 sj |
||
|
||
BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes....
|
|
|
Subject: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Bobert Date: 29 Nov 04 - 07:38 PM Well, gol danged if this don't beat everything... The Supreme Court is hearing arguements from California, which has voted for medical uses of marijuana, and Bush's Justice Department, which would like to make the use of pot a federal crime... What (cough... excuse me..) are your thoughts... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Amos Date: 29 Nov 04 - 07:54 PM The Senate doesn't know its tail for a teacup grabbing with both hands. It gave its proper powers away to the Executive branch in causing international chaos and likewise abused the proper rights of States over matters having no grounds in interstate commerce, the only thread of a basis for any such ruling. If the Supremes go with Justice on this it will simply confirm they are a power-mad bunch of wanna-be doowop singers. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Bobert Date: 29 Nov 04 - 08:28 PM Danged, Amos, how do ya' really feel about it... Awww, jus' funnin' wid ya' an' don't worry. I won't tell 'um where you hide yer stash... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Cluin Date: 29 Nov 04 - 08:59 PM But how does it all relate to Diana Ross, Mary Wilson, and Florence Ballard? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Clinton Hammond Date: 29 Nov 04 - 09:21 PM Your country, like most others, waste WAY to much money trying to 'combat' something they can't possibly have a DROP of effect on... Legalise it ALL... then regulate it and tax the bees-sneezes outa it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Gypsy Date: 29 Nov 04 - 09:38 PM Ahem......as one who lives in the emerald triangle, i know whereof i speak. The current news is: Air pollutions from pot gardens! Horrors! Recently, a citizen within the city limits lodged at complaint at air quality control, because the neighbors plants smelled too much. Since you CAN grow pot with a liscense in CA, couldn't complain about that. So, the latest thing at city hall: how much cultivation constitutes farming? Which you cannot do within city limits. I think that the limit will be set at 3 plants. Second item. A local grower had 1 pound of pot stolen. He put out a 1,000$ reward for the thief. A 19 year old, found the guy, brought him to grower. they then duct taped him to a chair, and tatooed "thief" on his forehead. The one is sueing for unlawful detention, and mutilation (the tatoo) the other is suing for theft. And at the cost of pot, 1 pound just might be a felony. Ah, only in my home state! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Cluin Date: 29 Nov 04 - 09:44 PM It's hilarious how they try and legislate a plant out of existence because some people have found a recreational use for it. Tha's of course because anybody can grow it in a window box and harvest it and use it and the government won't get a penny of "sin" tax from it. It's always about money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Bobert Date: 29 Nov 04 - 11:34 PM Ain't about recreation, Cluin, (spit), but about communism... Commies all smoke dope an' if we let folks smoke dope then next thing ya know, people won't dign up to fight no more wars! You want that? Well heck no, you don't... (spit)... I mean it's war that has made America what it is today and we don't need no commies (spit) messin' with it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 29 Nov 04 - 11:56 PM Get yer hands on "A Child's Garden of Grass." Great album. Likely available on CD. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Cluin Date: 30 Nov 04 - 12:07 AM Bing Crosby smoked bud. Apparently Satchmo turned him on to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 30 Nov 04 - 12:12 AM Wonder if it was bud light? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Cluin Date: 30 Nov 04 - 12:14 AM Nope. B-B-B-Bing liked his B-B-B-B-B-B-Bud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 30 Nov 04 - 12:17 AM LMAO Some of his songs just made sense to me. Thank you, Cluin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: PoppaGator Date: 30 Nov 04 - 12:49 AM Satchmo was a *regular* reefer smoker, and apparently wrote about it quite eloquently. But all such references were edited out of his published autobiography. I've read about him and Bing, too. Wouldn't you love to have been a fly on THAT wall! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Cluin Date: 30 Nov 04 - 09:46 AM "And I think to myself..." *long inhaled toke* (in quieter strained whisper) "What a wonderful world" *exhale* "Oh yeah!