So if we can make it illegal to smoke weed (or talk about it) abroad in a country where it's legal

[Capitalocracy]

can we also make it illegal for an American corporation to hire people abroad at wages that would be illegal in the U.S.?

[Odin2005]

1. Why do you hate FREE-DUMB???

:sarcasm:

[leftstreet]

2. lol

Excellent question!

K&R

[snappyturtle]

3. Perfect! nt

[sabrina 1]

4. Legal? Who cares about legal anymore?

This is how it works I have learned. If a Democrat does it, it's okay. Like if a Democratic President orders the execution of a US citizen with no charges filed or any other semblance of due process, who are we to question such a decision?

And if a president can do that, why would we question anything else our team does?

:sarcasm: for the snark impaired.

[greymattermom]

5. maybe suggest that the bill would be interpreted that way

It would be interesting to see who would support it if that argument were made.

[Capitalocracy]

7. I actually would support that but not the original bill.

My convoluted logic? Exploitation is a real crime with real victims. Smoking weed is not.

[randome]

9. Give it a rest.

1987, 14 people killed because the engineers were smoking marijuana.

Marijuana will never be legal. Live with it and spend your time and energy on something more deserving, like electing Democrats and UN-electing Repukes.

[Capitalocracy]

11. OK, don't smoke on the train

Seriously? That's your argument? Yeah, nobody ever died in an alcohol-related crash.

[randome]

13. Doesn't matter what 'rules' might govern legal use of marijuana.

People will choose to ignore them. People will die and be injured. That's reality.

And my point was that YOUR point about weed never killing anyone is obviously wrong.

As for alcohol causing deaths, you're right. Of course you're right. Does that mean we should add more inattentive drivers and operators of machinery to the mix? No.

For good or bad, society has decided that alcohol and caffeine are okay, any other mind-altering substance is not.

Marijuana will never, ever be legalized. I wish people were different and we did not need to have these kind of laws in place. I really do. But that's not reality and I don't lose any sleep over it. It's not worth my time against the backdrop of all the other rules and regulations we have in place. Like traffic lights. Day care centers. Food safety.

We should have more important things to occupy our time and energy than all these ridiculous threads bashing Obama for not having enough sympathy for stoners.

[Capitalocracy]

16. One incident 24 years ago is your smoking gun for marijuana

when 10,839 people died in alcohol-related accidents in 2009 (CDC)? Research has shown marijuana impairment is NOT the same as alcohol impairment. People smoke it anyway. You can make it legal without making driving while smoking it legal. Those potheads you obviously have some kind of irrational hatred for are being wasted as fodder for the for-profit prison system when they could be massive allies in the progressive movement and help elect Democrats if Democrats would fight for them and give them a reason to put down the bong for an hour to go vote. Not to mention the fact that it's a massive human rights violation to put people in jail for something that is illegal literally for no reason, for using a substance that is beneficial to your health and wellbeing.

Seriously dude, what are you smoking?

[Scuba]

18. Plus One Big Fat One

[randome]

20. I agree with you about the number of deaths.

MANY more deaths due to alcohol compared to marijuana. But marijuana was illegal during the same period you cite, so statistically I don't think a valid comparison can be made.

I have no hatred toward anyone who wants to 'indulge' in smoking pot. I really don't. All I'm saying is that Society has obviously decided that adding more potheads to the mix of irresponsible behavior is not desirable.

Agree or disagree, that is Reality and marijuana will never, ever be legalized.

And I agree with you -as you implied- that the existing laws to incarcerate people for ridiculously harmless amounts of pot is unjustified. But not because there is a conspiracy to keep the jails full, but because common sense doesn't often shine through in our drug laws.

Let's reform sentencing laws, maybe? I don't have a problem with that.

My main point, however, is that legalization is not going to happen, at least in our lifetimes, so let's stop worrying so much about it and focus on more important things.

[Capitalocracy]

22. So would you be in favor of making alcohol illegal?

Because logically, if the only thing that's keeping the marijuana death toll down to zero per year for the last 23 years and the alcohol level above 10,000 is that one is legal and the other isn't, shouldn't we make alcohol illegal?

[randome]

28. The highways would be safer, no doubt.

But, again, Society at large has decided that alcohol and caffeine are allowed and other mind-altering substances are not.

That's reality. It doesn't have to be logical but...it's Reality.

I was against raising the speed limit from 55 to 70 because everyone KNEW there would be more traffic fatalities. But apparently we thought it was an acceptable number.

The same kind of subconscious, statistical examination comes into play with all of us where drugs are concerned. I think the vast majority of people don't really care one way or the other about pot so they don't mind it being illegal, either.

If it was otherwise, there would be swarms of people descending on the White House about this one issue.

But there aren't. Because it's not that important to the vast majority of us.

We have more important things to do.

[Tom Ripley]

39. "Society at large" has decided jack shit

These decisions were made by those who financially profit from the decisions.

[randome]

62. 'Society' is a group mind.

It's separate from the median and the majority. I think. Most of the time. Maybe.

Anyways, if enough people really wanted to change this, they would be in Washington by the thousands to change it.

Where are they? I don't hear them. Probably because most people, like myself, want the drug and sentencing laws reformed but we don't care that deeply about it. Maybe that's because it doesn't affect most people. Maybe I feel this way because it doesn't affect ME. I'm not always certain.

But with both political parties dysfunctional, I think too many people are beating their heads against the wall for no good purpose.

