Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pro-Pot Group Challenges Bush Marijuana Policy (BARF ALERT)
Focus On The Family | January 9, 2003 | David Brody

Posted on 01/09/2003 6:41:06 PM PST by Sparta

A pot-legalization group is taking on the White House over marijuana.

A group that wants to see marijuana legalized is angry with the Bush administration because they say the government is being too critical of pot.

The issue all started with a letter from Scott Burns, the deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control. In the letter, Burns told district attorneys across the country that they must better educate the public about marijuana use.

Keith Stroup, who heads up the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), claims the administration is going over the top suggesting that marijuana is the biggest drug threat in America.

"We're simply going to call them on this lie," Stroup said. "The Bush administration, for some reason, is in the process of ignoring the real drug problems we face and instead focusing their entire anti-drug apparatus on responsible marijuana smokers."

But Burns said it's time to get serious about the problem.

"It's something that the administration, I believe, has an obligation to talk about," Burns said.

He added that in some parts of the country heroin is the biggest problem. In other parts, it's cocaine. But the common thread is marijuana.

"We can't ignore marijuana," Burns said. "Sixty percent of the folks addicted to drugs in this country are using marijuana. If we don't talk about it and talk about it loudly, we're ignoring two-thirds of the problem."

As for his letter to prosecutors to raise awareness about marijuana, he said the response has been sobering.

"I've received calls from prosecutors all across the country who have said, 'I didn't know,' " Burns said.

That is precisely the reason for the letter: to make sure everyone knows that the problem is getting worse every day.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News
KEYWORDS: libertarians4drugs; narcoanarchists; statists; whatfourthamendment; willlieforfood; willprosecuteforfood; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-312 next last

"We can't ignore marijuana," Burns said. "Sixty percent of the folks addicted to drugs in this country are using marijuana. If we don't talk about it and talk about it loudly, we're ignoring two-thirds of the problem."

How many of those people are using alcohol Mr. Burns? Should we ban alcohol too?

BTW: Who are Focus On The Family?(sarcasm)

1 posted on 01/09/2003 6:41:06 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sparta
But Burns said it's time to get serious about the problem.

It is time to get serious about getting the Federal Government in compliance with the constitution. They have no constitutional authority to ban drugs at all.

It is time to get serious about the government not lying to our youth. Every time some DARE policeman tells a class that all drugs are deadly and draws no distinction between Marijuana and the hard stuff, he sets up some kids for a fall. They see that the adults are lying to them as soon as one of their friends uses Marijuana with no consequences. The next logical step is that it is all a lie and the whole drug thing is just a bunch of puritans who don't want anyone to have any fun. Next step-hard drugs, courtesy of the drug warriors.

2 posted on 01/09/2003 6:48:12 PM PST by Mike4Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD


3 posted on 01/09/2003 6:48:39 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Sixty percent of the folks addicted to drugs in this country are using marijuana.

Perhaps sixty percent of the people in drug treatment are using marijuana. But EVERYBODY in drug treatment for marijuana is there because a court ordered them to go when they got busted for pot possession. Nobody needs treatment to quit smoking pot. If somebody wants to stop smoking pot, they just stop smoking pot.

So basically, the government forces people to seek treatment they don't need, and then cite the number of people in treatment as evidence of a problem.

And it is evidence of a problem - the problem is the war on drugs.

4 posted on 01/09/2003 6:50:29 PM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
A pot-legalization group is taking on the White House over marijuana.

Idiot potheads.

5 posted on 01/09/2003 7:23:52 PM PST by Texas Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
Thank you! I agree. As the other poster mentioned...how many are using alcohol?? Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs around. The only difference is it is abitrarily legal. Alcohol causes more physical damage to the body and brain than most other "street" drugs. It also causes more violence than most other "street" drugs.
6 posted on 01/09/2003 7:25:16 PM PST by JanineC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Idiot potheads