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Nov 04 - 10:06 AM Is the idea that since smoke can drift over state bounderies, it must be a Federal affair? Other than that it's a bit hard to envisage how it could be anything to do with the rest of the USA if an individual state decides that it's OK using dope. At least with alcohol they had to bring in a constitutional amendment to make Prohibition binding across the USA. I'd have thought that the logical consequence of that precedent would be that, without such an amendment, enforcing Prohibition of grass cannot be a Federal concern. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Blissfully Ignorant Date: 30 Nov 04 - 04:00 PM I think....ummm....*giggling*....umm...i've forgotten! Woah, what was that noise.....woah....umn....*more giggling*....*cough*....umm...*yet more giggling*....anyone want a mars bar? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 30 Nov 04 - 04:15 PM Like, the wrapper tastes funny, uh? Man, like, I don't like wrap, ya know? Like, wrap is definitely NOT COOL, man. Hey, there's chocolate stuff here, man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Blissfully Ignorant Date: 30 Nov 04 - 04:19 PM Oh, man...don't eat the wrapper man..i heard if, like, you eat the wrapper it gets all heavy and uncool....wanna watch cheech and chong, man? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 30 Nov 04 - 04:23 PM Like, huh? Anyone see a girl in a green dress? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Gypsy Date: 30 Nov 04 - 10:49 PM Nope, not the government keeping it illegal. At least not directly. You ask any grower........they DON'T want it legal. And big money is what keeps it illegal. Once it is legal, there goes the money. And since the emerald triangle is the 3 poorest counties in CA, NO one wants pot legalized. 'bout the only way to make real money around here. Certainly, more than wine! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Amos Date: 30 Nov 04 - 10:56 PM Believe it or not, the argument being sent to the Supremes is that two little old ladies growing pot in their backyard to palliate their own muiseries is a violation of interstate market, not because they themselves are selling it, but because it is such a large interstate, national market. And by growing their own, see, they are having an impact on that national market, which is illegal even though growing their own is legal inside California, so it really is just the same as selling it over the line, see, yer Honor...(cough, cough). Man, I am serious -- this is what they're arguing and what the Supremes are buying in order to show their support for Justice. And they think pot-heads are a little bit whacko!!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 30 Nov 04 - 11:00 PM You can do anything you want as long as you don't TELL anyone. The little ol' ladies ought to have been quiet about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Blissfully Ignorant Date: 30 Nov 04 - 11:08 PM Aha! The secret's out...all these old folk complaining about me smoking pot, and it's them that's growing it! Woah, man...i'd get sooo angry about it all if i wasn't so stoned.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Bobert Date: 30 Nov 04 - 11:15 PM Ahhhhh, except them helicopters flying overhead with infa-red cameras out to catch anyone, old ladies included, fir growin' pot... You really can't do whatever you want.... unfortunately. Somehow, I don't want George Bush's Justice Department sniffin' round this holler lookin' fir my patch... The feds oughtta stick wigth fed stuff and leave the danged states alone when it comes to state stuff. Heck, with the Bush tax giveaway to the rich, which has required states to step up to the plate big time to fund programs the feds used to its a slap in the face for the feds to tell the states how to legislate morals.... Fire the feds.... Don't pay yer taxes... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 30 Nov 04 - 11:17 PM Ahem(p)! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Blissfully Ignorant Date: 30 Nov 04 - 11:20 PM *giggles* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Blissfully Ignorant Date: 30 Nov 04 - 11:25 PM Of course, they're quite right. You know what potheads do? They eat babies! It's true, my friend knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who said they knew someone who said they knew a pothead who ate a baby! Lock em up, i say....they're eviiiiiiiiil! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: darkriver Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:06 AM Uh....