There are more important things to spend time on. IMHO.

[galloglas]

34. Wanna bet ?

You say:

"And I agree with you -as you implied- that the existing laws to incarcerate people for ridiculously harmless amounts of pot is unjustified.But not because there is a conspiracy to keep the jails full, but because common sense doesn't often shine through in our drug laws."

It may not be your central point in the debate, but when you say (as above) there is no conspiracy, you are simply wrong.

Though it may not have been the original intent, the outsourcing of the "corrections industry" to private sources has resulted in a profit-seeking privatization industry that relies, as all industries do, on a continuing source of income and raw materiel. Our hapless fellow citizens who are incarcerated as the result of the puritanical marijuana laws of our country are that raw materiel.

The professed hope of all governments is that their penitentiaries are built because there is a need for them. Further, that the hope is that they would one day be shuttered and rusty from lack of use. When a penitentiary system or any part of it is privatized, it replaces the party (the government) which supposedly wishes for a optimal society in which the penitentiaries could be shuttered with one (the private companies subcontracting prison duties) that has as it prime goal the preservation and expansion of system for profit and is quite willing to bribe, lobby, or anything else which perpetuates the system.

Ergo, there is a conspiracy to keep the jails full.

[Romulox]

52. You're a Drug Warrior. At least have the integrity to own it.

:eyes:

[Riftaxe]

27. Let's solve that don't drink and drive thing first

then we can put those efforts into don't do dope while driving a train (no matter what Casey Jones might say!)

[RainDog]

50. this person declaring that cannabis will not be legal reminds me of the Soviet hawks

who had no idea of the changes that were coming in the eastern bloc because they got their information and outlook from other cold warriors like themselves.

but change did come - and suddenly.

because people were sick of the shit and when an opportunity came to change their societies to make them less of a police-state - they pushed and pushed and took down the Iron Curtain.

it wasn't Reagan that did this. It was activists in the Eastern bloc who made that happen. Activists are the ones who create social change, not politicians getting paid to repress others.

[GReedDiamond]

26. The unimpeachable, infallible Wikipedia...

...here's what is right at the top of the article you cite:

"This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (February 2011)"

Also from the article: The Amtrak crew "...tested positive for marijuana" -- which stays in a person's system long after the effects have worn off. Up to months longer. So they may have just smoked, or maybe not. So, cannabis may or may not have been a factor in the crash. If it was a factor, it was but one element of the overall situation which led to the crash. It seems more likely the cause was more attributable to the engineer of the freight locomotive which was hit by the Amtrak train.

In other words, we really don't know to what degree cannabis was THE factor which resulted in tragedy.

Trying to disparage cannabis legalization efforts based on this one incident is disingenuous, at best.

In order not to violate DU rules, I won't say what it is, at worst.

Oh, and one other thing, you declare that "(m)arijuana will never be legal. Live with it and spend your time and energy on something more deserving, like electing Democrats and UN-electing Repukes."

OK, I guess we'll just keep locking up and ruining the lives of millions of otherwise law-abiding, non-violent cannabis users, whether they be medicinal or recreational users, just because you deem legalization efforts not deserving of our time and energy.

Gotcha, thanks for the great advice!

[randome]

30. Oh, come on, man, I know it's Wikipedia.

I also remember when it happened because I read about it in one of those old newspapery things.

And I already said the laws on the books are in need of reform. But if enough people truly felt that pot should be legalized, there would be swarms of people surrounding the White House as we speak.

There aren't. Well, not for this issue anyways. The swarms of people gathering today in NYC and other cities are pressing for the most part for changes in financial regulations.

I don't think I'm being disingenuous. Pot is a mind-altering substance. That's the main reason people smoke it. I really don't have a problem with people altering their minds any way they want. I really don't. But Society -which I see as a kind of multi-mind of all of us- has decided pot should remain illegal.

That isn't going to change. All the wishing and complaining in the world won't make it change. Get a few hundred thousand people to surround the White House on this issue. Go ahead. I'll support the effort, then. Until then, let's spend our time on more important issues.

[GReedDiamond]

33. No. Basing your prejudice against the legalization...

...of cannabis on this Amtrak incident IS disingenuous.

Cannabis legalization is not a frivolous, side-show issue, as you seem to want to frame it.

The connection of the cannabis legalization movement to the OWS movement is obvious - BigPharma, for one, wants to stomp out cannabis. Which is directly related to the insurance industry, which is directly a part of the financial services industry, which is "Wall Street."

Downplaying the horrific effects that prosecuting millions of people for cannabis possession/use has, on not just those prosecuted, imprisoned, and/or having their assets seized (often WITHOUT a conviction), but on Society as a whole, is a slap in the face to basic justice and civil rights -- not to mention, human rights.

Sorry, not buying your DLC-like approach to the issue.

BTW, I will choose to support whatever issues and political movements however I see fit, so, thanks, but no thanks for your advice to those of us who see this issue differently than you.

You can now stop wasting your time on cannabis issues, and go ahead with your efforts to continue electing ineffective, out of touch corporately-controlled Democrats who accomplish next to nothing but becoming millionaires as a by-product of their time as "public servants."

[randome]

35. You said there were no victims.

I showed that there were. I'm sure if I did enough digging on the issue, I would find more examples but, as I said, I don't think it's worth my time.