Great arguement. I'm convinced.
7 posted on 01/09/2003 7:40:43 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Texas turkey. I hope NORML prevails and to help them along I just paypaled them $50.00. It's time to stop this insanity. We have other VERY series problems in this Country without wasting peoples lives over marijuana. Tax it, and cut our income and or payroll taxes.
8 posted on 01/09/2003 8:06:21 PM PST by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Shame on you! Don't offend our Free Republic narcoanarchists! </sarc>
9 posted on 01/09/2003 8:10:22 PM PST by unspun (For a good time, spot Libertarian seminar posters & recruiters. They want to bring down the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motzman
Find a forum.
10 posted on 01/09/2003 8:11:39 PM PST by unspun (For a good time, spot Libertarian seminar posters & recruiters. They want to bring down the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
Mike4Freedom sez Dop iz gud 4 U.
11 posted on 01/09/2003 8:14:20 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dead
We must remember that these programs are big money. Good buddy of mine, with bad luck, has participated in every program Kalifornia has to offer. Anger management, Alcohol School etc... It's all about additional tax dollars and campaign contributions. Fact of the matter is the teachers of these programs are employed because they needed a job and are seriously worse off, addictively speaking, that 90% of the students. The other 10% should be serving time.
12 posted on 01/09/2003 8:19:21 PM PST by davisdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Found one; been here a lot longer than you.
13 posted on 01/09/2003 8:20:32 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: motzman
How many recruits have you gotten, so far?
14 posted on 01/09/2003 8:24:53 PM PST by unspun (For a good time, spot Libertarian seminar posters & recruiters. They want to bring down the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Hey, I've converted quite a number of Dems to the GOP.

How bout you?
15 posted on 01/09/2003 8:25:48 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: motzman
You'll have a difficult time converting the GOP into the Constitutional Right to own Narcotics and be Stoned party.
16 posted on 01/09/2003 8:29:42 PM PST by unspun (For a good time, spot Libertarian seminar posters & recruiters. They want to bring down the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: motzman
Or does GOP to you mean, Ginsberg, O'Leary & Panthers?
17 posted on 01/09/2003 8:31:15 PM PST by unspun (For a good time, spot Libertarian seminar posters & recruiters. They want to bring down the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: unspun
You'll have a difficult time converting the GOP into the Constitutional Right to own Narcotics and be Stoned party.

Who's trying to do that? The GOP and The Dems are wrong on this issue, that's all.

So hostile....
18 posted on 01/09/2003 8:31:41 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Or does GOP to you mean, Ginsberg, O'Leary & Panthers?

Who's "O'Leary"?.....Or maybe you mean Timothy Leary? Oh, yeah-he's my idol.

Next slander, please.
19 posted on 01/09/2003 8:35:39 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
He never said that. He was just saying that DARE is engaging in outright lying and exaggeration of the dangers of marijuana. Everyone knows pot is harmful to the smoker, but causes no harm to others and you can make the arguement that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana.
20 posted on 01/09/2003 8:44:54 PM PST by Sparta (Statism is a mental illness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: motzman
I'm hostile to Libertarians' goal of transforming the USA into the NSA, the Narcotic State of America, dissipating our country's minds and our freedom to govern.
21 posted on 01/09/2003 8:48:24 PM PST by unspun ("Constitutional right to own ricin, C4, smallpox & plutonium" - Libertarian-think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
You are sinking. You don't even bother to attempt cogent arguments anymore. Is it all just emotional masturbation for you now since you have lost the debate here on FR, and you will be losing it in the country at large soon?

Locking people up at $35,000 a year for using another chemical other than alcohol might just bug people more now since the economy is tanking.

Lay off a cop, or keep two stoners in jail... decisions, decisions.

22 posted on 01/09/2003 8:51:04 PM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
"I've received calls from prosecutors all across the country who have said, 'I didn't know,' " Burns said.

Wouldn't want to lose those federal matching highway funds. That great 'un-zipping' sound is that of the various states DAs whose manhoods rest precariously in the hands of some Fed bureaucrat. "Got-em-by-the-balls" is an understatement.

"Turn your head and cough".

23 posted on 01/09/2003 8:52:41 PM PST by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
I'm hostile to Libertarians' goal of transforming the USA into the NSA, the Narcotic State of America, dissipating our country's minds and our freedom to govern.

That's not the goal of the Libertarians. Lying about those who disagree with you shows you don't believe in your arguements.

Can't you do any better?
24 posted on 01/09/2003 8:53:13 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: motzman
Who's "O'Leary"?.....Or maybe you mean Timothy Leary? Oh, yeah-he's my idol. Next slander, please.

Right. Please pardon my mistake, it was Leary, not O'Leary. Leary, Allen Ginsberg, the Black Panthers, those are our "conservatives" favoring the legalization of drugs.

25 posted on 01/09/2003 8:54:57 PM PST by unspun ("Constitutional right to own ricin, C4, smallpox & plutonium" - Libertarian-think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: unspun
There are many conservatives who are for re-legalizing mj.

William F. Buckley for one.

I can't think of any prominent Democrat "leader" that favors legalizing mj.

So using you're logic, if you favor the WOD, you're just as likely to be a Dem than a Rep.

