The Government's Sick War on Marijuana

http://tx.mpp.org ^ | 7 21 06 | Jim Hightower

[freepatriot32]

Excuse me for a moment while I vent about the mind-boggling stupidity of the autocratic, bureaucratic, right-wing, Neanderthal numskulls who keep pushing an insane, inane, and inhumane holy war against marijuana – which is, after all, a weed.

The most embarrassing thing for these holy warriors is that the weed is winning! They've been at this war since 1937, spending billions and billions of our tax dollars, militarizing our borders, and stomping on our Bill of Rights. They've used phone taps, garbage searches, jackbooted raids, and draconian prison terms to ... well, to do what? To nab peaceful, mellow tokers who aren't bothering anyone, that's what.

Despite 60 years of spending our money, they've failed: 85% of Americans say marijuana is easy to obtain today, a third of our population says they've tried it, nearly 15 million people partake of it at least monthly – and more high school students now smoke marijuana than cigarettes!

Meanwhile, the holy warriors have become more fanatical and thuggish than ever. A marijuana arrest is made every 41 seconds in America – nine out of 10 of them for mere possession. In 2004, 772,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges – more than for all violent crimes combined.

Even sicker, the sanctimonious weed warriors have made it a crime for thousands of seriously sick people to get the medical benefits of using small amounts of doctor-prescribed marijuana. Weirdly, our doctors can prescribe cocaine for patients – but not marijuana. Worse, drug thugs from the DEA and FBI bust down the doors of these patients, seize their dosages ... and haul them to jail.

For information and action to stop this absurd war, call the Marijuana Policy Project: 202/462-5747.

[tpaine]

Hemingway's Ghost: "Freedom does not mean the right to jack it in public, nor would a Libertarian argue that it does."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Third request. How does your Libertarian justify a law agaist such behavior?

Because paulsen, if you were to persist in such behavior, in public, someone will come along and use 'undue' force, leaving you with a bloody stump. -- We libertarians don't think that's the right way to resolve the issue.

True. Then punish the breach of the peace (assuming, of course, that others are harmed).

You question that "others are harmed"?

Certainly you're not suggesting that we're justified in writing laws against any "offensive behavior" that may result in some breach of the peace.

Reasonable men can make reasonable regulations, under the US Constitution, -- that do not infringe on inalienable rights.

Why do you disagree with this concept paulsen?

[jmc813]

Excuse me for a moment while I vent about the mind-boggling stupidity of the autocratic, bureaucratic, right-wing, Neanderthal numskulls

I object to his use of the term "right wing", as the great majority of freepers agree with this guy.

[jmc813]

I make no bones about it, and I mean it very deeply: I really hate them.

That really is an unhealthy attitude.

[mugs99]

Great post!

[mugs99]

I wonder how many others out there are like me

Millions...Hate is very popular. We saw it with the Nazis and we see it now with the Muslims.
.

[mugs99]

Or they can exercise their freedom by moving to an unclaimed island where it is reasonable for them to substance abuse without dragging the whole of our society down with them.

Drug users are not dragging our society down, you are.
This war isn't about drugs and it never has been. It's about power. Those who support this insane drug war are are just using drugs as an excuse to attack the Constitution.

Just keep in mind that the right to self determination is not limited. If you can prohibit drugs you can prohibit anything including religion...and the law of unintended consequences gaurantees that religion will eventually be added to the list of banned behavior.
. .

[mugs99]

I used to smoke the evil weed

LOL...Sure you did.
.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

Menken had an edge, didn't he, Sir B.

Yup. That edgy, harsh, biting style to his commentary is why people still quote him today.

He reminds me of the proverbial guy on the stool at the end of the bar - who spouts off a few provocative statements, and once he has your attention and you actually consider what it is he is saying, you realize the guy is a crank and maybe even a nut.

Mencken was a follower of Nietzsche and was known as "the American Neitzsche." Not the type of philosophy one would think libertarians would be attracted to, but then again Mencken was all over the map with a lot of his comments.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

Enjoy...

Q: How many hippies does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: None, they don't screw in light bulbs, they screw in dirty sleeping bags.

Q: What's the difference between a hockey player and a hippie chick? A: Hockey players shower after three periods.

Q. How do you get a one armed hippie out of a tree? A. Pass him a joint

Q: What has long hair and looks good in red? A: A hippie on fire!

A hippie dies and goes to the Pearly Gates. St. Peter looks him up, and says, "I'm sorry, but you'll be going down to Hell." The hippie, astounded, peers through the gates and sees God walking in the distance. "God!" he says. "What gives? Remember that time I was stoned out of my mind? I saw you, and you said we'd be in Heaven together forever!" God thought for a minute, then said, "Oh yeah, but I was drunk."

[PAR35]

Posting an article is not qouting them (sic)

quote -Pronunciation Key (kwt)
v. quot·ed, quot·ing, quotes v. tr.
1. To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quote

Looks like to me your 'posted' article falls squarely within the definition of 'quote'

It's a shame, you were probably a bright kid with great promise before you got hooked on drugs.

[EricT.]

And, the condescension drips from your rant.

Not condescension, just the sober voice of a man who's been there and done that but grew up and quit.

[EricT.]

I did alot of stupid things when I was a young man. Do I need to list for you the ways I chemically altered my reality on a daily basis? Weed was just one item from a whole illegal smorgasbord I sampled from regularly. I thank God that I got out of that crap before it killed me or someone else.

[winston2]

Do I need to list for you the ways I chemically altered my reality on a daily basis?

But - if you would've had access to high quality cannabis like available today - would you have moved on to the other substances?

Moderation is nice!

[JTN]

LMAO!!!! What a road of clap! I used to smoke the evil weed, and I am still glad I never drived under it's influence. I could barely remember to put the icecream box back in the freezer, let alone what color light to stop at.

Actually, KeepUSfree is partly correct. There have been a few studies showing that marijuana does not significantly impair the ability to drive.

DUI Marijuana: Does Marijuana Impair Driving? Two federal government studies say no
Cannabis May Make You a Safer Driver Cannabis smokers tend to overrate their level of impairment and drive more cautiously
Alcohol impairs driving more than marijuana The above study was repeated a year later and came to the same conclusion.

[Know your rights]

I'm asking you how your Libertarian would be able to justify such a law based on the philosophy that laws should only constrain acts that harm another.

Where did you get the idea that libertarianism disallows only harm? Does libertarianism say I have to prove your trespassing harms me before chucking you off my property?

[winston2]

I'm curious - Do you think we need a war against U.S. citizens who enjoy cannabis?

Do you think it is a success?

Do you think cannabis use is dangerous compared to people speeding and committing other traffic violations?

Do you think the war against cannabis users is a moral issue, public health issue, revenue issue or other?

[Know your rights]

Laws restricting certain public behaviors are perfectly congruent with classic liberal political theory. I believe the philosophy that "laws should only constrain acts that harm another" is an overstatement of a basic principle, and should not be used as a practical basis for crafting law.

Where does classic liberal political theory draw the line between those public behaviors that may justly be restricted and those that may not?

[mugs99]

I thank God that I got out of that crap before it killed me or someone else.

LOL!
Eric, I've been around too long to believe your testimonial about the "Devil's Weed".

[an amused spectator]

This is one of the best "rants" that I've read on FR for quite a while - and I've read a few.

Excellent!

[Brucifer]

Excellent post. Unfortunately, I see that it brought out the Nazis, alkies, and nut jobs. It's embarassing to see how many fascists and just plain irrational losers vote for the same people I do.

I think many of these people want to keep marijuana illegal just so they can feel superior to somebody. Anybody. It must suck to be them. The government that governs least governs best.