Marijuana: A Chronic History
The fight against drug use in America has been going on since the turn of the last century but the term War on Drugs only became part of our national dialog in 1970 when it was first used by President Richard Nixon.
The President later formed the DEA and started a push to outlaw drugs of all kinds. Among the most discussed drugs in this war is Marijuana.
This special will look at the storied and strange history of Marijuana in America. Probably one of the better documentaries, mostly seems pro-cannabis and by far the most pro-cannabis documentary thus far released by the History Channel.
The documentary attempts to educate everyone who still has a Reefer Madness mindset, who still thinks cannabis prohibition is reasonable, and who have no idea that widespread cannabis use is relatively harmless compared to alcohol, tobacco, and especially pharmaceutical and other drugs.
Can I purchase Marijuana: A Chronis History ? Where ?
We are now in 2017 and much has changed. The history of cannabis is much more colorful and farther reaching than described in this show. Much has been learned since 2010 medically, economically, environmentally and recreational with both industrial and high THC versions of the plant. Statistically its perhaps one of the safest and most useful substances on the planet. This broadcast should not be labeled as "new". Recent renewed vigor of our newly appointed Attorney General and the drug war proves legalization is a threat against an endless supply of criminals for privatized prisons and a way to create a reason to fuel lies and fears with our tax money - it is more apparent then ever as more and more states continue to legalize for its benefits. Demonizing this plant is not the answer.
COME ON HISTORY CHANNEL!!
this, "Marijuana" show is from 2010.
It's mid 2016 and legal in some states!
UPDATE IT u JITZU'S
Cannabis tourism is indeed a thing... I could not believe I found a cannabis airbnb... Hundreds of listings around the globe called:budandbreakfast.com Its a whole new world!
What happened to part 1? It automatically jumps to part 2. :(
Aw s*it, american prime time is getting in on the weed doco action. Queue the ridiculous effects, cruddy music and irritating movie trailer voices. Ah well, twas too good to last.
I am offended that I have lived in a state that marijuana is illegal. For 75 years I have been deprived of the potential benefit of hemp and marijuana. In a free society I should have been able to make that choice. Hopefully my grandchildren will experience choice on what plants to consume.
You've got some catching up to do! :)
It is legal in my state and I am still afraid to get the license that I need to use and grow it.
it is a false stereotype to say Christians are against marijuana. I am a Christian & I am for the legalization of marijuana! It is a herb that God gave us.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
The problem isn't that ALL Christians are against Pot being legalized. It is true though that Christians tend to have the biggest mouth making the biggest fool out of the anti-pot laws. Most people hear Christians fighting and tune it out because chances are they are fools making a fool out of themselves. I remember what I was taught in the churches and schools, the false stuff spread. I remember being the person screaming how bad it was........ UNTIL I FINALLY DID IT!! Then it was like, I was lied to all these years. Then you get into the questions like "If I have been told that this is so bad, and it's not, how about the other drugs that I have been told are so bad?". The fact is that the worst enemy to Christians, are themselves, because once you start spouting off Christian ****, EVERYONE TUNES OUT!!
I don't recall having a big anti-marijuana push as a private school student in the 70's. My grandmother would pop pills and profess an anti-marijuana message - mostly propaganda. I didn't see the Bible really anti-marijuana, per se, but no doubt has been misconstrued to vilify a relatively harmless drug.
what can i say about marijuana? HELL FUKIN YEA!!!!
marijuana isnt just a way of life, its starting to become a religion, taxing marijuana is not right, and keeping it illegal is just blaspemus against my beliefs and many others, christians did not like it when it was illegal to be christian, and got killed for it, and now that it is legal christian religion makes billions of dollars a year, they dont pay taxes, they recieve taxes wich is not right you should not need to pay for your beliefs,
"Hey how am I driving, man?", "I think we're parked."
hahahhaha, Cheech & Chong ,cool man cool :)
The fact that they use comedians/actors as people for marijuana use just discredits the pro argument. These people are not any more qualified than anyone else and for the most part are a bunch of idiots.
The war on weed is an outrage. Nixon had it all wrong when he tried to stop the use,cultivation,and distribiution of weed. The prisons and jails are overcrowed due to maraijuna offences that are considered criminal!! I have smoked weed myself and I know for a fact that there is nothing criminal about getting high. The problem comes in when money is being made off it and people get greedy. If weed were to be made legal, then the earning potential would be limitless. I would totally support the idea of the government making profit off of it cause that help everyone in the long run. Just think of the problems tha would be solved just by legalizing weed. here are some examples: Crime rate would go down tremendously, Money could be made to stimulte the economy, teens would no longer need to lie to there parents about it. Soooooo much money could be made from it. I think more should be done towards getting weed legal so America can reap the finicial benefits from it. I will be thinkng on ways to do just that.
i have problem understanding cops in here, jez they are dumb...
Our leaders are still fighting amongst themselves on how to balance the budget. The government is so slow and lame, they still continue to push an Impeached Presidents 1970 Drug Laws on Marijana. Yet $600 BILLION DOLLARS has been wasted on trying to eradicate a weed since NIXON. This president is still costing taxpayers money. All these COWBOY (want to be) Weed Whackers are costing taxpayers over $13 BILLION DOLLARS Annually!
I say that if we cut out these gungho programs instead of cutting out the important ones our country would not be in this shape. It could tax marijana and probably make back double the $13 BILLION DOLLARS Annually! These Vietnam type helecopter patrols that swarm our country hunting for weeds are not only costly, but also scares the hell out of the Wildlife that roam our forest.
Cannabis prohibition is stupid and has a 1960's mindset, and our government still has no idea that widespread cannabis use is relatively harmless compared to alcohol, tobacco, and especially pharmaceutical and other drugs. Nixon's lame history and last century's Reefer Madness mindset should be abolished as a stupid waste of time and money!
I was thinking the same thing when I watched this. It all kinda stems back to Nixon's ideas and what kind of credibility did he really have?
"We are the priests..."
(cool one, man!)
Couldn't tell if the dumb blonde with ignorance spilling out of her mouth or the vice president of Californians police chief's was more naive. Other than that, great movie with non biased, enlightening information.
I don't use pot because I had a bad reaction to it in 2000, BUT I still don't believe it should be illegal. I want to drink bleach, or eat dung beetles, how does that harm anybody. Laws should ONLY be based on protecting others from harm, not for protecting an individual from potentially harming himself. Its so stupid to put people in jail for consuming a plant that some idiot, like the blonde in the doc, thinks is bad for us. In believe its Holland,where pot was essentially legalized, that young people consume less pot than their American counterparts do where it is illegal. Look how much problems were created from the prohibition of alcohol: The goodie-two-shoe war didn't work then, and this goodie-two-shoe war won't work either. If you don't want your children to swear, then don't swear in front of them. If you don't want your children to drink, then don't drink. I you don't want your children to smoke, then you shouldn't smoke. But why the hell do you think you should be able to dictate your morals, beliefs, and insane, warped ideals that have no sound scientific corroboration, onto the general public, and thus denying adults the freedom to choose what they put into their bodies? And these same individuals are naive enough to proclaim that they live in a free and democratic country? That's like the fisherman saying to the fish that he doesn't need water to breathe because he knows what is best for him.
if any congessman (woman) reads this and I get shot next day... or if they make profit of my assumption and I do not get credit... we'll see.
Promote the industry of Hemp, (Canabis sativa) IT IS NO DRUG. You can make ropes, tissue, cloth, wood etc. from it. THE POLEN WILL CONTAMINATE THE MARIGUANA, ( Canabis indicus) and pot for smoking, will be only be possibly obtainded from very careful farmers
That skinny blonde with all the maekup on is a f***ing moron. Everything that came out of her mouth was bulls***. I mean REALLY stupid. She says it's a "dangerous, poisonous drug", that the portugal model wouldn't work here because we are a "super power"9wtf does THAT have to do with anything?", then she sais everyone in america is intelligent and respectable. For 1 that's simply not true, and for two, that's like saying everyone in portugal is an inbred retard. She shouldn't have even had a spot in this doc. ACTUALLY, maybe she should, cause she just helps the cause by making the reefer madness freaks look even dumber.
Hi, I am an ignorant American and I believe the propaganda from 1914-1967 handed down from our grandparents that destroyed a renewable resource, a medicine and a cash crop that our Country was founded on and ran off of for 175 years, but was made illegal because of discrimination of blacks and Hispanics. Wake up America! There is a difference between Marijuana and Hemp. Marijuana is excellent to get someone on 12 different drugs down to 2-3 and Hemp can be used to make over 35,000 different industrial products...
if you exempt medical marijuana from the fact, then there is no plausible way, well yeah if i exempt the fact that i am able to breath righ now, there no evidence to say i will be able to breath tomorrow. why are these anti-marijuana people so dumb?
whats the name of the "nip it in the bud" woman, because she has to be the most ignroant close minded, idiotic person i have ever had the displeasure of hearing speak.
I have been forced into Alcohol adiction, because most ALL companys will not hire you, If you smoke weed? So I will die young due to liver disease, So I can keep my job.... Thank America, Land of the FREE???? Yea right
if anything that caused any kind of addiction was illigal these legal things would also be illigal: alcohol, cigarettes, any kind of food, sex, video games, movies, televison, any kind of entertainment whatsoever, or any kind of fun, because anything that causes dopamine to go to the brain, causes an addiction.
id also like to point out, im pretty high right now
If marijuana is criminal then so is stupidity. We don't yet have enough jails.
I smoked pretty much every day for about 6 months and had been smoking a few times a week for about a year before that. I must say when I stopped I did find my mind became clear again and my brain worked faster. My memory began to improve pretty quickly too. Saying that I still smoke once a week and could function fine when I was still smoking a lot. It should not be illegal
Marijuana is awesome
I have smoked marijuana every day for a year. It has made no mental / physical effect on me. I work 40 - 50 hours a week in retail so it is a great way for me to unwind and really relax after a tough work shift. I take it in my room, lie down late at night and watch random shit on my laptop. What harm am I possibly doing?
It has been proven that cannabis is a cure for asthma.
There have never been any cannabis related deaths (drinking is a different story)
FREEEEE DE HURBBBBB!
you poor traumatized animal... j/k lol
a fine for ingesting a herb in my own body is unacceptable and criminal.
especially from a bunch of alcoholic cops.. they should just mind their own business and chase after real criminals
Canabis should stay illegal but just be decriminalized. The Gov would make money and if you enjoy smoking the herb like i do then a fine for being caught with it is a risk we can take.
So in the US cannabis is schedule 1 and coke and Crystal Meth are schedule 2, also PCP wtf?
Makes no sense at all?
That blond from nip it in the bud, "well in europe they may smoke it but americans are smart, sophisticated, etc etc" i can't remember exactly but bloody piss take none the less!
that woman is an embarassment, she speaks with no knowlege of the subject, excuses obvious fact, and why is she wearing so much make up? i think she made everyone on the anti-marijuana side look bad by being so ignorant.