Don't you have any interesting arguements?
26 posted on 01/09/2003 8:59:25 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: motzman; Sparta
I understand that this is from the Libertarian Party Web site. This is what Libertarian-think gets:

June 20, 2002

Libertarians launch “spoiler strategy” to unseat five of Congress’ worst drug warriors

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Libertarian Party has targeted five of the worst drug warriors in Congress for defeat in November to prove that the public is turning against the War on Drugs.

"Especially in the wake of September 11, most Americans oppose using police resources to arrest marijuana smokers," said Ron Crickenberger, Libertarian Party political director. "When it comes to reforming our nation's drug laws, these five politicians are way out of the mainstream - and we want them to be out of a job in November."

The five federal incumbents - three Republicans and two Democrats – targeted for defeat are Rep. Bob Barr, R-GA; Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-TX; Sen. Max Cleland, D-GA; Sen. Tim Hutchison, R-AR; and Sen. Max Baucus, D-MT.

The Libertarians' weapon will be the "spoiler strategy," which involves siphoning enough votes from the incumbent in a close race to cause them to lose to their Democratic or Republican opponent, Crickenberger explained. The goal is to scare other House and Senate members into backing away from their support for the War on Drugs.

"Of course, our primary goal as a political party is to run candidates and get them elected," Crickenberger said. "But having the worst drug warriors go down at the hands of the Libertarian Party will show that it is politically dangerous for sitting Congressmen to oppose drug reform measures."

The five were selected according to three criteria, said Crickenberger:
First, they had to be one of the worst in Congress on the drug issue, as measured by the number of pro-Drug War bills they have sponsored; second, they had to be in a tight race, so the Libertarian Party will have a reasonable chance to affect the outcome; third, they had to be running in a state or Congressional district where LP candidates have run effective races in past years.

"The Libertarian Party expects to spend up to $100,000 in direct candidate contributions and coordinated expenditures on advertising," said Crickenberger. "The targeted advertisements will focus on one aspect of the drug-reform agenda that has broad public support: Medical marijuana."

As evidence, he cited two polls:

* In a November 2001 poll commissioned by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), 61% of respondents said they opposed arresting and jailing nonviolent pot smokers due to the increased threat of terrorism since September 11.

* In a March 2002 Pew Research Center/Gallup poll, 73% of voters support the medical use of marijuana with a doctor's prescription.

"We're going to convince voters in these districts that a vote for the incumbent is a vote to continue to arrest pot smokers while terrorists are on the loose," Crickenberger said.

"Ordinary Americans understand that arresting and jailing marijuana smokers makes no sense, but the political extremists in Congress just don't get it. The Republicans and Democrats that we have targeted are hopelessly addicted to the War on Drugs - and we intend to make them go cold turkey in November."
27 posted on 01/09/2003 9:00:38 PM PST by unspun (Americans have the freedom to legislate and to govern, says the 10th Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: unspun
and no, George Soros is not a "Democratic leader"...
28 posted on 01/09/2003 9:01:04 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Doctor James Dobson lost me when he came out with a pitiless line about drugs and cannabis in particular. He "focuses on the family", but tears it apart trying to enforce by man's law an ethic he thinks will keep it together.

Assinine. If you're so blinded by God that you break His law doing good, then maybe good is not what you're doing, and maybe it isn't God that's blinding you.

29 posted on 01/09/2003 9:03:24 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motzman
Let's get off the false alternative of "WOD" or "Freedom to Be Stoned." I'm not in favor of abuse of the 4th Amendment. However, we have the freedom to govern.
30 posted on 01/09/2003 9:03:57 PM PST by unspun (Americans have the freedom to legislate and to govern, says the 10th Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Well, I agree with the Libertarians on this issue. Drug Warriors need to go. We have many other far more pressing issues to deal with it.
31 posted on 01/09/2003 9:05:27 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Have you ever studied the origins of mj criminalization?

Maybe you should...you wouldn't want to be associated with the criminals that rammed that nonsense through congress.
32 posted on 01/09/2003 9:07:28 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: motzman
Lets have narcotics dispensers next to Lotto ticket machines! It would be another great source of tax revenue!
Narc out the nation!
33 posted on 01/09/2003 9:08:41 PM PST by unspun (The People have the freedom to legislate against narcotics, says the 10th Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: motzman
Quayle has come out for legalization also. Also, many conservative commentators are for relegalizing also.
34 posted on 01/09/2003 9:09:17 PM PST by Sparta (Statism is a mental illness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: unspun
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.(Tenth Ammendment)

Seems the states may place restrictions as the Feds have no jurisdiction. And if the States fail to address the issue, then it falls to the indivuduals.

