Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: Anonymous on June 07, 2005, 11:30:00 AM
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... ory:scared (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus7jun07.story:scared):
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... un07.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus7jun07.story)
-
June 7, 2005 latimes.com : Nation E-mail story Print Most E-Mailed
THE NATION
Justices Rule U.S. Can Ban Medical Pot
The high court says federal anti-marijuana statutes override laws in California and other states that allow the plant's use to ease illness.
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON ? The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the federal government's power to seize and destroy marijuana that is used as medicine by seriously ill patients, ruling that strict federal drug laws trump California's liberalized policy on pot.
The Constitution makes the laws of the United States the "supreme law of the land," and "if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail," Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court. It is up to Congress, he said, to change the law.
ADVERTISEMENT
The 6-3 decision did not seek to resolve the dispute over whether marijuana may be good medicine. Instead, the justices focused on whether the federal government could enforce its zero-tolerance policy on marijuana in the 10 states ? most of them in the West ? where voters or lawmakers had opted to legalize marijuana used for medical purposes.
The court's leading liberals sided with the Bush administration and its federal drug enforcers, while three of its more conservative members, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined the side of the California marijuana users to limit federal authority.
The decision weakens, but does not overturn, state laws that permit seriously ill people to use marijuana to relieve pain or nausea.
Federal drug agents, prosecutors and judges may arrest, try and punish those who grow or use marijuana, the court said, even in states where it is legal.
However, state and local police need not assist in those efforts. And since most law enforcement is carried out by state and local officials, the liberalized medical marijuana laws should continue to have practical significance.
But California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer said the ruling showed "the vast philosophical difference between the federal government and Californians on the rights of patients?. Taking medicine on the recommendation of a doctor for a legitimate illness should not be a crime."
Federal law enforcement officials sought to dispel the idea that drug agents would be unleashed on marijuana-using patients in California and other states.
"The vast majority of our cases are against those involved in trafficking, and major cultivation and distribution," said Karen P. Tandy, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. "I don't see any significant changes in DEA enforcement strategies after today's decision. We don't target sick and dying people."
However, the case before the court was brought by two ill California women, one of whom had her personal marijuana confiscated by federal agents.
Angel Raich, a brain tumor patient from Oakland, urged Congress on Monday to rethink its policy on marijuana.
"I'm in this battle, literally, for my life," she said after the ruling. She called on Congress to "stop federal raids on sick and dying patients?. I hope for myself, for my children and for other patients out there that our congressional leaders put compassion first. Our lives are literally in their hands."
A House bill is pending, sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), that would permit physicians to prescribe marijuana as medicine. But it has been rejected several times in the past, and its chances of becoming law are seen as slim.
In the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, Congress classified marijuana as a dangerous and illegal drug that had no benefits. Though many experts dispute that conclusion, Congress has made no move to amend the law. The statute makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess or use marijuana.
But in 1996, California voters approved a measure that said "seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes" if they have a recommendation from a physician. Since then, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have passed similar laws.
After the approval of those measures, cooperatives were set up to act as dispensaries for patients seeking marijuana. In 2001, however, the high court ruled that federal prosecutors could get court orders to shut down the operations.
The case decided Monday focused on patients who grew marijuana at home for their own use. It tested whether Congress' power to regulate "commerce among the states" extended to individuals who were not buying or selling marijuana.
Raich sued to defend her use of marijuana as medicine. She suffers from serious medical conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor, chronic back pain and muscle spasms. She and her doctor said that cannabis was uniquely effective in relieving her pain. She sued along with Diane Monson after drug enforcement agents raided Monson's Butte County home in 2002 and destroyed her marijuana plants.
Their lawyers argued that homegrown marijuana did not involve interstate commerce and therefore was beyond the authority of the federal government. They cited recent high court rulings that limited Congress' power on other matters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
I dont have a scrip and its illegal in my state..but
I havent been without the plant since 1986
-
gloating about it.