Whatever I just don't have the energy. I don't think you are right, but majority rules. So get it done if you can. All this could of, would of, should of, doesn't matter anyway- what matters is "is". And this "is" the end. Have a good day.
its strange to me how people hate on businesses and the free market, but cheer for the government and claim it needs more power.
the government is just another business or service provider.. with one exception. they can and do use violence to achieve their ends.
there is nothing the government does that cannot be done by any other business, again with the exception that people will actually have to pay those businesses voluntarily as opposed to threatened to pay or else...
we can avoid all the problems and inefficiencies that arise through reliance on government, if our service providers actually had to work for our money and fight off competition from all angles.. but alas, we have this giant company (the government) that is supposed to service us, but instead has more money than we who put it in power do.
its like a super-walmart that comes to your house, shoves a gun in your face, takes half your money, then sends you whatever they feel you need and call it "the common good".
"if you don't like it, you can vote, try to become a manager, or just leave"
'How would you like to travel two hundred miles and find out that in this state you don’t own ....."
well, the thing is today we have internet and worldwide communications, so i'm sure we can know conditions in a localized area before we travel there. same reason i dont travel to places like Iraq or send my wife to Afghanistan wearing short shorts, knowing she might get acid thrown at her.. a communal/irrational/violent society cannot keep that a secret for too long, and without governments enforcing borders and laws to keep their people caged in, would probably lose support & citizens to the more capitalistic and rational societies pretty quickly.
" .. states and local governments need more power ... we also need a central power to organize efforts ...."
not at all, this has been thoroughly refuted for over a century (maybe even longer). communities of independent people coordinate and manage very complex situations without the need for a central power to kidnap them if they don't get in line.
I am all for self defense and believe in using force to defend myself and my property when necessary, but the fact is that the common defense (military industrial complex) you refer to is not doing this but instead is turning their guns on the same people they are supposed to protect (and creating enemies/chaos around the world). what we have is force being used to simply achieve a small group of individuals' interests at the expense of millions of people's life liberty and property. It would be easy for a voluntary society to establish means to protect itself and its citizens without also contradicting its very purpose and aggressing against those same citizens for money.
"until you can answer everyone of those complicated questions, no one is going to pay you any attention accept others that are too simple to understand how complicated this world is"
Again, not at all.. anarchy is the humble and realistic approach to complex social problems, because the whole premise is an admittance that the world is too complex for one person (or small group of people) to pretend they have the answers and go around shooting people who don't agree with them.
even a majority rule society is blatantly illogical and leads to insurmountable problems because as we all know the majority is not always correct, and often a small minority have the real solution, but with a mob rule society, that minority has to suffer and work at great lengths to ever impact any change, which ultimately "harms" the whole society.
My whole premise is that we (me, you, governments) cannot & will never know how best to organize society and its utterly arrogant to force people (no matter how few) to bend to our ideas of what society should be like. basic economics principles of supply and demand apply here, which is to say, what the people really need, can and will be provided voluntarily if they really want this service, not whether they say/vote that they want it, but if they actually put their money where their mouth is. this is irregardless how few or how many people want this, the market will respond to that demand nonetheless, so long as no one is getting hurt (directly and tangibly, not hypothetically or their feelings).
a voluntary society will still defend its members (individuals) through violence if necessary, but differs greatly from what we have now because violence will not be the norm, nor will it be used simply to achieve personal, political and ideological goals.
did you ever take a look at the ludwig von mises institute or do a google search from freedomainradio . com ? you will find a growing number of experts and professionals who agree with this perspective and who have actually proposed many solutions to what you think cannot be achieved without using force.
yes indeed.. i do agree with your last portion and did state myself that the system we have may be the best in the world up to now, but i also cannot ignore the logical contradictions that come with saying things like..
"People lust for power and will do what ever they think they can get away with to get what they want including murder and torture" but then insist that the solution is to create an organization that can justifiably use violence to achieve its ends. I think this is the reason why governments always get bigger and governments always end up collapsing, because you create a "legal" entity that allows all the crazy violent people to act out their ish without any social recourse.
If you are right about your assertions concerning the majority of society and people, then it is also a logical contradition to assume a majority rule system will result in anything better than what we have. can you see the logical contradictions.
social security is one aspect of taxation which is forced upon me and my employers. maybe it has some good aspects to it, but the truth is we have no choice whether to participate or not and this within itself kills any hope of actually improving on it or creating a much better alternative.
income taxes are not voluntary and business owners have to turn over some 10% of their sales to govt or face getting shut down forcibly. properties are taxed at purchase and throughout ownership at the risk of getting taken from you. i could go on and on... but I know it is not voluntary.
I already made a few posts to you in regards to how and why companies would standardize and have an incentive to refrain from secrecy in an open and competitive market, because the competition can exploit any perceived wrong or threat to individuals to increase their sales or takeover business. businesses like airlines and phone companies standardize because they can thus provide a better product and remain in business, for if they don't, without any government protections, other businesses will start-up and create that standard and most customers will pay more for reliability and global service.
"so your stance is that we should be made by force to help and “care” for each other? am I correct?"
No, you are not correct. I think that people by their very nature do not plan ahead, do not disciplin themselves when it comes to dangerous drugs and so forth, are selfish and look after not just their needs but the excess they think they need. They will do this at the cost of bringing down a whole nation and hurting their neighbors. People lust for power and will do what ever they think they can get away with to get what they want including murder and torture, whether it be for material gain or to advance some ideaology they think is right. If we had no law and no government we would soon have mayhem and rampant violence resulting in mass fear. We would have religious nuts out killing in the name of thier so called god and inforcing some rigid morality they believe in. We have much of this happening right now, while we have laws and goevernment in place trying to hold it at check.
I agree that the system is horrible right now, we are over taxed and overly controlled. We are manipulated and lied to constantly. Media has been bought and paid for so we never really get the truth and our attention is constantly drawn to the wrong things purposely. I am not blind nor am a patriot.
But the wrong thing to do is to let everyone do as they will. Yes, some will do the right thing, some will contribute to charity and help society move forward, but not the majority. The majority will do nothing, thats right nothing at all but sit on their a55 and complain and want. Then we would have another smaller but still large sect that would rape and kill, rob and pillage, assert power over the weak and needy, etc. We see this over and over in places that have no laws or government. Look at Africa, look at South America. Everywhere there is no control things go hay wire and people live in filth and fear. I just do not understand what makes you or anyone else think this will not happen here just as it did there. We are just people like them, we will do many of the same things if left to our own devices and judgement.
Not to mention the amount of coordination we need for things like air travel, sanitation, communications, education, infrastructure maintenance and design, common defense- the list goes on and on. I do not see the American public doing all of this strictly by volunteer efforts. People would just go to work when they felt like it. They would abandon things they became bored with or that got to complicated. The more able and educated would not rise to the top and innovate, why should they? There is no currency without government, no rights to your intellectual property, no way to rise above due to your efforts. We would not look after the common defense, and other countries will and will come here and take what is ours like taking candy from a baby. If you think we would then how would you coordinate between states? You would need a central power to do this, now you are simply recreating what you say we do not need. I don't think you appreciate the complicated systems that are in place to make things run smoothly here. I don't think you appreciate the amount of diplomatic efforts neccessary to keep us afloat in this global economy. We have to have some type of centralized control to synchronize efforts through out this vast land.
Yes, I agree that states and local governments need more power to look after the problems only they can appreciate because they are here and know what is happening. But we also need a central power to organize efforts between those states and facilitate standards like weghts and measures, ownership of property, labor laws, etc.
How would you like to travel two hundred miles and find out that in this state you don't own your car or any other property as they have decided to practice communal ownership here. These things happen in places like Africa all the time. People talk about traveling two hundred miles and suddenly finding themself in a whole other world were they do not understand the customs or rules. We have far too many people that know what they think is right is right. They will not submit to the common good unless forced to.
As far as being forced to care for one another, I don't know what you are talking about. Your tax dollars are not spent in this way. You pay into social security because one day you will draw from social security. You pay into unemployment insurance because one day you will be unemployed and need an income. You pay into the common defense because you need that defense the same as me.
I disagreed with the stimulus completely. Not because I don't see that we can't just let all these huge businesses fail and all those citizens be out of work, but because it is only putting of the inevitable. No matter how much funny money we pump into the system we are only creating another bubble that will burst. Sooner or later we have to face up to the fact that we let the economy get out of hand. We removed too many regulations and this allowed big business to do bad things, like letting businesses become to big to fail without it killing our economy. Like selling debts instead of standing behind the loans we made, like allowing wall street firms to sell portfolios that they are betting against on the market. Like letting Bernie get away with an obvious ponsy scheme that would have been caught had we of been regulating like we used to. These companies have shown us what they will do if we let them. Now people like you have gotten in your head somehow that they are on your side. That if we let them go they will share the wealth by reinvesting in the system. Bull sh1t, they will invest in cheaper labor markets and schemes like debt bundles. We the people will not see any of the wealth in the form of jobs, this has been proven beyond doubt, if you simply study economics you would see this.
That is my stance, and until you can answer everyone of those complicated questions, no one is going to pay you any attention accept others that are too simple to understand how complicated this world is. You see we do not have Stockholm syndrome. We know that the current plliticians are screwing us over. But it is what we have to work with right now. And until we can make a smooth transition to something better we are better off this way, at least we are safe enough to operate and know what to expect from day to day. We live in a fairy tale compared to most people on this globe, surely you will admit that.
staying right out of the disagreement there but..
"The average trip is four to six hours of spiritual awakening"
haha good one ez, I also find it very distressing that people are so quick to give warnings about drugs when they have absolutely no experince with them, but most people would disregard the advice of someone who is extremely experienced with them as though they're some crazed junkie whos too 'drug f--ked' to know what they're on about.
people who are former meth or heroin addicts usually say things like "dont even try, it'll kill you". People who have heavily used hallucinogens usually say things like "The average trip is four to six hours of spiritual awakening". what does that tell you?
awesome name if thats what i think it means
that last part of my post was not about you directly.. sorry if i didn't specify and it sounded that way.
so your stance is that we should be made by force to help and "care" for each other? am I correct?
see, i don't think you can accurately speak for all of society, but only mostly for yourself. are you actually saying that if you had a choice, you would not help the poor, contribute to childrens' education, and pay for food and medical oversight voluntarily?
I know personally, I would be glad to do so along with many individuals who have given to various charities I have participated in.. but again, I can't speak for all of society..
I think your belief in the system is a mistake, because it doesn't matter who is in charge of a system that is based on theft. are you denying that our present governmental systems are all predicated on theft?
all politicians throughout history have and forever will be corrupt based on such a system, and so are the people who blindly follow their orders for a paycheck. they are all directly participating in a violent system, and I don't think they are unaware of this. I think it's a motivation, because the system as it is will only attract those who are comfortable with the idea of using force against civilians for their "ideology" and "benefits." I personally know this, most of my family is military, and they are not "friendly" nonviolent individuals, but then again, that is only anecdotal and i cannot bunch everyone together. I understand Some have just fallen prey to decades of propaganda (public school) but nonetheless, they know the full implications of their actions when they travel thousands of miles to shoot at civilians, or kidnap teenagers smoking pot and hold them for ransom (bail)
A refreshing voice of reason in a sea of drifters wearing hamburger ear muffs.
