Bruthuhs like they smoke.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

I like dey smoke too...

they are not talking about penises nonsqtr

Have you been looking at my avatar again?

I don't have much to add, except to say that hellvsheaven is one of the most inadvertently hilarious posters on this board.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

I personally beleive everything that growns in the ground should be legalized, but most of American society is not mature enough for such freedom. I doubt the legalization of cannabis like the dutch system of tight regulation/taxation will cause any major societal harm.

It's funny how that word "legalization" keeps appearing in these discussions -

Here's kinda how I look at this thing:

Anything that's a "law", is an issue of We the People.

In other words, a "law against pot" has nothing to do with whether smoking pot is "good or bad", what it has to do with, is whether someone smoking pot, constitutes enough of a menace to society, that it needs to be coercively regulated.

And, I mean, there are "degrees" of that, right? Like, for instance, we have alcohol laws, which vary from state to state, and gun laws, which vary from state to state, and so on.

But then, on top of that, there is this federal umbrella, and that's the part that seems to be causing the problems, in this space of "marijuana laws".

So, like, here in California, this has come down to an issue of States Rights, and therefore it revolves around the 10 (and 9th) Amendments. Because, California law says one thing, and the federal law says another, and they're different....

And the feds are in here (in California) enforcing anyway, even though what they're enforcing on, is entirely legal in the state of California. And the feds are going about it in a very back-handed way, too - they're using RICO laws to try to threaten and intimidate the landlords of the pot clubs, and that kinda thing -

And I mean, this is exactly the issue that needs to be tossed right up into the public face, because right now, the federal Controlled Substances Act, the way it's written and applied right now today, is completely un-Constitutional. It directly violates the "enumerated Powers" clause in the Tenth Amendment, because the US government would have a positive requirement to show proof that pot smoking causes irreparable and intractable harm to society, you know, more so than alcohol, let's say -

You know, so, the way this should work, is that the feds get involved in things that have to do with (a) stuff being shipped across our national borders (either into or out of), and (b) stuff that's being transported across state lines, and (c) stuff that has to do with tariffs and taxes, like the liquor stamps and so on - and then (d) they get to go after "moon-shiners" because of the dubious authority of the ATF, which is constituted separately from the FBI and so on -

So, like, if I grow a pot plant in my personal home and smoke it in my personal home, that should not be a federal crime. Any such federal law, would be entirely and completely un-Constitutional.

So I mean, we shouldn't be thinking in terms of legalization, what we should be thinking in terms of, is stopping the federal weasels from continuing to pull all these non-existent government Powers out of their backsides whenever it pleases them.

You know, I mean, look across the board, there's all kinds of un-Constitutional federal intervention into things that oughta be either personal, or left to the States. I could rattle off a whole long list of 'em, and any kind of "vice" would probably be right up there at the top.

And I mean, more broadly speaking, if you want to consider pot in the framework of something like the drug dispensation laws ("DEA numbers" and all that, the stuff a doctor needs to write you a prescription) - hm..... you go read Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution, and tell me where you find anything related to "medicine", "drugs", "doctors", "health", or anything like that -

Anywhere? ..... Didn't think so.....

So I mean, your only hope - our only hope, is to get a Supreme Court that really truly understands the United States Constitution, and wants to be an independent and impartial arbiter of that particular contract, as distinct from just another branch of a government that wants to impose its will-du-jour on an all-too-forgiving populace.

I mean, if you're interested in this stuff, go check out a decision called Printz v. United States, 1997, Scalia's name in the SCOTUS opinion. It's about a federal gun registration law, but it's also about the 10th Amendment and it pertains directly to the issue of "legalizing" marijuana.

Here, I'll give you a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

To sum up my own views: legalize every type of drug, as well as prostitution, and anything else that hurts no one but yourself.

My reasoning:
Financially: In the 1990's the Rand corporation (http://www.rand.org/multi/dprc/) conducted a study on cocaine use in the United States and various control strategies to reduce that usage. One of the objects of the study was to consider the cost of reducing cocaine usage by 1 percent in this country through various different control programs. The four control programs studied were defined in the Rand report as:
1. Source country control: Eradicating coca leaves and seizing coca base, cocaine paste, and the final product in the source countries (primarily Peru, Bolivia, and Columbia).

2. Interdiction: Using the U.S. Customs Service, Coast Guard, Army, and Immigration and Naturalization Service to seize cocaine and drug-related assets before the contraband enters the United States.

3. Domestic enforcement: Assigning federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to seize cocaine and related assets within our borders, and arresting, convicting, and imprisoning the Responsible drug dealers and their agents.

4. Treatment of heavy users: Solving the demand side of the problem through outpatient and residential programs.

They found that Option 4-the treatment option-was seven times as cost-effective as option 3, the domestic enforcement option.

Here is how much it would cost to use each option to reduce cocaine usage by exactly 1%:

Option 1: $800 million
Option 2: $360 million
Option 3: $238 million
Option 4: $34 million

Philosophically: Our bodies are property, owned by some one or group of people. Logically, you own your own body, otherwise that would make you a slave, which is illegal in this country. If you are the sole owner of your body, you have the right to do what you want with it. You can tear down your house, burn your furniture, and throw your piano off a cliff. Why wouldn't you be able to do ANYTHING with your own body you see fit? You can't say it is for the safety of the people around you, because then you would have to outlaw guns, knifes, anything poisonous, animals, cars, airplanes, all blunt objects, and hands to keep people perfectly safe. Even then you can kick someone to death. Absolute security is impossible, though absolute liberty is not. I guess I can sum it up with my bottom quote.

That's my opinion, though what do I know, I'm a backward, shroomer, anarchist, ayndroid, wimpy, left-wing, right-wing, glue-sniffing, heartless, brainless, constitution-thumping, porn loving, Godless, reactionary, hippy, pothead, libertarian.

__________________
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either -Benjamin Franklin

Have you ever been in the inner city? Seriously, would you like to walk down your street with blood-red eyed crackheads jerkin around yellin and carrying on waving pistols at you? Please use your head.

While legalizing marijuana would save countless dollars in the drug war, it is not something which would appease and protect the majority of Americans. Quite simply, if you tell a red-blooded American he can't do something, what do you think he is going to do? And it has been this way since the colonies began, with blockade running and such; evolved for a time in prohibition; and now in drug trafficking. It's just American nature, big, quick, dangerous money. If marijuana is legalized, a whole host of problems ensue; and with drugs which, without-a-doubt, do irreperable harm to those who use them and all involved. True, a double ligero cigar is more potent and delivers a better high than dro, but seriously, use your head.

__________________
"We've been blowin up, we're the issue, we're ammunition" Switchfoot

__________________
"If the substance of life is information, transmitted through genes, then society and culture are essentially immense information transmission systems, and the city, a huge external memory storage device."

Purists are intolerably dull-thinkers.