"The FARC is part of the history of Colombia and a historical phenomenon", (President Pastrana) says, "and they must be treated as Colombians". ... They come and ask for bread [aid from Washington], and you give them stones.
Robert White is a former American ambassador to Paraguay and El Salvador, and former No. 2 man with the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, is president of the Centre for International Policy in Washington D.C.
Robert White
-
so did you guys really think the government was gonna be cool just 'cause the voters had spoken? I coulda told ya this was gonna happen. America is over. The fascist takeover was a success. Your vote, and opinion, means nothing. Welcome to the future.
-
well the supreme court doesn't act on the will of the people, they are supposed to interpret the constitution and the laws. Rational and Reasonable folk think the next step is to get Congress to pass new legislation. myself i don't know but Rational and Reasonable might just equal Damned Fool Who Ought To Be Stockpiling 'Stead of Wasting Time Trying. and to think, i feel a twinge of guilt yet for being such a pessimist!
-
On 2005-06-07 12:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"so did you guys really think the government was gonna be cool just 'cause the voters had spoken? I coulda told ya this was gonna happen. America is over. The fascist takeover was a success. Your vote, and opinion, means nothing. Welcome to the future."
No, I do see some progress. This decision was an overturn of a 9th Circuit decision. So the 9th had already ruled against Fed imposing or enforcing law in conflict w/ State. And it wasn't a slam, either, it was a 6-3 split. That never would have happened even a couple of years ago.
And just look at the argument they wound up using. Essentially, the reason or excuse for allowing Fed enforcement in this case is to prevent competition w/ interstate trade in MJ. Talk about grasping at straws! At least on the point of MMJ, this is a last gasp. It's nearly over. When a well-packaged web of lies
has been sold gradually to the masses
over generations, the truth will seem
utterly preposterous and its speaker
a raving lunatic.
--Dresden James
-
On 2005-06-07 10:34:00, linchpin wrote:
"I dont have a scrip and its illegal in my state..but
I havent been without the plant since 1986
"
wow, ain't your momma proud??
-
Fuck Legalization. How do you guys expect drug dealers to make a living?? Medical Marijuana is legal in Colorado and has become harder to find because of it. Die hard pot smokers have scripts and can legally grow their own personal smoke. So big pot growers don't bother distributing here anymore. But you can get crack or speed on any street at any time because it's ILLEGAL.
Plus, if pot were legalized, companies like marlboro and camel will add a bunch of unnatural addictive chemicals to it.
The Federal Goverment is tring to keep it real and natural. Do what they say or be killed. Because George Bush is president and I'll have him bomb your fucking house.
-
OK, RY, so then don't buy product from the big commercial growers and don't by bullshit from anybody who tries to fuck w/ our right to grow our own.
Simple.
Here's Salon's entre:
Newshawk: Suzanne Wills
Pubdate: 7 June 05
Source: Salon
Contact: http://archive.salon.com/about/letters/index.html (http://archive.salon.com/about/letters/index.html)
Website: http://www.salon.com (http://www.salon.com)
Webpage:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/20 ... index.html (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/06/07/war_on_drugs/index.html)
*****************************************************
This is an excellent summary of the current state of things, altho he may be too optimistic.
********************************************************
Reefer madness: Is sanity breaking out?
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling against medical marijuana and a scary proposed snitch law, America may finally be awakening from its decades-long stupor about recreational drugs.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Silja J.A. Talvi
June 7, 2005 | The battle over the war on drugs heated up several degrees on Monday when the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that state laws allowing the medicinal use of marijuana don't protect patients from federal prosecution for use of a controlled substance, despite a doctor's orders. The case, Raich vs. Gonzales, was originally filed by two California women who smoke pot for medical reasons.
Medical marijuana advocates were quick to point out that although the ruling was a disappointment, it came with a surprising acknowledgment by the justices that medical marijuana users had made "strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes."