35 posted on 01/09/2003 9:16:31 PM PST by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.(Tenth Ammendment)

Seems the states may place restrictions as the Feds have no jurisdiction. And if the States fail to address the issue, then it falls to the indivuduals.

Thank you, bud! I've been worrying about many Freepers' ability to read. I'm glad that your eyes and mind aren't impaired.

36 posted on 01/09/2003 9:25:45 PM PST by unspun (The People have the freedom to legislate against narcotics, says the 10th Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Umm...I don't think bud was agreeing with you there...
37 posted on 01/09/2003 9:30:07 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Everyone knows pot is harmful to the smoker, but causes no harm to others and you can make the arguement that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana.

Are you sure that everyone knows pot is harmful or have you fallen prey to WOSD propoganda?

38 posted on 01/09/2003 9:32:42 PM PST by UnBlinkingEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: motzman
M, I don't mean to cast personal insults, please pardon if I have.

A bit of cannabis possession shouldn't bring a prison sentence, but it clearly should be penalized, since it is concomitant with supporting an economy in impairing, intoxicating and debilitating people accross the spectrum and society as a whole (and would also be, if legal).

Why are so many people in FreeRepublic.com so interested in augmenting the use of narcotics? Incredible.

39 posted on 01/09/2003 9:33:32 PM PST by unspun (The People have the freedom to legislate against narcotics, says the 10th Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: UnBlinkingEye
I said only to the person smoking it. The harm to society is little to none without the laws.
40 posted on 01/09/2003 9:34:52 PM PST by Sparta (Statism is a mental illness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: unspun
"(and would also be, if legal)." -- much more so.

Many more deaths due to alcohol since prohibition.
Enormous burgeoning of abortion since its legalization.
Just imagine the American market in legal narcotics....
41 posted on 01/09/2003 9:37:03 PM PST by unspun (The People have the freedom to legislate against narcotics, says the 10th Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dead
So basically, the government forces people to seek treatment they don't need, and then cite the number of people in treatment as evidence of a problem.

What is wrong with you? You make government sound like a collection of power mad control freaks. Everyone knows that the Constitution protects us from a criminal ruling class.

And it is evidence of a problem - the problem is the war on drugs.

I suggest the WOSD is only a symptom, the problem is out of control governance.

42 posted on 01/09/2003 9:44:49 PM PST by UnBlinkingEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom; Kevin Curry

Liberals think like that, too. They also claim that people are all hapless victims of an oppressive, unjust society, and are bereft of personal responsibility for their actions. But we conservatives disagree with you.

43 posted on 01/09/2003 9:46:26 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: unspun
M, I don't mean to cast personal insults, please pardon if I have

I didn't think you were--no need to apologize; it's not like you're VaAdvogado or something...(lol)

A bit of cannabis possession shouldn't bring a prison sentence, but it clearly should be penalized, since it is concomitant with supporting an economy in impairing, intoxicating and debilitating people accross the spectrum and society as a whole (and would also be, if legal).

Then how can alcohol possibly be legal? It does all of the things you describe, only much, much, worse. Prohibition was a disaster. Drug prohibition is even worse. Prohibition is the only way to ensure that everyone suffers due to the vices of a few.

Why are so many people in FreeRepublic.com so interested in augmenting the use of narcotics? Incredible.

Because it is a violation of personal rights. It is also a tremendous waste of resources (personnel and money). And it is a catalyst for corruption.

Seems to me your arguement is against the bad behavior that some drug abusers (include alcohol in that) engage in. I have no tolerance for drunken driving or public intoxication, but I'm not looking to re-enact prohibition.

And we'd probably agree that the welfare state contributes to drug abuse by giving the irresponsible a means to avoid the consequences of their bad behavior. It's no coincedence that the "Drug Laws" started around the time of the New Deal, and that the "War on Drugs" was accelerated when "The Great Society" was enacted.

Notice, there was no "Drug Problem" prior to the welfare state...there's a connection there that most miss.

Good thread!
44 posted on 01/09/2003 9:49:01 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
Im currently a Sophomore in High School. And the kids I hang out with are "burnouts/hoodlums". And I can tell you now that quite a few kids have tried pot. It is bad for you, DARE tried to get that through our heads. It worked with me, but not some of the others. I think its safe to say that everyone, including kids have experimented with pot. Been like that for years. My old man did back in the day of KISS and AC/DC and whatnot... It'll just run in circles.