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:11 AM Sara Lee RULES! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Blissfully Ignorant Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:17 AM Woah....chocolateynessss.......man... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: chris nightbird childs Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:19 AM Munchieeeeeeeees............. oh, wait a minute......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:25 AM Used to eat lots of Sara Lee when I was in my late teens and early twenties. Brownies Banana Cake Orange Cake Chocolate Cake Lemon Cake Coconut Layer Cake Most of the following is new to me. Double Chocolate Layer Cake Fudge Golden Layer Cake Apple Pie Blueberry Pie Oven Fresh Cherry Pie Oven Fresh Dutch Apple Pie Oven Fresh Mince Pie Oven Fresh Peach Pie Oven Fresh Pumpkin Pie Oven Fresh Raspberry Pie Caramel Applenut Deep Dish Pie Cinnamon French Apple Deep Dish Pie Dulce de Leche Caramel Swirl Pie Fruits of the Forest Deep Dish Pie Golden Peach Deep Dish Pie Gourmet Cherry Deep Dish Pie Orchard Apple Deep Dish Pie Southern Pecan Pie Strawberries & Cream Pie Traditional Pumpkin Pie Butter Streusel Coffee Cake Crumb Coffee Cake Deluxe Cinnamon Rolls with Icing Pecan Coffee Cake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: chris nightbird childs Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:31 AM WOW Brucie! Surprised ya didn't EXPLODE! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Blissfully Ignorant Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:33 AM I just made apple strudel...with custard...mmmm.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:34 AM Jaysus, BI. It was on two separate evenings. Think I'm an oinker? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 01 Dec 04 - 12:35 AM Grass ever gets legalized, invest heavily in SaraLee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Cluin Date: 01 Dec 04 - 08:02 AM I was standing in Tim Hortons one night several years ago, waiting for the coffees I was picking up for my work crew, when these two teenaged boys came in and stood right beside me pinting at the doughnut selection and drooling and giggling. They were obviously stoned, as if I couldn't smell it on them at that proximity. After a few moments, two cops pulled up and walked in the door. I watch the two kids get the Fear and heard them whispering to themselves, "We're f___ed, man! They know about us!" It was kind of funny to watch, but I decided to try and mellow them out in my own sensitive way... I leaned over and whispered, "Hey, you two dumb f___s, what do you think the chances are of any cops randomly dropping into a doughnut shop? Pretty good, usually. Why do you think it's because of you? I think Big Gordie over there just wants a cream-filled, don't you?" "Oh yeah, riiiiiight," they started giggling again. So I did my good deed for the day and made them feel a little better. Or it would've been a good deed, if I hadn't swung by the cops on the way out and told them that the two giggly little shits by the counter were stoned outta their gourds and had the Munchies somthing fierce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Dec 04 - 09:26 AM "And by growing their own, see, they are having an impact on that national market. The impact being that, since they aren't buying it through "the national market", this might reduce the sales and hence the profit made by the professional dealers? That's genuine Amos? What are these guys on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 01 Dec 04 - 09:52 AM Dropped by the Mudcat, and couldn't resist this thread. The reason the Feds are making that argument is because the commerce clause of the US Constitution prohibits them from exerting power in matters unrelated to interstate commerce. In other words, if it's unrelated to interstate commerce, it's a state's rights issue, and the Feds have to butt out. I'm not a lawyer; if I were, I could give a better explanation of how the commerce clause works. But as I understand it, that's the crux of the Feds' argument, because if they don't win on that issue, they're out of luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Dec 04 - 10:12 AM But if that is related to interstate commerce, how can anything be unrelated to interstate commerce? Any kind of transaction or activity is liable to have an impact that can't be limited to one state or one locality. For example all kinds of things might make a place more or less attractive to visitors or people thinking of moving, and thta clealry can have an effect on "interstate commerce". Does that mean that the Federal Government should have the right to tell people across your country what colour they should paint their doors? Or how to dress? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Cluin Date: 01 Dec 04 - 10:48 AM Give `em time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 01 Dec 04 - 01:08 PM McGrath, those are good questions, and again, I'm not an authority on these issues. But as I see it, many more things are related to interstate commerce now than used to be the case, because there is more interstate commerce, and travel and trade amongst the states is easier than it used to be. So yes, the reach of the Federal government into our lives is more substantial than it was in the past. Exactly where to draw the line between intrastate vs. interstate issues is a question for the Supreme Court -- and that's where we are. Of course, any argument can be made about any topic. When it comes to questions of painting doors a particular color or prescribing a national dress code, I suspect the Supreme Court might require fairly significant proof of how that impacts interstate commerce before deciding those questions in the Feds' favor. As for marijuana, the Feds' argument seems to be that there IS a trade in illegal drugs