Oh, I understand all you have said. Its not very complicated, trust me. You lie by putting arguements in my mouth that i never said at all. Never once did I say the current leaders wanted peace or had our best interest in mind or any of that bs. You want to make me out to be some blind patriot when in reality I only support a system, not those that run it. As far as the supreme court stuff, I trust my own researched facts coupled with educated professionals and congress over someones word that i don't know and have never met, I'm funny like that. But you keep on ranting and trying to put words in my mouth Princeton, people see through it you know.
I wanted to let this go and not even post anymore, but I am not going to let you lie about what i believe or what i support nor make me out to be gullible when it is you that is saying how people will do the right thing and volunteers and charity will take care of everything. Thats the gullible stance here Princeton. Mine is a cynical stance if anything, not gullible.
You are confused yourself friend, and you say you don't smoke weed at all. Weed can not even start to be compared with meth and other hard drugs. And to say it henders spiritual recognition is WAY off the mark. If anything it makes you very sensitive to spirituality.
Mushrooms and LSD are also uncomparable to hard drugs, completely so. LSD is non-addictive and well known for its psychological effects which can include altered thinking processes, closed and open eye visuals, synaesthesia, an altered sense of time and spiritual experiences. It is used mainly as an entheogen, recreational drug and as an agent in psychedelic therapy. Mushrooms are very similar but produce a more intense and shorter experience. The average trip is four to six hours of spiritual awakening.
The drug you and no one else seems to bring up causes the hardest addiction to cure. It is the most abused and one of the most destructive to the body. Opiates, or pain pills, are prescribed to us as if they were harmless. In fact this addiction is the absolute hardest to get over and actually changes brain chemistry, forever in many cases. But with the pharma community making so much money off of the addiction they spread, we will never see this drug treated as it should be.
Why is it that people will admit they know nothing of things they have no experience with, such as yoga or meditation. But when it comes to drugs they feel they know exactly what they speak of with no experience what so ever. Do you believe every commercial you see for wonder drugs? I doubt it, so why do you believe everything they tell you about these drugs you group together as if they are all the same? It the same thing one is selling a product the other a concept, but they are both selling something to advance an agenda.
People have no common sense about drugs. I often hear people say, "I just do not understand why they would want to do those drugs." Thats the dumb3st statement I have ever heard, they do them because they make you feel good. We all do things that make us feel good that have negative effects on us, we over eat-drink alcohol-smoke cigarettes-drink caffiene-etc. and no one ever asks us why we do it like it is some puzzle. But when drugs come in the picture all common sense exits.
ok.. ill just accept my bull headedness.. i think i've said enough on this topic and i'll just go on saving myself and my friends money along with avoiding jail time because of my so called "arrogance" and "ignorance." i think you are the one who is and will ultimately pay the price for your overt trust in "authority," so called "experts" and "prestige." good luck with your case, sincerely.
oh the old "do as we say or leave"
its laughable.. so i guess you guys own me and my family's property to tell us what we should or shouldn't do right. or maybe we owe you guys money just for staying on our land. that's a silly notion.
sad thing about that argument is that no matter where i go on this planet at this time, some local mafia will come around and put guns in my face for money.. and because of people like you, they feel they are justified.
the only stated purpose of the government is to protect and maintain individual (not society which doesn't have any) rights. anything other than that is a breach of their own stated purpose. To get our money taken by force is a direct violation of our rights.
I don't think i go too far, I'm only too blunt and honest to individuals who are highly invested in statist ideologies and that simply refuse to acknowledge that they support a system based on stealing from their neighbors.
the majority agrees with me insofar as most of their life decisions do not involve coercion or the initiation of force, but only within the realm of politics is this reversal of values allowed (Alice in wonderland) where theft, murder & kidnapping are good and moral, so long as you're wearing a costume.
point taken roach.. i just feel i gotta say something ( i rarely post on forums) because all around me are individuals that have developed some form of Stockholm syndrome, siding and sympathizing with their abusers just to get the bread crumbs that fall off the plates of politicians as these crooks steal from us who actually work to create real value, by using sentimental rhetoric and pretending the majority of us civilians actually want to be robbed. we may have been trained to accept it or taught not to think about or ever challenge it, even demonizing words like anarchy, & mesmerizing us through charismatic "rulers" who order the deaths of thousands with a smile on their face, lying through their teeth to make us believe "its for our own good", but the future will agree with me (if governments don't kill us all). you can remain blind to the lies you have been fed if it helps you sleep at night, for i know from personal experience it sucks to realize almost every one lies to you from day one, just to cover up the fact that they cannot live up to their own "morality" and simply cheer the use force and coercion to squelch anything that makes'em uncomfortable, while outwardly pretending they really want peace.
oh well.. if you can't see/understand anything else i have said, can you at least understand and agree the government doesn't own everything, and that they are funded through threats of violence?
I agree, but I can't. I guess that is showing- huh. Man, I can't wait to get this stup1d case off my back. Thanks for the advise though, you are exactly right. I'm done with this, it is stepping all over my groove.
No, I call your holding your opinion higher than that of congress, Cornell university, lawyers, etc. arrogant. My opinion doesn't matter. He11, I wish you were correct and i could get out from under this felony on my back, but its not. The statute I listed was there to define all cases of original jusisdiction. I am tired of this, you win have it your way. Your to bull headed for your own good, period. It will catch up to you, it always does. You know better than to say that what is written in the constitution is the final say. The supreme court gets to interpret what is written and congress gets to set the jurisidction of all federal courts of which the supreme court is the highest, if you really do not know this then you are not fit to defend anyone.
You and no one else is forced to obey the laws of the land, you choose to live here. You want to enjoy the benefits while claiming foul at the same time, its ridiculus. The majority speaks and that is the way it is, if you don't like it leave. Otherwise you can keep complaining until you get the majority on your side, but with your crazy ideas that will never happen. You go too far, not all government is bad government. Not every law is corrupt or unfair. Anarchy will never win the day, period. If it did people like you wold last all of a day, maybe, before someone came along and did you in. You don't care for labels, thats a laugh. If the statute doesn't mention it? It does mention it directly and it says you are wrong. You are so blind.
@ The Prince of all
You said: "I thank you for strengthening my arguments and methodology"
I tore your areguement to pieces, you are the only one that refuses to see that. Of course anything you can use to strengthen you blanket theology, you will- blind arrogance Princeton, thats all.
Like I said congress, cornell university, local law professors, an educated experienced lawyer, the very sites you qoute mine to defend your position, and a recognized law library say you are wrong. You said you wanted statutes, I gave you statutes- but of course that's not good enough for you is it? Like I said you are impossible to debate with, I am done. Spit and strut in your pathetic tantrum all you want.
i belittle no one, nor do i hold any contempt for education, all i stated is the obvious truth that degrees are not synonymous with correctness and sometimes highly educated individuals, are not truth seekers, but simply want to make a lot of money. a degree or prestigious education in and of itself tells me nothing about the credibility or honesty of an individual.
also, I only bold printed that line to direct your attention to the point I was making which does clearly say all other article 3 courts are of general jurisdiction, and i Know you cannot falsify that.
I am amazed at how well i have tolerated your verbal abuse, but hey, sometimes kernels of truth do arrive, and I thank you for strengthening my arguments and methodology.. I can admit I learned something and it will be very useful to me in defending my property from so called "experts."
I've already told you I have been in court several times and have had the opportunity to put my beliefs to the test when the stakes where quite high.. so I think you are being pretty arrogant to assume i just come up with this stuff and hide in some corner afraid of expert opinion. that is very condescending on your part.
i also assume you now retract from stating that the supreme court is of limited jurisdiction, which you were so confident and dare I say arrogant about?
furthermore, your previous quote does not define original jurisdiction but merely explains in which instances it applies, but this is a contradiction because the constitution does that for us already, and I do not believe the legislative branch of government gets the power of judicial review, only discretion where it is explicitly granted within the constitution (so far as it does not violate it) and I repeat...
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
congress only gets authority over cases in which the supreme court has appellate jurisdiction. this is specifically why they wrote it in. so your statutes that you refer to do apply most certainly, but they do not & cannot be misconstrued to override what the constitution says about original jurisdiction when a state is a party, as you are trying to claim. I know it makes it easy for lawyers and cops, but this is their own law and system.
again, a state (or its employees) being a party in a case, should not also get to rule over the case. this is a clear conflict of interest.. will you at least admit that?
of all lawyers and judges I've presented this to, you (with no law degree i assume) are actually the first one to debate it with reference to law.. which is great in my opinion, but also proves my point that sometimes those experts with degrees are not the most knowledgeable (or interested in knowing).
So there you have it, a statute directly quoted as defining original jurisdiction very differently from you. Yes I also trust translations of the law from places like Cornell university, The Garfield and Price law library, and educated and experianced lawyers. Are you actually saying that your translation should trump thiers, even when it speaks directly against statutes set by congress? That is why I say you are arrogantly blinded by your ideaology Princeton.
Now the definition of federal court jurisdiction may be useless here, I admit that. It was talking about federal courts that have general jurisdiction. You know, the whole federal court system we put in place to cover what the supreme court can't due to its limited jurisdiction.But i suppose you think we have that whole seperate system for some other reason.
The statement you use only proves you right through ommision not by direct comment, you know this but refuse to care. I will once again use your own source against you, funny how you only seem to see the text that supports your stance.
Look here (uscourts.gov /FederalCourts/ UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/ Jurisdiction. aspx) and you will see again that the cases you referr to are not covered by the supreme court, as it is a type of federal court. Further more, under title 28> part IV> chapter 81 we have a definition of the original jurisdiction term you keep trying to use, here it is:
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
This is the legal definition of the term and how it was decided by the congress that it should be applied. You can find the definition at (doubleu doubleu doubleu .law. cornell. edu /uscode /28/ usc _sec _28 _00001251 ----000- .html)
I know, that's not good enough for you is it Princeton. I really don't know why I bother. Why don't you ask a law professor, because you are scared they will not support your assertion that's why. This is why you belittle education and experience, because it contradicts the great Princeton's decree and that can't be allowed can it. Your arrogance is not in your language but your assumptions. I have done all the research i am going to do on this silly subject. I have proven you wrong, whether you want to admit that to yourself or others is up to you. By the way it really doesn't matter how boldly you print something Princeton, when its wrong its wrong whether you print it in bold type face or not.
a lawyer, a law book.. does not mean ultimately correct.. you did not directly quote the constitution or any statutes, and all you are talking about is an individual legal opinion, which does not always accurately reflect law.. i am sorry people with degrees are gods who cannot be wrong to you ever.. but in my experience, they can be wrong and oft times have never cared to double check the ish they were spoon fed in school.
so what about the previous quote from uscourts . gov directly, where the only article III courts that have limited jurisdiction are (a) the U.S. Court of Claims and (b) the U.S. Court of International Trade. this clearly means all other article 3 courts are of general jurisdiction..
your law book was correct in some sense as it applies to most federal courts, but not to the courts directly derived from the constitution.
i don't think I am being blind to facts here.. like i said.. you just seem to really hate someone with a point of view that is contradictory to your own.
Before you start crying, let me make something clear. i wasn't saying you are lying about anything. i am saying ideaology leads others like yourself and possibly you at times to lie. See why i don't bother trying to refute you Princeton? Because I could get a supreme court justice to tell you that they are a court of limited jurisdiction and you would still not admit you are wrong. I mean I used the very source you asserted your nonsense with, and you still say it isn't good enough. Yeah, a lawyer, a law book, both backed by your source- isnt good enough? I think it is obvious that you are refusing to admit you are wrong because you know what an a55 you have made of yourself.
You are incouragable. You refuse to listen to facts, I give up. Live in your diluted world were the supreme court is not a court of limited jurisdiction. The definition I used came directly from a law book I got out of the county law library, on federal laws. It also is backed by my lawyer who has practiced now for over thirty years, but hey he is not the genuise you are, huh. If you insist on this type of pathetic attempts at asserting how you just can not be wrong, who can argue with you. I suppose no educated experienced lawyer ever thought of your pet loop hole, huh. I give up have your fun playing lawyer. The rest of us know the truth. I really don't think anyone here is dum6 enough to believe your falsification. Oh, it is also backed up by wiki- your very source. But I know just because it was good enough for you doesn't mean I can use it to prove you wrong. This is why I hate ideaology, because it makes people like you willing to twist and lie to get something covered by your pathetic ideaology. This place has gone to the dogs, I am out.
from uscourts . gov
Federal Court System
The term federal court can actually refer to one of two types of courts. The first type of court is what is known as an Article III court. These courts get their name from the fact that they derive their power from Article III of the Constitution. These courts include (1) the U.S. District Courts, (2) the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, and (3) the U.S. Supreme Court. They also include two special courts: (a) the U.S. Court of Claims and (b) the U.S. Court of International Trade. These courts are special because, unlike the other courts, they are not courts of general jurisdiction. Courts of general jurisdiction can hear almost any case. All judges of Article III courts are appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate and hold office during good behavior.
so there you have it.. the two special constitutionally generated courts do not include the us supreme court, which is a court of general jurisdiction (presumably) and gets is power directly from constitution, not congress.
thank you.. i'm glad finally you try to refute what i brought up instead of just personal attacks, though that refutation falls short in my opinion, at least i appreciate a well thought out response with some reference to facts..
I don't understand how from reading anything i wrote above you can call me arrogant.. i think that is a bit of projection but oh well.. that's not my issue. yes, courts have thrown out many cases and left me and my friends alone because of these facts.. I made none of it up and you can argue with them about their law degrees and why the only refutation any of them proposed was "we don't do things that way" or "the supreme court will never hear it".
I'll admit you had me for a brief second, till I thought well where did that definition come from? I'm interested to know where that definition came from, because I find it nowhere in the constitution, which is supposedly the highest law of the land..
the constitution itself did not set those limitations, and if they were set by congress, they only apply in instances where the supreme court has appellate jurisdiction (SC is not just any federal court).
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
it's interesting that they clearly define their scope of original jurisdiction in the constitution, just for it to be negated and contradicted in... well.. wherever you found that definition.
as I stated before, it is a matter of principle & if a state is bringing suit against me and is the complaining party, a state representative cannot also be the arbitrator. this was put in the constitution as common sense, because such a trial obviously does not represent a fair and impartial judiciary... and almost every case I've had was written as "the state of TX vs me" and i've never seen one with the city or county's name on it, even red light cam tickets.
as far as drug related crimes go, sober people also do all of the things you described (shootings, child abuse, self abuse). maybe the drug has an effect and may lead to it, but i also believe there are many underlying personal problems that lead one to drug use, which may be augmented by that drug use or the drug use may just be a symptom of deeper problems. to just arrest everyone possessing the drug, with no reference to any crime or abuse they committed is grossly unjust and inhumane in my opinion. drunk people do bad things also, but that doesn't mean everyone with alcohol or buzzed a bit should be thrown in a cage, regardless what some drunks have done.
oh well.. it seems you really get upset that someone has differing view points and find no point in discoursing with a dissenting perspective.. although i must say on my side of things i welcome/appreciate any challenge to my beliefs and am open to any respectful debate no matter how much i dislike what the other person proposes, & even when what they propose is the use of violence against me for nothing more than living & breathing & enjoying myself.
Besides if you will notice it names who must be a party in the case before the Supreme court can get involved.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
Most posession cases are not the state versus someone but the county of (insert count name) versus someone or the City of (insert city name) versus someone. In really big cases it might be the state or The United States versus some poor soul. But, as stated before because of the subject jurisdiction it still doesn't fall to the Supreme Cout to hear these cases, they only have appellate jurisdiction.
I think perhaps you are envisioning some utopian society where everyone is sober, happy, equal, and nothing bad ever happens.
Unfortunately, such a world does not and will not ever exist.
I also think that your view of cannabis and of drugs in general is very skewed. Cannabis is medicine. Cannabis is a food source. Cannabis is also a useful fiber.
You lumping it in with meth clearly shows you have no experience with the drug and your analysis of people who smoke cannabis is absolutely ignorant. I have smoked cannabis and I have also lived with many people who have. Artists, business majors, finance majors, medical students, TEACHERS, pharmacy students (that was a weird situation, let me tell you)...
It does NOT make make you confused or unable to think coherently. It is no where near the intoxicating substance that say, alcohol, meth, heroin, or crack cocaine is.
LSD and psilocybin mushrooms can actually be quite good for the psyche and the personality. Tribes of people, ancient and modern use hallucinogens for ritual purposes to achieve enlightenment and for spiritual guidance.
If you want everyone to be sober, then perhaps you want to tak away everyone's prescription medicine as well? What about caffine? Where would it end?
People are going to use drugs and they (should) have the freedom to do so, as long as they do not harm others. Cannabis, when legal, will have the potential to qwell a vast majority of the hard drug addiction cases. The model is already set up in Holland. Over there, hard drug use dropped dramatically once cannabis became decriminalized.
That is something that even you, Orpheus, can appreciate.
Keep defending that ideaology Princeton, it makes you blind. I really didn't want to do this but here it is, you asked for it.
Article three section two of the united states constitution copied directly from the text.
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
(So far so good Princeton, looks like you may have it right- but wait. Maybe you should have read a little further.)
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and not courts of general jurisdiction. Courts of limited jurisdiction can hear and decide cases that involve only certain subject matter. This limited subject-matter jurisdiction extends to:
Federal question jurisdiction: cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties
Ambassador jurisdiction: cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
Admiralty jurisdiction: cases involving navigable waters
Federal party jurisdiction: cases in which the United States is a party
State jurisdiction: cases between two or more states
Diversity jurisdiction: cases between citizens of different states
Land grants jurisdiction: cases between citizens of the same state claiming land under the grants of different states
Alienage jurisdiction: cases between
a state and a foreign state;
citizens of a state and a foreign state;
citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; or
a state and citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of a foreign state, where the state is the initial plaintiff. The amount of the damages must exceed US $75,000.
Article Three is not self-executing concerning the subject-matter over which federal courts can have jurisdiction. The Congress decides, from the subject-matter specified in Article Three, what jurisdiction the federal courts will have.
Now, do you see drug posession or traffic tickets listed there Princeton, no you don't. Why do you insist on making a f00l of yourself. I tried repeatedly to just say I disagreed and let it go. Granted I got a little out of line with insults, your arrogance really inflames me. But still anyone of any intelligence knows better than to think you will get a possesion case thrown out on the wild pretense that the supreme court should waste their time with it. Now if the supreme court were not a court of limited jurisdiction maybe you would have a point. But, if that were the case it would have been amended long ago as we can't have the supreme court tied up on such simple matters.
As for your mistaken idea about what constitutes a legal wrong to society or one self, its already been decided. You don't go to court to find out if what you did was considered illegal, that was decided when the act was made illegal. Now is posession illegal, yes it is. And that has been the law for ages. If it were unconstitutional it would have been challenged and changed long ago by a real lawyer. All you go to court to do is find out if indeed you did do what they are accusing you of, if so you get prosecuted according to the law.
You know I am all for people having the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anothers rights. If you don't think meth use leads to people infringing on another persons rights, then your ideaology has once again blinded you. Does having some methed up a55 chasing you around with a gun sound like someone infringing on your rights, how about someone starving a child because they haven't been hungry for days and never thought about the poor kid that hasn't eat either? They even infringe on their own rights, have you ever seen someone cut there own skin off because they thought bugs were crawling under it? Maybe you mean well Princeton, but you are in over your head. Generalities never work, learn that and let go of your ideaology. Judge each incedent on its own merits. I concede that not all government is good government, can you concede that not all government is bad government?
Now if we could please end this silly arguement, I would really appreciate it. In fact I'll end it for us. I apologize for insulting you, though you could learn not to be so arrogant. I will concede that a degree is not always needed, but not in the case of law and engineering. In those cases I insist on a degree before I will pay you much attention. Now, let it go and have a nice day.
Hi folks. I would like to point out what is obvious to many who have smoked pot or who have lived with people who have - for the vast majority of people pot really messes up their brains and makes them confused, erases their memory, and makes them unable to think coherently. Complex analysis becomes impaired, making them less able to make sense of the deeper issues of life, namely the larger social problems and the spiritual dimension of things. So whereas alcohol, LSD, mushrooms, crystal meth, heroin, cocaine, crack, etc. are all destructive to the psyche and impair the personality, so is marijuana. If humanity is going to successfully navigate these tricky rapids ahead, we will need to quit all this brain deranging nonsense and get sober, learn to be happy and free the natural way, and get cracking to build a better society.
I don't know if Americans need to be any dumber. Yes in theory if we all lived in seperate existances and pot heads kept to themselves or moved up into the mountains to smoke pot then there would be nothing wrong there. Full blown legalization of marijuana will have too much complications. I think the best reasonable method would be to have marijuana kept illegal but with moderate penalties and prison only for major distributors but minor-major fines for possession and possibly less than 180 days of jail.
I cannot get drunk on the public street and me drinking on the street will not cause others around me to become drunk. However if sufficient people are smoking marijuana in a crowded downtown outdoor area other people could become high or test positive for marijuana usage at no choice of their own.
Some people have jobs where they cannot have marijuana in their system nor should they, jobs where people can and do die even when someone is paying full attention. Problem is once you legalize marijuana in one place, like say in home usage only, some i@#$% will go push the law to have it legalized everywhere undermining the rationality of marijuana laws.
lol.. no refutations, simply more personal attacks and sentimental appeals.. all your solutions "bills, laws, bans" are nothing more than threatening non violent individuals with violence..
i wont resort to the low level you have in this discourse.
my only thoughts are that you keep using highly charged surface issues to dodge the fact that institutional violence is nothing but just that, the initiation of the use of force against non-agressive, non-violent people.
instead of throwing people in cages for the rest of their lives, i believe a little compassion and respect will go a long way, and don't believe i am the problem because i hold that view..
I think its the people who demonize drug users and salesmen and place their ideologies over mutual self respect and understanding that are the problem. kidnapping, throwing in cages and robbing people will do no good for society, but foster more violence and hatred. education, assistance and psychological help is what people need, not more cages and i don't think i am wrong about it nor can any of your personal attacks falsify this common sense fact.
by your rationale, the gas station owner should be thrown in jail for life because a drunk driver who kills a family bought beer from them. its a pitiful mindset. or maybe the doctor who prescribes pain medicine should be jailed because someone driving under the influence hurt others or themselves.. this is silly at best, but personally, i believe its closer to evil. there is no logical distinction and you are just picking and choosing who should be violently oppressed because of personal distaste.
secondly. I openly stated that I had not used my strategies on a possession case thus far, but the fact that it's consistently held up in court and i've been able to beat 2 criminal traffic cases (over $1500 in fines) just over the last month alone tells me that there is validity to my approach and that there is no logical reason why it would not apply to a possession case also. granted the courts and judges are crooks who cant follow their own rules, i cannot predict the outcome, all i can do is try my best to expose the truth and learn from the experience and how to use it to help others.
if a strong commitment to the non-initiation of force and wanting to influence the world around me toward more positive interactions make me a problem to "the world" then so be it.. i know people have been doing things your way for millenia and look at the results..
So you are naive enough to think that they will drop a posession case like they did you petty traffic ticket. I'll rephrase then, if you get them to drop the posession case pulling your little stunt, I will kiss your @ss just as I said before. Do not assume you know more about the drug trade or how to get it or make it scarce than an x dealer/addict and now reformed addiction counselor. Making it illegal doesn't make it harder to get, or easier. It simply makes taking people that do it or make it off the streets easier. Thats what needs to happen. Trust me the fear of jail keeps many from getting to involved in the drug, I know from experience. Plus, once you have spent some time in jail and someone has stopped the madness you were consumed by, those that can be reached are. No, not everyone stops even then. Thats why they should be locked up for life if need be, GET THE METH OFF THE STREET. If you are too ignor@nt to look passed this arguement and see that I do much much much more than put guns in peoples faces trying to fix things, well i am not surprised. You are so busy defending your ideaologies that you can't take time or see clearly enough to recognize anything else. I speak at city council meetings and colleges, I provide free couseling for those that can't afford it. I counsel on week ends at the jail, to help those that may be reached before it is too late and they are in for life or dead. I will be speaking at the state congress next month in an attempt to present a bill that would make the cold pills they have to have to make the stuff be only available through prescription, a bill I have gotten over 50,000 signatures on (looks like someone agrees with me). I am also working on a documentary, with many other artists and finaciers, explaining the problem and interviewiung victims of this drug, not just addicts but people that have lost loved ones because they were murdered by users and manufacturers. If you took time to read one of my above posts you would know that I am very capable of thinking out of the box and attempt to do more than just get these people off a drug. I attempt to reconnect them with something much deeper than want or desire. I have a pretty good sucess rate, when i get to uise my program the right way. You see it involves sometimes using phsychoactive substances, with the assistance of a educated physician, to help them get rid of the culture induced operating system that has taken them down this unnatural path. But you know what, I really don't think I should explain myself to the likes of you, someone so bent on being right that all else falls to the side. You will never have my respect or beliefe as long as you are lost in your ideaology to the point that nothing else can exist. You twist and pervert all to make it somehow fit your ideaology of no government no law, you have to- its what defines you. People like you are what is wrong with this world today Princeton, I really believe that.
You are so presumptiouse to think you know anything more than me about this, but hey thats your mode of operation isn't it. Just go on playing lawyer or engineer, it doesn't effect me or my clients- thank god.
Sorry i have taken up so much of you guys time with this pointless arguement. I will not respond when she blurts out her next set of insults and assertions, maybe it will die then. Oh, and forgive the spelling. I am in a hurry and very tired.
EZ; I fully agree. While I may lean a bit further right while you drift a bit left if we take the time to face each other we still see eye to eye. Just made that one up lol. But think about it. Ideology is stupid an all levels but to many it is safe like a warm blanket. They embrace what they know. I also wish it would change but unless the world runs out of power loving lawyers I don't foresee it coming soon. For quite some time it has been a balance where more weight is placed on each end to continually counter ballance the other end. Back and fort back and forth. When you do that the speed and extremity of the tilt only gets worse and worse as time goes on. There are only two outcomes. Either one end wins out and tips the scale for a long time or the added weight of both sides causes the center to snap upon the fulcrum. I think what will come some day is the latter. Cause most of those I know who make up the middle are just waiting to snap.
drugs are presently "illegal".. and they are still very easy to get .
every high school student can get their hands on any drug, not by going to some store to buy a regulated and somewhat safe product, but from that shady kid down the street.
make something "illegal", and you just make it much more unsafe and allow a whole slew of law breaking individuals the opportunity to make a huge profit providing that same product.. except now they can tax because its dangerous to possess it and they're the main source.
if you want to get rid of drug dealers/cartels, leave people alone, and it will simply be sold out of stores, no more drug related crimes & robberies.
you guys act like because its "illegal" now its harder to get.. and that is a delusion..its much easier because it provides a great incentive to dealers and corrupt governments who can now make money from nonviolent people simply trading something they believe to be valuable. the dea & task forces don't want drugs to go away, because their jobs depend on them..
you guys are scary.. the only solutions you seem to have for social problems always involve shoving a gun in someone's face, kidnapping them, and stealing their money/property. that is really really sad.
see, again you fail to refute what i am saying and what you're describing is my point exactly.. Do you honestly believe when I pull that quote and file my motions, my intention is to go to the supreme court with my traffic ticket?
of course not.. and that is exactly what i'm banking on, that they will never hear my case.. but nonetheless, the local municipal court does not have that authority either... and they usually just drop the whole case and leave me alone. I don't have to be smarter than lawyers and judges.. i can read.
you have to understand.. the reason this is a serious problem in a court of law, is because if the state is the complaining party in a case where there is supposed to be a fair and impartial judiciary, then a state judge and state prosecutor clearly represent a conflict of interest.. which is the deeper issue I'm exposing.
how can I have a fair trial if my accuser is also the one who rules over the case?
again with the sentimental case about drugs, there is no clear distinction and you're advocating the use of violence against non-violent individuals because they possess something that might be dangerous.. by that token walmart should be bannned for gun/knife/bleach/baseball bat/tools/alcohol/soda sales.. or maybe the people who sell cough syrup should be arrested also cos teens robotrip. look, almost everything we know of can be used to inflict harm and damage to the self and others, even pillows im sure have been used in murders.. you are simply casting too wide a net when you kidnap people for the possession of any chemical substance (or anything else).. and again if i manufacture meth and/or use on myself you have no right to intervene with violence.. i'm all for helping people with drug problems, but kidnapping, robbing them and treating them like criminals is seriously corrupt and adds to the problems. possession of anything is not a crime unless if that item was stolen. it is only when you directly cause harm or loss to some private citizen (not society) that anything can be construed as a crime.
@ Reasons Voice
I could not agree more that certain addictive and harmful drugs should be kept illegal. Anyone that thinks they should be legalized is simply twisting the issue to fit in with other idealology they hold. Anyone that has any experience with meth addiction would see the common sense in keeping it illegal. Good to see not everyone is ideaology crazy. This is what I hate about ideaology taking center stage like it does now days in politics. If you express an ideaology and say you hold with it, you lose the ability to judge each case on its merits. Instead you have to twist and pervert issues to fit your ideaology or you look like you are back sliding. It happens with almost every issue now days. Like balancing the budget, we could get rid of the tax cuts for those that clearly do not need them, as they already are rich, and not do away with intitlements but cut them back to a reasonable rate while tightening the requirements to get them- and balance the budget. But one side has expressed the ideaology of no tax increases no matter what and no matter who, and the other has expressed the ideaology of no cuts for intitlements. As a result we are at stalemate and niether will get done and the budget will only get worse. Why can we not judge each idssue as it arises and do away with ultimatiums and ideaology all together?
The legalization of pot suffers from the same thing. This ideaology of DRUGS ARE BAD keeps people from judging each drug for what it really is. If they did they would clearly see that pot should not even be considered a drug, in the same way as say meth. And that pot has many benefits, as a result maybe it would get legalized- but no as usuall they will stick to their ideaologies and generalize everything or twist the issue to fit their ideaology- either way it will not get legalized this way.
Well for one making a connection between smoking pot and cancer is gonna be tough since it is illegal. No controll testing could be performed as the FDA would not approove for an illegal substance to be consumed regularly for extended time. And since, unlike tobacco companies, pot dealers are just so much less sue-able few in depth privately funded studies have been done. The only difference between smoking one leaf or another is that the mass produced one is full of preservatives and other additives.
Reasons Voice, thanks for your comment, (i know i am a little heavy on those caps), Not long ago i viewed a doc. i think it was, "The Business Behind Getting High), i am not sure about though. Anyway this doc stated that there has NEVER BEEN ONE, I REPEAT, NEVER ONE CASE OF CANCER FOUND FROM SMOKING POT. The medical people, also stated that, (para phrasing), "There is no other drug that helps with as many ailments as pot does on the market today" Now these people were medical Pros. If that is in fact the case, i rest my case. Apparently it's not the smoke but the substance your smoking. I hope you find that doc. or maybe some of the other folks who tune in will direct us both. They named three or four med benefits it helps with. As for other drugs being legalized, i mean if people are buying them anyway legal or not. Why not legalize them? At least we can defuse the cartels and pick up some taxes to help the addicts? As long as one does not hurt other people or their property it's their business and no one else? I think maybe the legal industry is making a fortune in court cases, the F---ing Lizards! The fines the pay offs, don't get me started please! Like Frances Bacon, the English Artist, said if someone once to drink their self to death why shouldn't they? He painted in the morning in his studio from 7am to 12 noon and went to the bar after that and drank for the rest of the day and night and lived i think until he was 90.
First, @Sonny; Yeah man those concervatives and their predetermined ideals always screaming into your face their own agendas. Whether it is in person or by text (using a whole rhinocerous butt ton of friggin caps. Apox uppon them all.
@The Posters with usefull statements; Absolutely correct for the most part. Legalized pot, among other non addictive drugs, would be a good thing. That is if it goes hand in hand with maturity and understanding within the people. Some drugs however are far too potent and damaging for legalization, Such as Meth, Cocain, Crack, and Heroine. Smoking a joint is more harmful to lungs than cigaretts primarily due to the fact that it is not filtered but also because it contains alot more tar. LSD is a natural drug it comes from ergot fungus however it can be and is sythesised much easier chemically. Ohh also PCP definately on the list of "do not legalize".
of course I agree I think probation is BS.
If there is a demand there will always be a supply of pretty much anything.
You cant stop it.
And weed is not as harmful as alcohol, I smoke weed.
And well I am just doing fine:).
How's this for refuting your nonsense: The day you get the supreme court to hear a posession case that has yet to be heard by the local court that holds jurisdiction, I will get on my knees and kiss your bare @ss. As far as the perpetual motion thing, I thought your original statement was naive but cute, so I tried to point you to the fact that the idea of using magnets was already being tried by professionals with big money and resourses.