Marijuana is a mind-altering substance. I have no problem with people choosing that for themselves. But the fact is that more people will be endangered when someone who is smoking it is behind the wheel or operating heavy machinery.

The question then becomes how many deaths and/or injuries are acceptable to you? How many to anyone else? What's the number?

And I really, truly doubt that the prison, health and political systems are ALL in synch with one another on this. When do they hold their meetings? Who gets to be in charge?

People are not that organized. There is no super-conspiracy to deprive you or anyone else of your right to be stoned.

It's just that Society has determined that alcohol and caffeine are okay, pot is not.

And regardless of what you or I think of it, it will never be legal, at least not in our lifetimes. That doesn't bother me at all.

[Capitalocracy]

38. It's not a conspiracy, it's a system.

When people with money get to influence policy, then the financial interests are what matter, not a conspiracy. Sure, it would be perhaps a bit paranoid to suggest the pharmaceutical companies and the private prisons got together to figure out how to persecute medical and recreational marijuana (although multiple companies in different sectors with similar interests often create PACs with a common goal that helps forward all their financial interests, so it's not that far-fetched that they would). But you would be a bit too trusting to say that the money they put into politics, and we know they put a lot, and we even see the specific anti-marijuana legislation, for example, that ALEC writes after receiving money from the prison system, doesn't have any influence on policy.

[GReedDiamond]

40. Thanks for your input on the cannabis legalization movement.

You said "and I already said the laws on the books are in need of reform."

And then you attack the legalization effort using a single cherry-picked incident -- involving a questionable incident involving cannabis, to an extent not really known -- which resulted in the unfortunate deaths of 14 people, in the thousands-of-years-long history of human cannabis use, which has no recorded fatalities based on typical use.

I get that you really don't care at all about legalizing cannabis, and I also get that you ignore the REAL human toll that the War on Drugs takes, due to keeping cannabis, and other drugs as well, illegal.

I understand you have no empathy, sympathy, or human concern for the unjustly persecuted, prosecuted, imprisoned, economically ruined, and often brutalized and killed (murdered) by the effort to stop something which cannot ever be stopped.

Knowing that, I have to wonder why you are compelled to say: "and I already said the laws on the books are in need of reform," while you then proceed to shit on those of us who have made an effort over the last forty years (in my case), to bring sanity to the table. You're the guy that thinks it's fun to pull the tablecloth off the table after the progress made so far.

Thanks for nothing, and, as they say all the time on DU, "your concern is duly noted."

PS: Here's a little tune dedicated just to you -- Death Penalty For Pot

[randome]

53. 'And other drugs', too?

That's what this country needs. More cocaine and heroin flooding the streets. Legally.

I'm not 'shitting' on anyone, I'm making my viewpoint known that, IMHO, there are more pressing things to spend our time on than a fruitless effort to make drugs legal.

[GReedDiamond]

63. Yes. And other drugs...

...I know you're not the least bit interested in such a concept, due to your limited scope of understanding of the subject of drug use/abuse.

Pick up a copy of Dr. Andrew Weil's "The Natural Mind." You may benefit from what he has to say about the subject.

Bye.

[RainDog]

42. you are ignorant if you think the OWS movement does not support the end of prohibition

polls indicate that the majority of Democrats support decriminalization. the only Democratic subset that does not support decriminalization, at the least, are social conservatives.

social conservatives comprise about 30% of those who identify as Democratic.

so, the reality is that, as a self-identified Democrat, your position is the minority position on this issue.

[randome]

49. I said 'for the most part'.

I'm sure some people in the OWS movement are there only for legalization but I don't hear their voices much.

And maybe a majority of people support legalization but the majority of those, I would postulate, don't care enough about it to actually go out and do anything about it. Neither do I.

Medical marijuana use: yes.

Reforming the sentencing and possession laws: yes.

But I don't think we will ever see pot legalized in our lifetimes and it's not that big an issue to me.

I put it to you that we have more important battles to fight. Like getting us out of the Middle East, getting the Repukes out of office so we can work on real progress in this country, etc. etc.

[RainDog]

55. Those who support an end to prohibition are not single-issue voters

But, as I noted before, MORE PEOPLE in California voted to made medical marijuana legal than voted for Bill Clinton in 1996.

MORE PEOPLE supported the right of Americans to make choices for themselves than supported the incumbent president.

The reality is that most people don't talk about this because it's like.. d'uh. of course. I was like that. Then I started reading about the way in which the WoD is used to create a level of corruption that would be impossible without it.

I saw what was happening to people who could benefit from this plant who had to move to another state in order to keep from losing custody of their children - I'm thinking in particular of a woman with four kids - a young widow - who has CP whose ONLY CRIME is using the one substance that ameliorates the symptoms of her disease.

It is entirely worthless to dismiss this issue. You alienate a large percentage of people in this nation who would vote for democrats - but, when faced with such dismissal, wonder why they should bother to vote at all. I don't hold that particular belief - I'll vote for democrats - but, honestly, the democratic party, to me, is largely worthless.

the true action of democracy is at the level of activism. MLK was more important, imo, than LBJ. Without MLK, LBJ would have never passed the civil rights act. It didn't matter who was president, in a way, because the time had come, no matter how incensed the racists would be.

the backlash over the civil rights movement has been fierce. Reagan used it to his advantage, as has every other Republican since then. but it wasn't wrong. It was the right thing to do. It was RIGHT for people to stand against racist law. The NAACP supports legalization for this very reason.

It is RIGHT to stand against the WoD, esp. as it pertains to cannabis, because of the benign nature of this plant. And the majority of democrats "get" this.

Not everyone is an activist for the same issue - but they may still support an issue. I'm not a gblt activist - but I support their fight for equal rights and will not vote in ways that work to suppress it. IOW, just because their struggle isn't my struggle, that doesn't mean I don't support them by talking about the issue, trying to educate others. The same is true with cannabis. The reality, also, is that the struggle to end prohibition over cannabis is tied directly to the struggle for gblt rights - when Reagan was saying he didn't care about the suffering of AIDS patients, a retiree volunteer at a hospital was making brownies for patients so that they didn't die from wasting.

I'm not African-American or Latino - but the racist application of the law infuriates me - because I know of politicians, like Mitch Daniels, who sold drugs at Princeton and was given a slap on his entitled wrist while some one who merely possesses a small amt of cannabis is fined or imprisoned. That's just not okay with me.

As far as your claim that we need to get republicans out of office to work on real progress - you know, I just haven't seen how that makes a great deal of difference at the federal level. Obviously I think democrats are better than republicans on a host of issues, but trying to appeal to someone because the democrats are so much better - well, I just don't see it. they are somewhat better, but not good enough.

[randome]

56. I hear what you're saying.

I really do. But if you think both parties are largely worthless, then aren't the efforts to make pot legal also worthless? I would think the Democratic party, in general, would be more likely to support legalization but in this climate, for whatever reason -cowardice, deadlocks, etc.- it isn't happening.

So why beat your head against the wall?

And if enough people were activists on this issue, where are they?

But, yeah, you mentioned the racist component of the sentencing laws, and I do understand that some kind of real reform needs to happen there.

Make pot legal? Regulate it? There will still be a flourishing black market for unregulated pot. And hard drugs. It won't change much EXCEPT there will be more stoners in our midst. Can't say I'd look forward to that.

Alcohol and caffeine and prescription drugs affect us, too, I know. There's a reason why Harold & Kumar movies are so popular. Looking forward to the next one, too.

[RainDog]

59. since the law has changed in 14 states, I guess you might be able to see the activists

if you really looked for them.

the laws were changed because of people who introduced initiatives in states that allow the same. In every state that voted for a change in the law, legislators tried to block implementation of the law - as they are currently doing as well.

But the struggle has shown that the legislators are fighting a losing battle because nearly 1/3 of the states in this nation have populations that have used their vote as a voice to state that they do not support continued criminalization of cannabis. This is the direction our country has taken - toward greater liberalization, esp. in light of the research that continues to demonstrate the wonderful medicinal properties of cannabis for a variety of illnesses and their symptoms.

You find support for decriminalization and legalization in university economic depts., in civil rights organizations, in organizations like LEAP - law enforcement against prohibition (law enforcement officers who are retired b/c, otherwise iirc, they are not allowed to speak out to change the law they are sworn to uphold.) You find support for legalization where ever you find people that have bothered to educate themselves about this issue.

Your claim about a black market with legal cannabis is absurd. How many people choose to drink moonshine since the end of prohibition. Honestly. that's one of the most ignorant arguments you can make and, really, displays an astonishing lack of understanding about the way in which people choose to live.

Marketing of cannabis like micro-breweries or Napa Valley vineyards is one way things will go - are already going. Depending upon how laws are written, people might be able to buy from liquor stores - this is another route that is in progress too. But if you think that someone would choose to buy from a black market when they can know the variety/hybrid, etc., the levels of THC and CBD, etc... well, again, you just don't know what you're talking about.

If you look at stats in places with less draconian laws you find that cannabis use among teenagers declines. You find that, in CA, for instance, crime is down in areas with dispensaries (you can find these articles here on DU, in fact. Try the Drug Policy forum.)

What you probably have no clue about is that there are "stoners" in your midst. They just don't tell you about it because you're not informed enough to be someone with whom they would share such information. The reality, however, is that well-educated people who teach, run businesses, make music, art, make laws, provide various services, both professional and non-professional - also choose to use cannabis in certain situations. You just don't know about it. You don't know about it because people who use cannabis responsibly are not stumbling around, throwing up, starting fights, driving dangerously - you know, all those things that people who use or abuse alcohol may sometimes do.

I'm not at all interested in Harold and Kumar. I'm not all that taken with stoner-stereotype humor, but, yeah, a lot of people enjoy it. A lot of people like Cheech and Chong. But those comedic figures are a subset, not everyone - just as the portrayals of people who get rip roaring plastered and do stupid things are not representative of people who have a glass of wine with dinner. No one is stupid enough to think that such portrayals represent everyone who consumes alcohol at social gatherings - tho, of course, those portrayals are true, sometimes, and allow us to make fun of others (and, for some, ourselves,) when we are in a moment of human fallibility.

Now, Arrested Development - that's funny to me. Can't wait for the reunion and movie. Love the Coen brothers, too - not just The Big Lebowski.

[Leftist Agitator]

77. "But I don't think we will ever see pot legalized in our lifetimes..."

How fucking old are you to believe something so abjectly stupid?

If you plan on dying in the next ten years or so, then sure, not in *your* lifetime.

[GReedDiamond]

78. In ten years, I'll be 66...

...so, as I am currently self-employed and without health insurance, he may be correct in my case, who knows?

Which is why I am adamant on this topic. This is a civil rights/human rights issue, not a dirty hippie fringe element issue.

[randome]

31. Dupe. Please ignore.

[GReedDiamond]

32. Self-delete, moved to the proper reply...nt

[RainDog]

41. so, by your logic, all prescription drugs should also be illegal

because they have been implicated in traffic incidents too.

let me tell you something that you need to hear.

PEOPLE WILL NOT GIVE THIS A REST.

It is a very basic issue of adult freedom of choice. This is about RACISM, which, as I noted before, you are perfectly fine with by your continued insistence that people need to stop caring about the racist application of the law.

YOU MAY BE FINE WITH RACISM, but others here are not.

YOU MAY BE FINE WITH ALLOWING PAIN AND SUFFERING because of laws that favor certain industries, but others here are not.

YOU MAY BE FINE WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION to allow certain corporations to make money at the expense of others, but others here are not.

So, in essence, I am here to tell you to go fornicate yourself for your dismissal of this issue. You are part of the minority in this nation that does not want medical marijuana legally available for patients who need it.

You are part of a shrinking number of Americans who want to keep cannabis illegal.

The more that Americans are educated about this issue, rather than subject to propaganda, the more they agree that cannabis prohibition needs to end.

If you dismiss the concerns of the cannabis lobby - say goodbye to their vote. You don't deserve it. If that's the message you want to put out there in your assumed role of speaking for democrats, you demonstrate to many people that supporting democrats isn't a worthy use of time, energy or money.

[randome]

47. I'm really not trying to rev your engine, dude.

You make a point about the racist application of the laws, I agree with that.

I agree with medical marijuana use, too, as long as it's regulated well enough that suppliers can't sell it 'under the counter'.

As for the corporations part, well, um, that's the entire basis of capitalism, you know, 'taking advantage' of others by convincing them to buy a product. Not sure how that factors into this.

And I admit I don't know anything about the cannabis 'lobby' but it must not be very large because it hasn't had much luck in making the changes you want. If enough people descend on Washington to demand a change, it will happen. But I don't see that enough people -in significant numbers- really care about this issue.

And I don't think that pot will ever be legal in our lifetimes. I think that's Reality. And I wish more of us would focus on other issues. But my wishes don't come true, either.

[RainDog]

57. you're right, dude, you don't know much about this issue at all

before you spout your "wisdom" - maybe you should take some time to educate yourself so that you don't look foolish.

the reality is that California led the way in the 1990s to make marijuana available to people for medical use - this, as I noted somewhat before - was also part of the issue of dealing with HIV/AIDS in the gblt community - the issue, though many would like to frame it this way, is not about "stoners."

(but your use of "dude" obviously indicates you want to be able to frame it in such a stupid, stereotypical fashion - I see this all the time. btw, I'm a middle-aged mother of two with a masters degree...dude.)

Prior to the discovery that cannabis had so many valuable properties for cancer patients, research was performed in the U.S. in the 1970s that demonstrated great value in cannabis for tumor suppression. Republicans in power (Reagan and Bush and Nixon before) tried to DESTROY this research. They did not want this information made available to academicians who might want to further study this issue.

Because of the HIV/AIDS crisis, an activist leaked this research.

This is how the current cannabis lobby found its voice. Prior to the Reagan era, Nixon's appointed, conservative head of a task force to look into the issue of decriminalization recommended that cannabis be decriminalized because it was LESS HARMFUL THAN ASPIRIN. This recommendation was ignored because Nixon wanted to use the issue of cannabis use, as he used the "southern strategy" to quash his political opponents. William F. Buckley tried cannabis (outside of the U.S., he claimed, on a yacht) and came back in favor of legalization too. But people like Buckley never face consequences for their actions for such things - they have the money to buy "justice."

You are simply not aware of the large numbers of people who support legalization. This support is mostly centered around liberal parts of the nation - including those towns and cities with highly educated populations, like college towns. Those parts of the nation that must suffer under the rule of religious mythologists are generally backward about the issue of legalization, as well. But not always.

Some parts of the nation, like KY, support hemp legalization because of its cash crop potential - hemp is a valuable replacement for many petrol-derived products. Maybe you aren't aware that Henry Ford built a hemp car that was 5x stronger than steel, that ran on hemp oil - and, if you aren't aware, don't you think it's kind of odd for you to be pontificating about what will or will not happen in regard to cannabis?

The reality is that, on the eve of prohibition of cannabis, Popular Mechanics had put an issue in place that talked about hemp (which is low thc cannabis) as the new "miracle" because of the products that could be made from it. Prohibition of cannabis came about through two committee votes, led by lawmakers who were in the pocket of DuPont - who was about to begin marketing of nylon - and whose greatest competition was hemp.

The lawyer who represented the AMA in the hearing over this issue protested because no one even KNEW what this "marijuana" was - this is a slang word - but cannabis was part of every doctor's arsenal of medication. Opium-derived products were gaining traction because they could be injected and were so much stronger - it was easier to deliver to patients - but this lawyer for the AMA did not think cannabis should be prohibited.

The history of the prohibition of cannabis is a history of the rise of yellow journalism, via Hearst, the rise of corporate dominance via legislation to favor one over another and the rise of fear-mongering to target certain groups of people.

One of the biggest arguments in favor of prohibition was that cannabis made the "darkies think they were equal." If it is not one of the biggest ironies of my life to see Obama continue this stupid, racist war on a plant - honestly, I don't know what else it might be.

You can go look at poll after poll that indicates the support for an end to the repression of medical cannabis use. You can look at the trend that indicates that, as more people learn about this issue, the more America finds it doesn't want to support the waste of a war on cannabis. It's out there - you just aren't paying attention.

What you or I think about whether cannabis will be legal is really here nor there. You have an opinion.

For some of us, this issue, as I said, is a microcosm of all that is wrong with this nation - this one issue really gets to the heart of what is wrong across the board in this society - it is emblematic of the wrongs.

[randome]

60. Sorry for the 'dude'.

I should check profiles before I post.

I have no doubt that a large majority of people want the drug laws reformed and marijuana made legal. But I don't see large numbers of people actually doing anything about it. I think IMHO that's because it's not that big of an issue for most of us.

And while I dislike applying the label 'typical' to myself, I think in this case...well...

With both parties dysfunctional, it seems to me that it's akin to beating your heads against the wall to spend this much time on an issue that will go nowhere.

And I never made any claim to 'wisdom'. I'm just a guy with a keyboard.

[RainDog]

64. again, you don't see it because you don't look for it

if you learned anything throughout the "aughts" - the decade of the Bush nightmare - it should've been that American media is the equivalent of Pravda in far too many ways.

I found that I had to go to sources outside the U.S. to get news about my own nation that was not a "santorum" of propaganda (you'll have to google that particular noun - it's truly apropo regarding American journalism on tv even now, however.)

But, honestly, if you don't care about this issue - then ignore it. But don't try to tell others what they may or may not pay attention to and educate themselves about.

If working for change that faces opposition from powerful forces isn't worth the effort - well, again, try telling that to the people in the Soviet bloc who were not allowed to travel outside their countries for decades because their govts had to force their people to live within a system that many did not support.

according to your logic, they should've just shut up because they faced powerful opposition - even tho their cause was just. Thankfully, a lot of people disagree with you. Thankfully, a lot of people have disagreed with you in the U.S. over a host of issues, such as abolition, a woman's right to vote, civil rights for various groups, current laws that allow corporations to pretend they are citizens...

why fight for anything, according to your logic?

Why? Because it's the right thing to do and it allows people to understand that, without fighting for change, it doesn't happen.

And, again, as I noted above, change comes from activists - not from those in power. Those in power are FORCED to change in response to people (who, btw, are generally not the majority - the majority are not activists, even when they support this or that) who make an issue SO UNCOMFORTABLE for those in power that they cannot refuse to address it.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

You want to ignore this. Go ahead. But realize it is futile and self-defeating for you to tell others to do as you want to do. You will not convince people to ignore this issue.

In the meantime, the govt is fighting this - but, in the future, this prohibition will end. I hope that future takes another step forward with the legalization of cannabis in CA and CO on the 2012 ballots - because the issue is there.

[randome]

65. I'm not telling you or anyone what to do.

I am merely 'suggesting' that the time spent on something that will never happen in today's deadlocked political atmosphere may not be the best use of that time.

I have a computer, too. I can get my news from anywhere in the world. So can most people so I don't think you can blame TV or print journalism for people being ignorant.

And I hardly see fighting for the right to be stoned is equivalent to civil rights. That's a little overblown, don't you think?

If people can get all the information they want in today's world, why are there not tens of thousands of people at the White House right now trying to get pot legalized. I put it to you that it's because most people don't care enough about the issue.

Medical marijuana: yes.
Reforming the sentencing laws: yes.

Other than that, I 'think' most people just don't care because if they did, we would hear their voices. Everywhere. Not just on a handful of threads on DU.

On edit:
You obviously have a lot of passion for making change in the world. I applaud that. But do you really think this one issue is the one to put your mark on? Especially when nothing will come of your efforts -sorry, not my fault- in today's political climate?

[RainDog]

66. so, saying "give it a rest" was just... telling people to relax and continue to discuss?

I find your continued stereotyping of this issue as "fighting for the right to be stoned" tiresome. That's usually the point at which I decide it's not worth my time to continue a discussion - the brick wall is your pov on this issue, to me.

The reason that 1000s of people are not in DC to trying to get pot legalized is because they are working on issues via the construction of laws, the implementation of laws and the support of those who are targeted - at the state level. They are working at the state level because the federal govt. is worthless in regard to this issue.

More change is being affected at state levels. Two states have legalization on the ballot for 2012. Various lawmakers in various states, because of these changes at the level of state policy, are looking into this issue. These are states that do not allow initiatives on the ballot. Conservative states, too, btw.

Research depts. at various prestigious universities are challenging the law in regard to their desire to conduct research. Economists are writing about the beneficial effects of cannabis legalization and have been doing so for years.

You think that the only activism that matters is when people are sitting in at the capitol? That's sort of dumb - or, rather, it allows you to set some sort of arbitrary standard that allows you to pretend this is a non-issue. People have petitioned the white house to respond to this issue. This issue has more signatures than any other - netroots, as Democrats learned in the aughts, is a powerful mechanism to motivate action.

THE VOTE is THE most powerful activist tool - and, again, Americans have voted again and again to support this issue. The actions by legislators to stop the implementation of these laws has been a powerful teaching tool to show just how little representation there is among the political class when direct democracy is involved.

I have repeated this to you, but not in those particular words, more than once here. However, there are lobbies in D.C. now who are working at the federal level to ask lawmakers to take their heads out of their asses. But, as we see on a host of issues, it takes a lot of patience to try to pull a federal pols head out of his or her ass because it is soooo far up there because of all the special interests that keep pushing to keep it there.

There is a bipartisan bill in the House, at the Federal level and one lawmaker in Austin, TX has vowed to never let it get out of committee. My hope is that activists in Austin will use his action to remove his ass from power - he doesn't deserve to be where he is b/c he is blocking a bill that has almost a majority of support among the American people. How many other bills concerning such issues have nearly 50% support among the American population and yet are refused a hearing because of one little popinjay oil industry shill in a cowboy hat?

Again, since you have access to news, read polls if you think people don't care.

The current Attn. General of Utah recently came out in support of medical marijuana after he had to endure chemotherapy. One would hope that people wouldn't have to have cancer to have some compassion for those that do, but, apparently, if you're a conservative, your thinking is so self-absorbed that it's more difficult to get beyond that idea that someone else can benefit from something even if you don't and it's absurd to have a lawmaking agency, rather than a medical one, telling people what they may or may not use to treat illnesses or their symptoms, especially when that substance, as noted, is deemed less dangerous than aspirin and, fwiw, EVERY other pharmaceutical product on the market that deals with life-threatening illnesses.

I sincerely hope you do not have to get cancer to understand that this issue is more than just about "the right to get stoned."

The reality, tho, is that most Americans have had family members who have had to deal with cancer and they know that the current laws are not just absurd, but are harmful to their loved ones.

This issue has become one of "legitimacy of power." Prohibition is illegitimate power, and, as such, does not deserve to exist. We have a govt. that is putting a husband in jail for growing cannabis for his cancer-patient wife. Tell me how that's any different than living under any other totalitarian rule because, honestly, I can't understand the difference.

If this, to you, is merely about the right of stoners to get high - you're sort of sad and pitiful to me.

[GReedDiamond]

67. It IS NOT the "right to be stoned"....

...as you so snidely suggest. It is the right not to be harassed, persecuted, prosecuted, imprisoned and bankrupted by legal fees, fines and financial asset seizure, not to mention, brutalized (as I was in the 1970s) and/or murdered in the name of the "War on Drugs."

What about that do you not understand?

And, as far as "nothing will come of your efforts," why do you discount the progress we've made towards cannabis law reform in California and many other states? What we've accomplished in CA is not "nothing." And having our rights in CA trampled on by the current "Justice" Department is only going to make the overall situation worse for everybody, not better.

But, unfortunately, I suspect you still do not get it, and never will.

You keep insisting that the cannabis legalization movement should surround the White House demanding "change." The White House already knows how the vast majority feels on the subject, they simply do not care, like you.

[me b zola]

48. Winner of the stupidest post of the week

runner up for the stupidest post of the weak

[GReedDiamond]

68. Not only stupid, but steeped in willful ignorance...

...and served with two lumps of arrogance.

[RainDog]

69. pretending that this issue is limited to a handful of threads on DU is also ignorant

or, rather, a very unskillful attempt to try to make people stop noticing that the democrats are not representing the majority of democratic voters on this issue.

this person should spend some time reading about this issue because, frankly, it is discussed all over the web - articles are published about this issue all the time in mainstream magazines, research papers are published all the time to disabuse anyone of the drug warrior stoner nonsense as well.

what I find when someone tries this tactic - to claim this issue is not worth it because we have to vote for democrats - that's when I find my enthusiasm for democrats grows weak.

if that's the stance of democrats, why the hell should I care about them, other than the ones who are taking action to remove prohibition? who cares, if they don't think this issue matters. then maybe I'll decide that politician's election doesn't matter to me.

it's a two way street.

[GReedDiamond]

70. Absolutely, thanks RainDog...

...I will vote for those Democrats who pay attention to this issue, and do not dismiss the pro-cannabis movement as nothing more than a fringe group of dirty hippies who are too stoned to care about anything else.

The prohibition of cannabis is tied to everything else the corporatist politicians, Dem or Repug, keep foisting on the 99%.

[me b zola]

80. Exactly like the willful ignorance of my conservative in-laws

I have found that conversation or debate is impossible with them because they begin on a willfully ignorant premise and build up to a mind-boggling mental gymnastic festival of idiocy.

[tblue37]

72. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it will never work for weed.

Weed will be legal some day, just as alcohol was eventually re-legalized.

It might take a while, but it will happen.

[Kievan Rus]

73. Prohibition does not work, pure and simple.

As I was watching Ken Burns' series on Prohibition in the 1920s and early 1930s, I couldn't help but see parallels with marijuana prohibition today.

DU is the last place I'd expect to see ridiculous ONDCP propaganda turn up.

[rhett o rick]

83. I like your attitude. Why fight it. Just give in. Why dont you try to tell that to OWS? nm

[annabanana]

6. (good point). . . . . . . n/t

[hootinholler]

8. I reckon I've missed somthing?

Please, WTF are you talking about?

aTdHvAaNnKcSe <- (THANKS in advance)
-Hoot

[EFerrari]

10. Here's one of the threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5019860&mesg_id=5019860

[kestrel91316]

12. K&R

[RagAss]

14. Fuck No !...Don't even think of limiting corporations...!!!!!!!!

Where do you think you live? France?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Tsiyu]

17. America! Fuck Yeah!

Our corporations can do whatever they want. We must coddle the job creators even when they pay slave prison wages, spew oil along our coasts and create financial havoc.

Corporations must never, ever, ever be regulated.

Mere humans must be micro-managed; there's lots of money in that micro-management, even when those people aren't hurting anyone or anything. Regulate the little guy for fun and profit!!! Regulate that son of a gun until he isn't even human and has no rights left whatsoever!

How much do the politicians really think the American people can take?

Perhaps we shall see......

[RagAss]

19. Yes indeed....We Shall See !!!

[Scuba]

15. Excellent! K&R

[Motown_Johnny]

21. Wouldn't that be nice. We may as well include environmental protections and safety regulations

along with that.

[Capitalocracy]

23. Damn right we should!

Wouldn't it be great if we actually did stuff that made sense?

[Motown_Johnny]

51. I would be happy if we just included these things in trade deals

not much hope of that either

[Capitalocracy]

61. That's what I would like to see.

If I were king, we'd have a living wage law in the U.S., and only allow imports that pay a local living wage and meet our workplace standards. It would dramatically cut down on outsourcing but not completely eliminate it and devastate workers in other countries, and completely eliminate their exploitation, and solve a lot of economic problems in the U.S. as well.

But again, not going to happen anytime soon. But I'd like to see the idea get out there.

[Motown_Johnny]

81. I would suggest tariffs on imports based on the exporting country's laws

regarding wages, working conditions and environmental protections



This would even the playing field and eliminate the economic incentive to exploit workers and damage the planet. It would also help us keep jobs here because once we level the playing field the transportation costs become prohibitive.

[Capitalocracy]

85. Not a bad idea, but I think it should be based on performance

on an individual basis for the company... that way if a company goes into a country with lower legal standards but maintains a higher standard, they won't be penalized the same as a company that maintains the lowest standard for that country. So like if a company goes to China, for example, and pays the minimum wage there and meets the bare minimum safety standards and pollutes like crazy, they can't sell to the U.S., but if they go to China and hire workers at a living wage and meet U.S. safety and pollution standards, then that's all good.

[ck4829]

24. Why do you hate the job creators so much?

:sarcasm:

[Capitalocracy]

25. Because they suck at creating jobs!

:toast:

[tomg]

29. Corporations are persons. So if I can

get popped for blowing weed in Amsterdam, they should get busted, too, for violating child labor laws, environmental laws, minimum wage laws everywhere else in the world.

[RegieRocker]

36. It's all a crock of shit and that is why OWS and 99% is finally

happening.

[tomg]

37. Sounds about right to me. nt

[Initech]

43. We're only the land of the free if you have money to back your BS.

[RainDog]

44. actually, the law says that it is illegal to TALK ABOUT cannabis in the U.S.

in regard to its cultivation, use, etc. in regard to any other nation in which such talk is legal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2077306

[FrodosPet]

45. Point of curiosity

What country has legal marijuana? The Netherlands is famous for the coffee shops, but my understanding is, even there it is a legal grey area. And supposedly, they are cracking down on non Dutch residents.

I am not advocating for the continued idiotic prohibition, I am just pointing out that it isn't legal in any country that I can think of.

[RainDog]

46. Portugal has decriminalized all drugs

people are allowed to have something like 15 days worth of something on their person, legally.

The Netherlands has de facto decriminalization for use in that people are not put in jail for use. Growing is not legal, however.

California and 13 other states in the U.S. have made medical marijuana legal for use with a doctor's prescription - this is not federal law, but it is state law. Growing is semi-legal in CA and other places for those who are supplying cannabis for dispensaries or individual patients. There are limits to the amount that may be grown and permits are required - or proof that someone is growing for a particular patient.

It is legal, as far as I know, to drink bhang in India - which is a cannabis drink.

The reason that other nations do not have legal cannabis is because of the Uniform Code forced on other nations by the U.S. as part of the war on drugs. We have already imposed our drug war on the rest of the world.

This new law covers "speech" and "thought" as crimes.

[meow2u3]

71. Another excuse to persecute tourists, expats, and emigrants

Those fascist pigs will have an excuse to go after Americans who visit, live, or work in Portugal or the Netherlands, with no distinction between "narcotourists" and non-drug users who simply admire the culture and people. They'll end up provoking countries to giving refugee and/or asylum status to Americans who simply fell in love with their adopted countries. After all, free speech is dead, no matter where you go, thanks to those evil Rethugs.

[FrodosPet]

86. Unfortunately, The Netherlands is going the wrong way

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5020021

And decriminalization of possession is still not "legalization".

[Uncle Joe]

54. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Capitalocracy.

[Capitalocracy]

84. Anytime.

Lots of good points on legalization in this thread, too.

[indepat]

58. Hear, hear. Let's hear it again and again. Let this message ring out in every town and

hamlet across America. :patriot:

[sarcasmo]

74. Makes me wonder if they want to start arresting the dumb kids who put

pictures of them and friends on social media sites smoking weed. More bodies in prison equals more free labor.

[Kievan Rus]

75. Stuff like this makes me long for the day I can permanently leave this country

As soon as I have a steady job, a place to live, and citizenship in a European country, I'm out of here for good.

[eppur_se_muova]

76. US citizens working abroad must also pay US income tax ...

can we require American corporations to do the same ?

[Kat45]

79. Or that they can't have their products made by child labor. n/t

[SixthSense]

82. Brilliant

someone should seriously pursue this if this law gets passed