between/among the states (hard to argue that one), so the existence of that interstate trade means they have jurisdiction. The opposing argument (on this sub-topic) is that the people in question aren't involved in the interstate drug trade, as they are growing the stuff at home for personal consumption. The Feds have countered that these patients' continued consumption of marijuana, coupled with their participation -- OR lack of participation -- in the interstate drug trade, has an impact on the whole supply/demand equation, therefore their activities are relevant to interstate trade, even if they don't engage in it. And if the question has bearing on interstate trade, the Feds' jurisdiction overrides the states' jurisdiction. Remember that it is this power struggle -- Feds vs. states -- that is at the heart of the question before the Supreme Court. Other issues have already been adjudicated by lower courts, and the SC isn't likely to reopen them. Also keep in mind that the Feds haven't won this argument yet; they have only argued it, and the Court will likely take months to decide the question. If anyone out there has more expertise in this matter than I do (the legal/Constitutional questions), please let us all know where my explanation falls short. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Dec 04 - 01:24 PM But I'm still puzzled why there had to be a constitutional amendment before they could ban booze, since exactly the same "logic" would apply in that case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 02 Dec 04 - 10:17 AM Whooda thunk! The government trying to regulate something because it affects the price of things in the black market! Oy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Cluin Date: 02 Dec 04 - 11:37 AM Of course. There's gold in them thar shadowy hills... money to made by anyone,, even people in the government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 02 Dec 04 - 03:38 PM Yeah, but then Alocohol and Tobacco might take a big hit. Of course if they diversify into Nabisco they might reap the whirlwind. and they gotta have someone or something to blame for the troubles in the world. Did anybody else take notice that since we (in my mind righteously) went after Al Quaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan (one of the world leaders in poppy production) that opium production and distribution has gotten better instead of having been curtailed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 02 Dec 04 - 03:52 PM Parenthetically, interstate commerce was what got bus companies in the US to desegrate. (Greyhound and otheres I guess.) Many States had no 'real' law on segregation/integration, and it was interstate commerce that got the federal laws enforced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 03 Dec 04 - 09:21 AM That's a good point, Brucie. It's worth noting that, for the past hundred years or so, the people advancing the "states' rights" arguments have generally been on the conservative end of the spectrum (employing the word "conservative" as it is used in the US currently). Those seeking to maintain racial segregation have been the most visible proponents of the states' rights philosophy, with gun owners a close second. I read an interesting editorial the other day that pointed out that this has recently changed; with such a dominant conservative trend in the federal government these days, the states' rights arguments are increasingly being advanced by advocates for more "liberal" causes, such as liberalization of drug laws, acceptance of gay marriage, etc. For myself, in general, I tend to look at states' rights as an anachronism. While things were different 200-plus years ago, these days people routinely travel and trade between/among the states, so it's a little harder to see what relevance states' rights has to the modern world. However, I also have a real problem with the current conservative trend in our national government, so my theoretical willingness to abandon states' rights to the dustbin of history is in conflict with my desire to see the pendulum swing back in a more liberal direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Dec 04 - 11:09 AM People in other parts of the world routinely travel between countries, especially in Europe. That doesn't mean that everything has to be done the same way everywhere. Having a common standard protecting human rights is one thing, but giving some far away government the power to reduce human rights is something entirely different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Donuel Date: 03 Dec 04 - 11:40 AM Songs I wrote about pot.. to the tune A few of my favorite things Pot makes you choke like a goat on galoshes Cost of the smoke could buy boats for your bosses Go for a drive around paranoid town. These are the highs that will make you feel down. When your lungs ache and you eat cake for a day, or two Then you will know how pot improves your life Like when you have the flu. da dea da dea da dea da dea da dea da da dea da dea da dea da dea da dea da da dea da dea da dea da dea da dea da dea da dea makes you forget the words When the cops come for your freedom and you're thrown in jail Your source for more pot will be better by far as you grow old and pale. .................. Smokin herb singin for da people Rasta mon sang his redemption song Da words same as beneath a steeple Da road to freedoms long. 300 years ago Arabs sold the slaves. Africa divided white man reaped da gold. Ossama is a traitor a rich man we are told. How'd he help da people? They were lied to and sold. __________________________ Brother against brother Is what the man counts on When we are together All they're power's gone Love your child and free em To reap what they can sow If you want your freedom Its all in what you know ___________________________ Bob Marley's songs in Africa. We knew what they were sick of. There were raids In ol Cape town Half now die of Aids buried in da ground. The Al Queda think they know the way. With disease they plan revenge If they smoked mariquana there'd be peace today. You've got to tell your neighbor There is a message we must send... __________________________ Freedom needs compassion Dats why we smoke da herb When freedom is rationed Your life becomes absurd We're not the infidel We're not the enemy We are just the people We are you, you are me. __________________________ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 03 Dec 04 - 01:00 PM McGrath, you're missing my point. I never suggested that "everything has to be done the same way everywhere." But the USA is one country; the Civil War decided that, to the extent that it wasn't already apparent to everyone. We are made up of "states" that used to have a lot of autonomy, different currencies, etc. But that was a long time ago. Moreover, the states' rights arguments often cut against effective government by either the Feds or the individual states. For instance, without uniform gun laws, people can easily purchase their firearms in the state with the least stringent controls -- which renders the efforts of the other states completely ineffective. As for giving power to "some far away government" -- well, how far is too far? The world is a lot smaller now than it was when traveling from New York to Washington took weeks. And, in fact, it has most often been the states rather than the Feds who were the ones restricting individual rights, and the Feds had to come riding to the rescue to protect the rights the states were denying their citizens. Remember, the states' rights argument was the primary justification for maintaining slavery before the Civil War, and for maintaining Jim Crow segregation laws in the years since. If I were a black man in Mississippi in the 1950s, I'd take the "far away government" over the locals any day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Dec 04 - 01:35 PM Protecting human rights is one thing, restricting them is very different. The USA is one country, but it's a federation, and that is supposed to mean a limit on what the national government can do to restrict the freedom of states to have a more relaxed attitude on stuff like this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 03 Dec 04 - 02:43 PM I know the theory, McGrath; it's an old one. It's the practice that concerns me. You can bank on the theoretical likelihood that the nearby local government will be more sympathetic to you than the faraway Feds will be, but that's just a theory, which often is not borne out in practice. When you come right down to it, either the Federal government or the various state governments can restrict individual freedoms, so the big question is which one you trust more. In my experience, at least until recently, the Feds were more likely to uphold individual rights than the states were, so they're deserving of a higher level of trust. Ultimately, each type of government is accountable to its constituency, therefore state and local governments are more susceptible to coercion by a local majority than the Federal government is. Individual cases may vary, but in general that's the way I've seen it play out in this country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: annamill Date: 03 Dec 04 - 03:12 PM WAIT AMINIT??? Amos said "even though growing their own is legal inside California," LEGAL?? I just moved to Cali! Umm...exactly how do you grow pot on your window sill? Not, ah, that I would, ah.. just curious, ya know? ah...never mind... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: annamill Date: 03 Dec 04 - 03:16 PM WAIT AMINIT? If it's legal to grow it, does that mean it's legal to "SMOKE" it?? If not, exactly what do these people who grow it do with it?? Just curious. ah.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Peace Date: 03 Dec 04 - 03:18 PM Yhey bake lots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: annamill Date: 03 Dec 04 - 03:27 PM Ohhh.. a little Alice B., huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Fishpicker Date: 03 Dec 04 - 04:09 PM "Legalise it ALL... then regulate it and tax the bees-sneezes outa" Ice cream! make it illegal to possess more than one half gallon for personal use in your home. Politicains can then misappropriate the taxs to line their golden parachutes. The fed supreme court should not be involved in states rights issues, one of the main reasons why the system is broken. They can shove federal pot laws along with their patriot act! LOL!!!!!! FP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Gypsy Date: 03 Dec 04 - 10:48 PM Annamill, all you need is a prescription......you can grow 6 plants. Now, you are fine and dandy, as long as the feds aren't in town. It is still a federal offense. County by county, as you go further north, it is easier. We have a local doc that makes most of his living with pot cards. Second quandry...........careful about growing, it is a great way to have break ins long about september, and october. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Amos Date: 01 Dec 05 - 11:32 PM >> Dear Red States: >> >> We're ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided >> we're leaving. >> We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue >> States >> with us. >> >> In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, >> Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the entire Northeast. We >> believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to >> the >> people of the new country of New California. >> >> To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. >> We get stem cell research and the best beaches. >> We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. >> >> We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. >> We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. >> We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. >> >> We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You >> get >> Alabama. >> We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay >> their fair share. >> >> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian >> Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single >> moms. >> >> Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, >> and >> we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. >> If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids >> they're >> apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they >> don't >> care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. >> We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but >> we're >> not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire. >> >> With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of >> the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and >> lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's >> quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners), 90 percent >> of >> all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. >> low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy >> and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Saint Mary's >> College, Cal Tech and MIT. >> >> With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 >> percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), >> 92 >> percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 >> percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, >> virtually >> 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, >> Clemson and the University of Georgia. >> >> We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you. >> >> Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was >> actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless >> we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that >> evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 >> and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher >> morals then we lefties. >> >> By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. >> You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico. >> >> Sincerely, >> Author Unknown in New California >> >> > |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Bobert Date: 01 Dec 05 - 11:53 PM Wow.... Now if anyone needs evidence (other tha the burnin' kind) that smokin' pot is bad fir yer mind then I'd like to enter this thread into the fray as "Exhibit A"... I read the titel and was thinkin' "Far Out, a thread 'bout pot smokin" then found out that I started it over a year ago??? Now, kiddies, Uncle Bobert say "Jst say no,,," (Cough)... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Once Famous Date: 02 Dec 05 - 12:10 AM Pot should never be legalized. I smoked it for years and stopped 10 years ago and am very thankful. I have come to the conclusion that it has no redeeming value whatsoever. bobert, I figure that you would be a much better musician if you quit using it. Much healthier, also. Much wiser, definately. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Strollin' Johnny Date: 02 Dec 05 - 07:29 AM Never thought I'd see a day when I agreed with MG. There is a God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Bunnahabhain Date: 02 Dec 05 - 09:14 AM Pot should be legal. Basic civil liberties. You want to ban addictive, dangerous drugs? Start with Tobacco. You want to draw a line in the sand and say 'these are too dangerous, they must be banned', I may not agree with your line, but at least it makes sense. The division of legal/illegal makes no sense currently. The laws on drugs are an ass, which is why they are so widley flouted. There are very few illegal drugs that are as inheriently lethal and addictive as tobacco. A large proportion of the damage is caused by the expense of drugs, and the huge amount of crime it causes. Legalise most of them, and sell them like tobacco, in reasonably priced units, with some quality control. Some of the results might not be pretty, but can they be any worse than now? The war on drugs can never be won. Lets end it sensibly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: leftydee Date: 02 Dec 05 - 12:11 PM Amos, You left out that the Red(neck) States get to do most of the executions! How fun for them! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: GUEST,Martin gibson Date: 02 Dec 05 - 12:33 PM Stroolin Johnny, people agree with my common sense everyday, except for Bunnahabhain who would rather divert the issue to something like tobacco. Both should be banned and they will turn your lungs black. chicago is on the verge of passing a huge anti-smoking ban in public places. I can't wait. Let the war on drugs never end, just like the war on terrorism. Or would you rather lose each? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Dec 05 - 07:30 PM The war on alcohol was admitted to be lost when Prohibition was repealed. "When will they ever learn?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: Bobert Date: 02 Dec 05 - 07:45 PM Yo, Marty, Ain't nuff pot on the planet that would make me come in second to you in a battle of the folkies... No brag, just fact... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: State's Rights, Pot and the Supremes.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Dec 05 - 07:53 PM He's given it up, so he says, Bobert! Nobody would guess that he has had his brain fucked by pot! The reason that we will never see an end to the war on drugs is that the 'organised crime' element who came to power during Prohibition had learned to lobby politic ans, and now will not let their new source of income die out. In much the same way, those profiting from the war on terror are gonna have to have their cold dead fingers prised away from out politicians too... |