Heres a fact to refute your silly idea of the supreme court having to hear the case first- it's never happened, not one time. You think youre that much smarter than all the attorneys to have ever existed? The supreme court would be soo bogged down with simple posession cases they would never get to their intended purpose. You don't think manufacturing or posessing a drug like meth constitutes damage, that's naive. What, you think they make it or posess it to look at? Courts can and do inferr your intentions every day. circumstantial evidence goes a long way. If you posess it or manufacture it you are going to use it or sell it. Either one of these is harmful to your self and society, if you had my job of picking up the pieces afterward you would know that. I'm sure this makes no difference to the great Princeton though. Just let it go, I am.
Good point. The device you invision needs to be invented... actually it would be quite simple to make, it just needs to be implemented. Not just for cannabis, but for any type of impaired driving.
I think the field sobriety test has the potential to determine whether you are intoxicated, or just a nervous, uncooridnated person.
The oral swab is also imperfect. I suppose it's a bit hypocritical of me not to have pointed it out, but you can easily fool an oral swab with a swig of mouth wash, among other ways... just like the breathalyzer.
I suppose I was trying to get the point across that the fears of drugged driving with legal cannabis are unsound and that we don't need to make a special device just to determine recent cannabis use.
You are correct, what we really need is a complete overhaul of the impairment testing system and perhaps the concern about cannabis may help to bring about such a test.
@Dunkleosteus "I think the oral swab test and the field sobriety test should be enough for now. The oral swab will detect if someone has smoked in the past 3-4 hours. The field sobriety test would determine their level of impairment. It would be nice if they came up with a new detection device, but those that claim we NEED one before cannabis can become legal are just being ignorant."
You made some good points in the post this comes from,but there is a point you are missing. Its not about how much you've smoked, drank, snorted, vaped, poked or rubbed on your belly. Its about whether you are fit to drive or not. An electronic device could easily calculate alertness, aptitude, reflexes, and coordination. By setting their standards in these parameters rather than targeting any specific group of people, is a better way to go. So, regardless of what you may or may not have consumed today, or in your lifetime, here, now, at the side of the road, the question asked is simply, are they physically and mentally fit to safely operate a motor vehicle.
Seems a moot point in the thread now but there were so many good points in the post, thought the "enhanced" vantage might serve future
If USA legalizes marijuana, then its economic progress will certainly r@#$%^. Its the time to accelerate the pace of development not r@#$%^&*.
I have none, no law degree needed.. i can read.. and the constitution is only a few pages, so are your local statutes. see , you forget lawyers have a vested interest in making the whole process seem as complex and convoluted as possible, so that they are perceived as necessary and can make a living off of scared citizens ($300 an hour).. I have successfully defended myself and several friends without the help of one, and the ones I know who went to lawyers and spent thousands of dollars.. just cut deals and got screwed anyway.
Secondly I don't think that possessing or manufacturing any drug directly leads to someone's life getting screwed up and meets the requirements of standing and corpus delicti in court. see, the manufacture of guns don't lead to people getting shot, and the manufacture of cough medicine does not mean teenagers will start robotripping. manufacturing knives cannot be directly linked to people getting stabbed to death.. i could go on, but I think you are very confused in that aspect.
also, a degree is not synonymous with intelligence or correctness.. just means one can follow instructions and pass a class.
Its funny you get so snarky now about the whole perpetual motion thing, when all I had said was I thought it would be possible to use the stored up kinetic energy of magnets (not free) in a configuration that would allow something close to perpetual motion or at least overunity in a system. at the time you gave a very wise and thoughtful response which i am still researching and am still pretty much undecided about it, which is why i never rebutted .. now you are using that discussion to insult and attempt to ridicule me.. well I appreciate the stab in the back.
its humorous at this point how you keep resorting to personal attacks, but fail to refute anything i am saying with any references to facts and/or logic.. just point and say "oh look! he doesn't have a degree, how could he know that"
well, please tell me the constitution does not say that.. and please tell me where "original jurisdiction" has a different meaning. I would be glad to hear it.. because I personally know several judges and prosecutors (experts with degrees) who have yet to respond to that request except by saying "well that's not how we do things".. & i know its not how they do things, because they're cr00ks who can't even follow their own rules.
Wow,.. oh yeah,.. and yeah !
Why is pot illegal ? Because the organized crime element that controls it's distribution while making a tidy fortune off the wholesale marketing of Marry-Jane WANTS it to be illegal, this guarentees control with a healthy and secure profit margin.
How is this possible ? Well maybe your local government is under the influence, and the anti-marijuana lobbists aren't all bible thumpers.
So where did you go to law school again Princeton. Or was physics or engineering, must have been since you are going to crack the biggest physics issue ever- free energy. Do tell us where you came across your genuise. Surely not from wiki or some other web site. Oh, thats right it must be a political science degree, since you know sooo much about government and what is best for the nation. Have fun changing the world Princeton, I'll try not to forget you by tommorrow.
This has been an absolutely ret@rded documentary and it's topic, in any intelligent world, shouldn't even merit discussion. That being said, here goes anyway.
In what world does it even make sense to actively prohibit the consumption of a drug so comparatively harmless as M.J. throughout supposed free adults, while the cramming of one so serious as Ritalin (or the latest version of) down the throats of our hapless, innocent, children has become common-place?
And a gateway drug.... Come on! Gimmie a break.
If weed is a gateway drug, it's at least a gate that swings in both directions. I didn't use pot to get me into the ecstasy I was eating like candy some years back, but it sure was nice to have it to get the hell back out again. I won't say I couldn't have gotten away without the the extended hand of Mary Jane, cause I probably could have, but it sure was nice to have that in-between place to rest on the way back down.
@ dr dunkleosteus
its a nasty world we live in... but it sure is wonderful to be human. (at least for the 20% of us who aren't starving to death or living in warzones)
A friend of mine had his hip replaced and they gave him morphine and he was still in much pain. Finally his doctor said, "Frank go home and smoke a joint", or words to that effect, Frank said, "Sonny it was the first good night sleep i have had in i don't know how long"! I quit drinking when i was thirty two years young; i realized early on that was a gutter drug, a punks drug!! That being said i don't call down on people who drink that's their F...ing Business! As i have come to learn in sixty eight years, THE CONSERVATIVE MIND IS THE LEADING CARCINOGENIC OF THE HOMO SAPIEN, THEY ATTEND CHURCH ON SUNDAY AND ELECTROCUTE PEOPLE ON MONDAY! THEY LOVE TO CONTROL AND BE CONTROLLED!, THE CONSERVATIVE MIND FEARS THE FREE SPIRIT. IN THE DEEPEST CHAMBER OF THEIR HEART THE CONSERVATIVE MIND KNOWS THE GOD THEY WORSHIP IS A GOLDEN BULL!!
actually no.. it did not say the supreme court has final say.. it clearly states the supreme court has original jurisdiction.
original jurisdiction Law Definition
The ability and authority to decide cases based on hearing testimony and viewing evidence, rather than on appeal.
definition from wiki
The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time as opposed to appellate jurisdiction when a court has the power to review a lower court's decision.
so I'm not sure what you're arguing, this is their own words, clearly, with no further stipulations and clauses.
i don't think anything i postulated was illogical or unreasonable.. and many professionals may disagree but that doesn't mean they're right, it may have more to do with heavy investment in their careers and certain ideologies... there are many other professionals & experts (although people in your camp are quick to belittle and deride them) who would agree with me so that point you make is moot..
the fact that you are so quick to belittle my position without any reference to facts or logic, but merely because of emotional and sentimental reasons cause me to believe you are just uncomfortable about those (not all) new ideas and instead of curiosity, you simply attack the messenger. same way you ignored fact based arguments about how governments are funded and exist (theft) for the sentimental outrage at an imagined insult.. but see.. you never actually refuted anything I said. just got upset and went on about scare scenarios that are unfounded and wound yourself into self contradictory positions, mad because i was "disrespectful" & what not.. I guess whatever it takes to ignore the gun in the room, this is not new to me...
I told my doctor that I have been using marijuana in a cooking oil form (for degenerating disk pain), so he prescribed a one month trial of synthetic THC in pill form. I went to pick them up at the pharmacy and it would have been $232.00. I am sure that big pharmaceutical's spend a lot of money every year to make sure marijuana stay's illegal.
Whoops, premature. :)
We can do all these things and no other species we know of can.
Although I believe that right now, humanity is in its technological infancy, we're play with out inventions, discovering which ones are useful, what works and what doesn't, and as long as we don't kill ourselves we have the potential to do and become whatever our minds decide is important and worthy of doing... anything!
I'm paraphrasing, quite poorly, the late Carl Sagan. He had the vision. He saw the things that were happening and continue to happen.
You think we're making laptops, tablet pcs, and cell phones because they are neat gadgets? No, we're making these things because they are going to lead us to perfecting AI, possibly allowing us to transition our mortal bodies for something eternal! I know, I'm being a futurist, trans-human, but why else are we doing these things? We want to get off this planet, explore space, and live forever. We're just test-driving the technologies that are going to allow us to do this, eventually.
@ Ez, glad you referenced terence mckenna, a very astute person. psilocybin mushrooms along with LSD are great for rebooting the ol' hard disk.
It's not merely that you focus on things more intently, like some people say, but you actually come to the realization that there are certain things you pass by in your life that you should be paying attention to. It's different for every person, but it can be helpful for a lot of people trying to become more connected to themselves and the lives they are existing through.
I've never had an experience like this with cannabis, but to a very mild degree, there are some similarities.
More than anything, cannabis reminds me of some of those insights I had during my previous experiences. Some paranoid folks sometimes call these 'flashbacks', but all a flashback really is, is something that reminded you of an insight you came upon during your experience.
I preach this movie, I know, but Koyaanisqatsi is an amazing film to watch while being experienced (I hate the word 'trip' because of the way so many people use it).
After watching that film, combined with my experience, I will never look at a traffic jam the same way again, or a set of power lines, or airplanes, or any of the astounding things we humans accomplish every day that everyone ignores. These things are important to reflect upon:
"Wow, we actually make machines that can travel through the air at great speeds, heights, and distances while carrying people, trusting only in the assumption that the people in charge built the thing right, take care of it right, the pilots know how to fly it right, there's enough gas in it, the airport choreographs all the landings and take offs so no one hits each other, etc... and almost all of the time no one dies! that is a miracle!"
"Wow, we create and harness lightning, one of the more volatile, unpredictable, potentially lethal substances on our planet and manage to channel it over vast distances, connecting it to millions of homes to run almost all of our inventions, we can channel it underwater, one genius even discovered how to transmit it wirelessly (tesla)! W
there almost isn't even a debate, anymore. defy.
I think as a culture we often overlook the positive uses of certain drugs, for lack of a better term, and get bogged down in the smaller details that surround them. So what are the positive uses for certain drugs? To answer that question we must realize one thing first, culture is our operating system. In other words culture decides how we think about certain things, how we react to certain stimuli, what beliefs we indulge and find essential. If you are running consumer capitolism 2.0 certain things may not be supported by your operating system. For instance the concept of working for the collective good instead of the self is not supported by consumer capitolism 2.0. If you are running materialism 1.0 certain spiritual cnocepts are not supported by your operating system, therefore you can not concieve of their existance or relevancy in what you define as reality.