I am opposed to pot however because it provides the neccesary funds for terrorists to purchase weapons of OUR destruction. Dont forget that Afghanistan NOW is the one of the biggest (If not THE biggest) supplier of Opium in the world.

In the end, if you support anti-prohibition rights, you'll just be another victim of terrorism, dragging other "innocents" down with you as well.

I'm not tryin to come off as a jerk or nothin, but.. I dont like giving Bin Laden money so he can build palaces and buy plutonium
45 posted on 01/09/2003 9:53:09 PM PST by Hobo anonymous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Many more deaths due to alcohol since prohibition. Enormous burgeoning of abortion since its legalization. Just imagine the American market in legal narcotics....

These are interesting points; let's examine them...

1) Many more deaths due to alcohol since prohibition

But far fewer deaths due to "bad moonshine" and "bathtub gin". And I'd suspect that much of the increase since prohibition has been due to the incredible increase in automobiles and miles driven. But would you advocate alcohol Prohibition?

2)Enormous burgeoning of abortion since its legalization

I agree with you there, but I don't think that there were all these women who wanted to get abortions but didn't because it was against the law. The murderous boom in abortions was due to our media culture glorifying it, and fooling women into believing that murdering their unborn children was some sort of statement of "liberation".

3)Just imagine the American market in legal narcotics.

I've never met anyone who didn't use "drugs" because they were illegal. I know people that don't use "drugs" out of fear of being incarcerated, losing their jobs, or both. Laws are not meant to control our behavior, they're meant to protect our rights. If drugs were legal, you would not have to use them. No harm to you. But since they are illegal, not personally using them is not the only protection you have from them--people steal, rob, and shoot each other over "drugs" because they are illegal, and hence, extremely profitable. This puts even non-drug users at risk. Plus, deaths due to "bad drugs" would practically dissappear overnight.

If you're worried about a nation of non-working zombies due to drug legalization, you're really arguing against Socialism, the real culprit. In fact I only support mj legalization for that very reason. Legalizing the rest while still having a welfare state could be disasterous.

There's no easy answer to this, but I sure know that what we're doing now isn't working, and is immoral...


...and you didn't think I was a Republican..(LOL)
46 posted on 01/09/2003 10:07:18 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hobo anonymous
I am opposed to pot however because it provides the neccesary funds for terrorists to purchase weapons of OUR destruction. Dont forget that Afghanistan NOW is the one of the biggest (If not THE biggest) supplier of Opium in the world.

Hmmm. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but Marijuana is not the same thing as Opium. Two completely different plants.

Fact: Opium is used to produce heroin. Yes, the Taliban (and through them, Al Queda) did make quite a bit of money from heroin. So have many terrorist groups in southeast Asia.

Fact: Marijuana is not used to make heroin. Or crack (that's made from Cocaine.) Are there any terrorist groups that make money from Marijuana? Not really. There are some South American left wing revolutionary groups that have some farmers growing some...but they can make so much more from Cocaine, so that is the crop of choice.

Don't believe every commercial you see on TV. Or maybe you think SUV's support terrorists: (See the man buy an SUV. See him fill it at the gas station. See the gas come from an oil company. See the oil company buy the oil from Saudi Arabia. See the Saudis take the money from the oil company and use it to pay off Al Queda.) Same logic. If you buy the one, you ought to be a sucker for the other.

47 posted on 01/09/2003 10:07:55 PM PST by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Hobo anonymous
Your hearts in the right place but Bin Laden and his friends have nothing to do with pot, the vast majority of that is made in the good 'ol USA now. You should be more concerned with oil if you're worried about funding terrorists.

I'm not interested in changing our lifestyles at all. I am interested in killing every single terrorist scumbag infecting the world today. I had the personal displeasure of watching those towers fall from my perch here in Northern NJ. Yet, there are many so-called "Americans" that are using our current situation to advance there devious agendas. Be very aware of this, at all times!.

Terrorists will always find money for there evil plans. The point is to wipe them out, and leave clear message to any others who might think of attacking us.

Study hard and keep active!
48 posted on 01/09/2003 10:21:12 PM PST by motzman ("Looney Insightful Linguist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Smart potheads.
49 posted on 01/09/2003 11:00:08 PM PST by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hobo anonymous
I dont like giving Bin Laden money so he can build palaces and buy plutonium.

bin Laden made his money in construction in Saudi Arabia. Most U.S. consumed pot is now U.S. grown.

50 posted on 01/09/2003 11:15:52 PM PST by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-312 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson