberteens paint an entirely different picture. They claim that HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS are behind bars for smoking.
Can anyone provide any proof either way?
He undoubtedly went to jail for possession, if he had a mind-bogglingly miniscule amount on him, or more likely, possession with intent to distribute, if he had enough on him to last a week or more. What thrills you so about this distinction?. On the available scientific evidence, it makes more sense to put someone in jail for possession of turkey eggs, than it does of marijuana. Unlike the case with turkey eggs, the consumption of marijuana has virtually no clinical record of causing significant harm to anyone.
You know that - but Poser doesn't? Can you folks PLEASE get together with the evidence prior to making fools of yourselves? The World-Wide-Web sure would appreciate it...
There's no such word. Do you care to define your terms or is that asking for more intellectual rigor than you can manage?
I vaguely remember, some two or more decades ago, what our criteria was when we got stoned. Didn't have to worry about wrecking, killing someone, or doing major damage to someone's vehicle, for you didn't exceed 35 mph's.
After while, go to my place, put on some Stones, Blue Oyster Cult, or Pink Floyd, kick back and rock. Munchies meant a trip to Dairy Queen for a "hot fudge cake." Yep, brings back some memories from deep with in the vault of memories. Those were the days, when even the cops would party with you.
Sure there is. You saw it in post #1 and have copied and pasted it - twice. Your assistance in it's distribution is greatly appreciated.
Have a grownup check your medication for you
Smoking pot. He had one joint and was smoking it in his car. The cop saw him smoking it and arrested him. One joint, 18 months.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
While I can't provide the references, the historical accounts I've read say that prior to federal prohibition, there were a few state and local laws against smoking marijuana. Phohibition of possession wouldn't have been practical, since hemp was still commonly grown as a commodity crop. I shouldn't think it unreasonable to assume that there were some successful prosecutions and incarcerations for violations of those laws.
Consider addressing the concern that putting people in jail for either posession OR being high is still iniquiteous in either case. One can almost always rely on prohibitionists to hide in some pointless nitpicking corner, rather than address the non-existence of a scientific basis for pot prohibition.
"Libertine", NOT "liberteen". You give the appearance of a kid with severe Attention Deficit Disorder. Do you ever respond to the meat of an argument, or does your entire argument consist of baiting anyone who disagrees with you?
You're getting warmer...
donh,
Let's not waste any more time with this individual, it's likely that he has been standing too close to a microwave oven with a bad seal
It does seem to be some manner of malsentience.
Ah well, as Twain once said, "Never blame on malice what you can explain with stupidity"
Beeber might be stuned, too. Without a coherent moose/cheese index it's hard to tell.
yes
See "Licit and Illicit Drugs", by the Editors of the Consumer's Union, an extremely well-sourced, and well-regarded academic resource. Without federal prodding, there would probably never have been state laws regarding marijuana--it was too far below the radar for anyone to be interested before the feds started looking for new crimes to invent.
Phohibition of possession wouldn't have been practical, since hemp was still commonly grown as a commodity crop. I shouldn't think it unreasonable to assume that there were some successful prosecutions and incarcerations for violations of those laws.
Medical marijuana was regarded as about the same as aspirin is now, until the mid 1920's. The really astonishing thing about this period, is that it required an amendment to the Constitution to ban alcohol, whose detrimental nature is plain, whereas to ban marijuana, all Anslinger had to do was make up a bunch of racist stories about how you "cain't stop them spics and nigras from raping white women while hyped up on Marijuana with a 45". And tell these stories to a Senate committee, which later reported these stories, and NOT the AMA's strong objections, to the full Senate before the vote. The transcript of these hearings is about the most unshamefully racist document to be produced by our government in the 20th century. The war on marijuana started with deeply fraudulant testimony, and has been maintained by fraudulant testimony ever since.
The deceptions started before the first testimony was even heard. Why name the bill the "Marijuana Tax Act" at a time when very few people had ever heard the term, but virtually everyone knew what "hemp" or "cannabis" were? If you want people to know what you're talking about, you refer to it by terms they are familiar with. The only reason to adopt terminology they are unfamiliar with to refer to something they are familiar with is if you have something to hide.
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.