So how do we download a new operating system. Well first you must clear some space on your hard drive. This is accomplished through the appropriate use of certain psycho active substances. Psilocybin is an excellent way to clear some space on your disk. LSD is another excellent choice, though it is somewhat more abrasive to the physical system. These are gentle ways of clearing space that may take several hours to work. DMT is a much faster way to do it.
Now, what information comes to exist in this recently cleared space? Well thats not so easily understood, but is easily obtained. It is replaced by something older, something not defined by geography or geopolitics, something more in touch with the animal soul (for lack of a better term) of mankind, something not determined by history but something writ in the language of the flesh itself. We, as modernized peoples, have forgotten this knowledge thats all. Yet many aboriginal cultures still remember and use this knowledge to be more intune with their surroundings, with their selves, with the fellowship of all living things.
What's wrong with the operating systems we currently use? They are dumb, wasteful of nature, of mans inherit instincts and very often lead to violence and death. They allow us to forget what we really are and even view the natural animal or predator inside as a bad thing to be suppressed and extinguished. Once we achieve a natural symbiance between our ancient selves and our modern capabilities man will be whole again. We will see value where before we only saw something to exploit. I know these concepts seem way out there, almost dream like or the wishful thinking of the hippy mindset. This is because you are allowing culture to be your operating system, and that operating system doesn't support this information. In other cultures they would be thinking, "Duh, who doesn't know these things you are talking about."
I am not dumb enough to expect the majority to understand what i am talking about. But those of you who have experienced this symbiance, and want to learn more should look into Terence McKenna, the music and lyrics of Tool, the art of Alex Grey. Bless you all, I hope you one day you will experience what I am referring to.
Actually it is just as bad as cigarettes. Don't believe me, open your pipe and look at the goo inside, thats in your lungs as well. I support smoking and smoked myself for years, but the facts are the facts. The only way to avoid the damage to your lungs is to get a vaporizor. Marijuana is full of tars and other carcinogens, and I have done the research. You can't trust the info on sights that are pro legalization no more than the info from government sites aimed at keeping it illegal and demonizing the effects. You have to look to true scientific research that has no altenative agenda other than getting the facts out. I don't think one joint equals a pack of cigarettes, but it is at least equally damaging, i.e one joint is equall to one cigarette as far as the damage to your lungs. That said, it is no where near as addictive as cigarettes and at least it has some positive benefits- cigarettes have none.
i love weed
i wasnt going to get high today...or at least not till later but watching this is giving me a hard time....time to roll one up
dont put me in jail i once rescued a drowning girl.
I wanna know how the hell they come up with these estimates of the value of the marijuana industry??? any numbers they give are completely guessed.. If these people really had insight into the industry they would know that they really are clueless to the amount of marijuana actually grown
smoking a joint is nowhere near as bad as smoking a cigarette ..............unless its got tobacco in it . do some real research before blurting nonsense.
I didn't argue with anything you posted in your last. My arguement is the mistaken notion that the supreme court must hear the case first. Article three section two merely states that the supreme court will have the final say, that is if they deem the lower courts have not done their job correctly and will even hear the case. As far as proving harm done to the state or society in general by an individual due to illegal actions, I can easily do so in the case of meth posession, use, manufacturing, or distribution.
If you want to call your weird ideas about perpetual motion, anti-government, anarchy, and supreme courts having to hear localized cases that have yet to even come before the local court in jurisdiction "out of the box thinking" go ahead. I call it something else, as would most professionally educated and experienced peoples in those respective fields. Yeah, I value education and experience over amatuer guesses- I'm funny that way.
Me having trouble thinking out of the box, (LOL) now I know you have no clue. My anti-establishment out of the box thinking has defined my life, and caused me much trouble and pain. My experience and education has taught me since that many things are done a certain way for a reason, and dissent for dissents sake is useless and mislead. Still I am considered a member of the counter culture due to my unorthodox beliefs concerning religion and drugs mostly, though i am in direct conflict with popular thinking on many other issues as well. But hey, what ever makes you feel better Princeton, like you said- I am not exactly losing sleep over whether you approve or not.
I'm from Holland too, it's legal for 'coffeeshops' to sell but not to buy, so it's weird. But I can tell it's good for the crime-rate but not especially for everyone. My mother drank and smoked and she got kind of abusive from it. I smoked like 2 or 3 joints a day, but sincs I quit I feel better, sleep better, have more energy and a better memory. I think it's ok to smoke every now and them but certainly not every day. And smoking a joint is as bad as smoking 1 pack of cigarettes.
@ dr donkleotus
I completely agree.. i had to smoke in the car when i used to live in college dorms and police station was a few hundred feet away.
driving off campus was the only safe choice. funny thing is that i don't smoke any more (quit a few months ago) but when i did, one of my favorite things to do was to smoke and drive... i'm a very experienced (delivery) driver and not once did i hit anyone or even come close in all my years of doing so.
nothing like riding while blazing a blunt with tha bass thumping. twas a magical experience... aww.. u guys make me wanna smoke again
its not my interpretation of the constitution.
“The dissent argues that standing requires only, one, a real controversy that, two, will be determined. Those are requirements for standing, but so is concrete injury, because if injury is only hypothetical, there is no real controversy.” Daimler Chrysler Corporation, v. Bill Inman et al, NO. 03-1189, Texas Supreme Court, 2008.
"To establish one's standing to bring an action, "a party must demonstrate (1) that it has sustained a distinct and palpable injury, (2) that the injury was caused by the challenged conduct, and (3) that the injury is apt to be redressed by a remedy the court is prepared to give." City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 54 S.W.3d 248, 280 (Tenn. 2001). [By the way, this is a criminal case]
"Generally, "'[t]o establish guilt' " in a criminal case, "the prosecution [must] show that  the injury or harm specified in the crime occurred,  this injury or harm was caused by someone's criminal activity, and  the defendant was the [perpetrator].' " State v. Talbot, 665 P.2d 1274, 1276 (Utah 1983) (citation omitted). The corpus delecti, or body of the crime, involves only the first two elements, however." State v. Mauchley, 67 P.3d 477, 482 (Utah 2003).
I could go on for hundreds of pages where state and federal judges have ruled similarly. no law degree required to "read" & i don't make money for helping the people I do... they can donate if they like.
I know I won't make much sense to you.. no sleep lost over it.. i am old and experienced enough to understand that "outside the box" is not welcomed by many people and only few will see the true value of real original thought and action. most will just belittle and insult it because it makes them uncomfortable.
as far as results.. there already have been strong positive results for myself and people i've helped. people have been successfully applying this info for decades, but oh well.. i know this is all spanish to you.. i'll leave you to your box...
@ Leonardo, I think that the doc had a good point when they said SOME people end up on harder drugs just because they wanted cannabis and their dealer had the harder drugs and was either out of cannabis or talked them into the harder drugs.
I think that when cannabis becomes legal, you'll see a drop in hard drug use. Just like in Amsterdam.
@ noise, would you agree?
@ JustSayGrow, I think the oral swab test and the field sobriety test should be enough for now. The oral swab will detect if someone has smoked in the past 3-4 hours. The field sobriety test would determine their level of impairment. It would be nice if they came up with a new detection device, but those that claim we NEED one before cannabis can become legal are just being ignorant.
I will say this: I believe a lot of people smoke in their cars because for them it's a safe place (hear me out). If you lived at home with your parents or with a loved on that didn't like/know that you smoked, where would you do it? The bathroom perhaps (when they're not at home), or your car.
Also, what if you lived in an apartment complex where your neighbors would rat on you or the landlord would discover you if you smoked inside?
In both senarios, to avoid persecution, you'd smoke in your car. A lot of people assume that smokers behind the wheel are just jerks who are blatantly breaking the law and have complete disregard for themselves and others.
@ Tom, I am also sorry that you had to deal with that situation, but just think, when it becomes legal, more people will be allowed to smoke at home, therefore severly limiting the enticement of smoking in the car.
I worked at a company that contracted with the state government to treat meth addicts. In 2 years, I saw hundreds of people becoming mentally r@#$%^&*, as in, not being able to hold a job and needing a nurse to pick up their poo bucket.
Still, I struggle to etch morality and compassion in my brain for those that chose to play with a substance that has an almost Orwellian stronghold on a person's life. One side understands why and cries, and another side thinks it is natural selection weeding out the stupid.
I can't reason a solution for meth, but perhaps for its producers lie proper punishment.... like torture in public squares inspired by the movie Law Abiding Citizen.
Now...weed.... where would playing dominoes while eating dominoes white being with a girl shaped like a domino be without weed? 3/4 of us would be screwed! nooooo
the got this part wrong:
that growing weed is illegal in holland !
your allowed to grow 5 plants per house !
i am from holland :)
TIA - this is america...
at the end it says "there are no easy answers"
well its not too hard for me, I'm going to hit the vape.
Usually smoke 3 or 4 days a week but I stop for a few weeks every now and then, just been cutting back lately and its amazing how little difference it makes to life. short term memory is a little better, I probably have slightly more motivation to do menial tasks like washing dishes, get more angry and stressed out about small insignificant things...
That's sad Tom, I'm glad your family was spared the crazed driver. It should be noted that"smell" is not considered probable cause for search & suspect here in Cannada. Why? Because it's wrong. And profiling is also illegal.
There ought be a standardized test created for drivers. If you are too slow, scattered, uncoordinated, tired, or just plain too dang stupid to be driving then you would be pulled off the road. This could be but is not necessarily related to consumption of alcohol, opiates, cannabis, caffiene, amphetamines, barbitutes, or any other appetite or circumstance, like say sleep deprivation, Point is, if you are fit to drive then you are, if not, not. Period.
Again good sir, it is a relief that all is well with you and yours. Keep the roads safe
You make a good point but there is much more to it that that. If I may recommend "The Emperor Wears No Clothes - Jack Herer" . I think you'll find this book very interesting indeed.
Not that I'm condoning any illegal activities on the internet in full view of my peers. But, Keeping marijuana illegal does supply a multitude of people suffering during the states job crisis with an alternate source of income while they're in the slump. A small family could be kept fed in the short term potentially off of the enthusiasm toward getting high found amongst middle-aged housewives and college kids. Keeping the pot trade run through illegal means has it's pro's and con's. But we can all benefit from the fact that it's our pot. Not the governments. Not a corporations. We regulate it, grow it, and use it, just fine on our own. I don't want my mid-day brownie to have a starbucks stamp on it.
Loved it! I wonder what 600 billion could have done for the education system? besides placing many law enforcemt individuals out of a job. Thank you for posting!!
What a person chooses to put in to his / her body is a choice that no government anywhere should have the right to dictate. The law should have the right to intervene only if that person creates a danger to himself or to others. To himself because then other taxpayers have to pay for his remedy or recuperation. To others because that is basic civil responsibility.
If I drive over your aging mother when drunk I will be sentenced under the law to many years in jail. But the law never considers an outright ban of alcohol for that reason. Same for tobacco and all the health care I will need eventually which comes out of tax payer dollars. Still the tobacco industry continues to churn out its poisons.
If this system works why are my choices limited to these two drugs, which are near the top of the list of the worst things I can possibly consume, both for my own health and also for the implications to those people around me ?
Alcohol is a depressant. Tobacco gives you instant gratification every time against the physical and mental addiction that is slowly killing you.
These two drugs are allowed because they do not corrupt the model of the individual that the system requires to feed its cycles of mass production and consumption every generation. The supply of non thinking, conformist individuals for the work force continues unabated, completely awash in the delusions of employment, consumption, wealth, reproduction, media, religion and war.
You and I are made to disagree. I am not getting into it again with you except to say, bs. You have very little understanding of what meth does to people if you think it should be legalized. And take it form a felon and ex addict, things being illegal does help deter people from doing it. Not everyone, but many. Don't believe me? Legalize bank robbery, and see what happens. You make absolutedly no sense to me Princeton. Of course every since you told me how you were going to solve the riddle of perpetual motion in your spare time with some magnets, I stopped looking for sense when talking to you. Now you are going to revolutionize the legal system with your interpretation of the constitution, ever think about just getting a law degree and going about it in a sane way? You are constanbtly going to recreate the wheel and do it all your way, I'll hold my breath waiting for results. (LOL)
I can tell when I hear the warning that the potency of today's crops are so much higher than they were in the late 60's and 70's, that it's orchestrated by the anti-marijuana government. It is unavoidable at this point but there are still a few more dollars to be made by prisons.
yeah.. meth and some other hard drugs are pretty bad... but i think making a drug illegal (or anything for that matter) doesn't stop it, only lets the criminals and thugs control that "industry" and actually incites more crimes.
btw. me and a few friends have been fighting local bs unconstitutional laws with some relative success (mostly traffic tickets) and if you read your constitution, study case law, and read your local statutes, marijuana or any other drug possession was never illegal to begin with (unless if you hurt someone in the process, but that would be the crime, not possessing a drug)
coincidentally our next few projects will actually involve going up against possession "laws" for the fact that they violate constitutional rights, corpus delecti, and "standing" requirements in criminal & civil proceedings.
funny fact to think about (& that got us out of much trouble)
read your constitution (U.S.) article 3 section 2
"In all Cases .... which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction" (translation, the supreme court has to hear the case first)
whenever you get some State coming after you( state of XX vs. you ), this card we've found works very well in getting them to shut up and ignore you hoping you go away! we just haven't tried it on a drug case yet.
check out my "politica" page on my blog to find out more.. this is crucial stuff and it's their own system working against them.. the founding fathers were geniuses and by not studying & applying the legacy that was left to protect us, we allow corrupt officials to rob us.
Any drug arrest is simply kidnapping, and those mindless cops who perform these acts do not deserve the gift of life as intelligent human being on this planet.. just saying.... :)
Yes I think Marijuana should be legal. But I think if you get caught while driving stone you should get into a lot of trouble. Last year a guy came barreling down the road while I was taking my two kids to the park. He drove by and it reek of pot. He almost hit my kids and I saw in his face he was in outerspace!!Also get busted selling to minor go to jail long time. Not a bad trade off I think.
what the?? why is my second comment still being moderated? and the one above this not? theres no swears in it even
They forgot to mention that the police are the bad guys and it is the U.S. that has made pot stay illegal around the world. Their trying to mislead you into believing the world came to a natural consensus on the evil weed. Thanks to the good ole US of A not just people in AMerica but all over the world continue to suffer. Why dont they ever say such things? Oh well, the rich get to have their pot, I mean cake and eat it too.
also i feel bad for medical marijuana users cuz you just know govt weed is bunk . they probably havto smoke 10 joints jus to get a buzz. pretty sure theyd prefer ther daughters boyfriends stash over the govt dope. but they get it free dont they? free is free so i guess noones complaining lol
@ez, yep totally agree. Meth is a scary drug. The fact that users experience "meth spiders" - the crawling sensation your skin experiences which makes you constantly scratch yourself, to the point of rawness and bleeding... sometimes to severe physical harm, should be enough to deter people from using it.
"Meth mouth", which you also mentioned, where the acidic properties of the drug along with a user's lack of general hygiene causes their teeth to rot out of the skull, is also extremely scary.
@doc-fan, I don't think we'll have to wait that long. Once a state votes to legalize it, it will put the government in a very awkward position. There will undoubtably be debate at the highest level, as well as court battles, hearings, etc. When that begins to happen, the lies and propaganda of the prohibitionists will come crashing down like a deck of cards. You can't keep those skeletons in the closet forever...
I am tired,as a normal, taxpaying citizen, of being considered a criminal because I enjoy the occasional toke.I have never become an addict,stole or hurt anyone to obtain it,been too sick to miss school or work. I will not even drive on it because I don't have a false sense of security in my abilities.
The whole reason marijuana was prohibited was because of the competition between the hemp and nylon rope industry back in the 1920's. Nothing to do with smoking it.Tired of the false propaganda...Tired of Canadian gov't. following U.S. policy like the blind leading the blind.The drug war is dead.I bet if marijuana was legalized,then there would be alot less abuse of the truly dangerous drugs,such as the aforementioned meth.Just saying...
BTW, Vlatko, thanks once again for helping me avoid the scourge of T.V. commercials!
@ Ez and Dr. Dunkleosteus
very right i forgot about meth, which is 1 of the worst drugs ever. its pretty clear to me i dont know if you guys feel the same way but all the worst drugs are the man made-chemical drugs. like heroin. coke is bad , but it starts as a plant which the natives used to chew and gave them a buzz like chewing tobacco but not even as bad effects as chewing tobacco.
meth is defo man made-chemical drug thru and thru messing people up bad. but having said all this acid is also man made-chemical, and alot can really eff you up, meth-style.
i dunno im not 1 for hallucinating and seeing purple monsters and killer clowns cuz that really freaks me out, but i know some enjoy it so hey watever floats ur boat, but i mean too much of anything isnt good for you, even mary jane.
i have yet to blaze and see a bud doc thru it's smoke.
So... Only 20 more years to go till I can finally smoke my joint with calm mind that I wont be caught! Great! Oh wait.. 20 years is a shi*t of time =/
@ Dr. Dunkleosteus
I can't begin to tell you how much I agree with your assesment of Meth as the most destructive and dangerous drug in existence. I work as a couselor for addicts and have had several friends, back when i was an addict, as well as clients to die or be totally destroyed by meth. It has reached epidemic proportions here in the southeastern US, mostly, I believe, because it is so easily manufactured and creates such a rush of euphoria when used.
People that use it enter a state of insanity, they are not able to interpret the consequences of their actions or determine just what reality is. I feel this is not just the effect of the drug but the combined effect of the drug and loss of sleep. Even without the drug staying up just one night severly impairs ones ability to think clearly, effects your sense of balance, and often causes very slight hallucinations. Staying up three to four days, which is very common among users, intensifies these effects horribly. Once you add the effect of the drug to this you have a person in a state of dementia, very dangerous to themselves as well as those around them.
I have witnessed otherwise normal people holding their family at gun point, experiencing extreme paranoid hallucinations, and commiting acts that they would NEVER commit otherwise. I know two people that could not live with the sexual acts they were involved in during use and commited suicide as a result. Not to mention the fact that users teeth rot out at an alarming rate and their skin turns to constant sores and bumps, its disgusting!
If you know anyone on the drug or thinking of experimenting with meth, get them help immediately- you may very well save their life. This is not a joke or some party drug you will simply shrug off and move on from. I have used many drugs in my youger addicted years, meth is different from all of them. Yes some people manage to use once and walk away, but they are few. Its not worth the risk DON"T DO IT MAN.
'All you need is a bag of weed! Everything is better with a bag of weed!'.
Thanks for this, V!
I missed it when it first aired and I wasn't sure if I'd get to see it.
@grey area, I know it would be awesome because that's usually how I spent my Sunday afternoons in college.
However, I would replace LSD on your list with Meth. Meth is a terrible drug that ruins people's lives. LSD merely makes one realize that their life is worth more than what society expects them to do with it.
LSD would do a lot of people a lot of good, if taken appropriately, just like psilocybin mushrooms.
For those who don't keep up with cannabis news, it looks like Arizona has become the 15th state (along with the District of Columbia) to legalize medical marijuana.
We're getting there, little by little.
It should be legal but the gov and organised crime won't let it happen.
mary jane is legal in holland and im prety sure they have a low crime rate and high quality of life. its pretty much like tobacco there. wouldnt it b great to walk into your corner cafe , munch a hash brownie with a cup of tea and go home pass out on ur couch watching TDF??? U KNOW IT WOULD BE AWESOME LOL . legalize it and its almost a garantee society will run smoother. heroin and coke are the only things thfat should be kept illegal, they jus mess people up too bad, and maybe acid
Damn Ez im glad I live in blighty, pigs here are more likely to ask for a toke....... well maybe not
I don't even smoke weed, but the fact marijuana is illegal is INSANE. There just isn't a rational justification for it.
I have no issue with people smoking weed, and I am a drug addiction counselor. Its good for appetite, sleeping well, reduction of stress, helps improve circulation to the eyes-hence the blood shot look- which helps with glaucoma, and much more that I am probably not aware of. I used to smoke very heavily and the only benefit i have seen to stopping is that I save money and my respiratory system works better. In other words my advise is to grow it and get a vaporizor, oh- and look out for the pigs. Thats another benefit worth mentioning, I no longer swallow my tongue every time I get pulled over.
Here in Alabama it is a very serious offense, first offense under one ounce = 500 dollars fine plus whatever bail to get you out of the pokey, usually about 500 dollars as well. Then they sentence you to drug court, which is several months of urine tests and going to two n/a classes a week- failure to comply can carry about one year in county jail. Second offense under an ounce is usually the same.
Third offense under an ounce is one year in county and a felony on your record. If you caught with an ounce or over skip the first two stages and go directly to felony possesion and a year in county, with the possibility of being charged with distribution and getting up to five years in state prison. Its at the judges discretion in this case, if you have no past record he will probably cut you a break depending on how well you kiss his @ss. In the end the legal risks involved forced me to stop, no drug is worth that much trouble.
And furthermore, big up to The History Channel for putting up something that isn't riddled with propaganda.
i think the people on the earth should review everything that is going on .
cause its bad , and i don't even know what bad is compared to what's going on on some place's on earth .
the system is just shady
Great doc, sad that we are still having this argument considering all the advancements in scientific experimentation. F@#$%^& gov't.
es i would rather be in a room with a pothead. but i wish they went into industrial hemp. because you cant just get high off of it. the complete interior of a car, save for the computers and wires, could be made from industrial hemp and would be better for the environment and the economy.
According to the bible God said "I have given you all the trees and seed bearing plants to use". Can't argue with that. Free the weed!!
who would u like to be in a room with when sober
with a drunk
or a pothead
i have never ever heard about spouse abuse from a guy who was high
but a guy who was drunk
im sure that happens once an hour around most parts of the world