"While we're disappointed, the validity of state medical marijuana laws was never at issue in this case," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, in a press statement. "The [state] medical marijuana laws ... will continue to protect patients from arrest by state and local authorities. Because [Drug Enforcement Agency] and other federal agents make only 1 percent of our nation's 750,000 marijuana arrests every year, patients in states with medical marijuana laws retain a high level of protection. Congress should act today to give those patients complete protection from arrest."
"In his opinion, Justice Stevens stressed the need for medical marijuana patients to use the democratic process, putting the ball in Congress' court," Kampia noted. "This is especially important now because next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on an amendment that would prevent the federal government from spending funds to interfere with state medical marijuana laws."
The good news is that Kampia and other leaders of the drug-war reform movement represent an increasingly informed and politically savvy group -- including several members of Congress -- who have spent the past several years trying to do something about America's draconian drug laws. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision on Monday, they are stepping up efforts to draw attention to the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which will be considered this month as a part of an appropriations bill and, if passed, would prohibit the federal government from arresting, raiding or prosecuting patients who are abiding by state medical marijuana laws.
These reformers have also set their sights on another obviously needed legislative reform: repeal of the provision of the Higher Education Act that prohibits or delays the availability of financial aid to applicants with any drug-related misdemeanor or felony charge. The bill to repeal the provision (H.R. 1184), introduced by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., this session, already has 66 cosponsors in the House. To date, the Drug Reform Coordinator Network estimates, at least 165,000 would-be students have been denied financial aid since the amendment took effect in 2000. If passed, the bill would represent the first full repeal of a federal drug law since 1970.
To Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., denying students financial aid because they were busted for drug use or sales at some point in their lives looks more like a mental illness on a large scale than anything akin to an efficacious response to substance abuse. "The idea that we're going to prohibit people from using drugs is just a falsehood; it's just time that we stop what we're doing and try something else," McDermott, a nine-term veteran of Congress, told me at a Perry Fund event in Seattle last week.
As for the possibility of legalizing, regulating and even taxing certain illegal drugs, even the most forward-thinking of drug-war reformers have tended to stay away from discussing the idea in public, lest it seem too "radical."
But on June 2, the legalization movement gained an unlikely set of supporters -- specifically relating to marijuana, the most popular Schedule I drug. More than 500 leading economists, led by Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, called for the Bush administration to engage in "an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition." Their move was in response to the release of a report on the budgetary implications of marijuana prohibition by Jeffrey Miron, a visiting professor at Harvard University. According to Miron's research, the legal regulation of cannabis would conservatively save $7.7 billion in law enforcement and criminal justice costs, while revenues for the government could range from $2.4 to $6.2 billion, depending on the type of taxation system.
Another radical leap forward in drug-policy reform came in Washington state in January 2005, when the King County Bar Association passed a resolution supporting the statewide legalization and regulation of psychoactive substances. The move followed a three-year period of intensive research into the historical, social, racial, legal, economic and fiscal considerations surrounding the drug war -- both in Washington state and throughout the United States. The resulting 145-page report, "Effective Drug Control: Toward a New Legal Framework," was hailed by a wide spectrum of mainstream organizations, including the Church Council of Greater Seattle, King County Medical Society, Washington State Psychiatric Association, Washington Society of Addiction Medicine, and Washington Academy of Family Physicians. And as a result, Democratic state Sen. Adam Kline is pushing for legislation to examine the possibility of a new legal framework for regulating illicit substances.
Other state bar associations (including those in Vermont, Oregon, Maryland and Hawaii) are beginning their own studies of revamped approaches to the drug war, according to Roger Goodman, director of the King County Bar Association's Drug Policy Project. The reverberations of the report have been tremendous, says Goodman, although he admits that getting gung-ho prosecutors and law enforcement onboard remains the biggest hurdle.
Aside from the need for legislative reform of drug laws, substance abuse treatment, special drug courts, and needle exchange and other forms of "harm reduction," activists point to the need for more-logical alternatives to the endless cycle of drug-related arrests and heavy-handed mandatory minimum sentences in the federal prison system. The inmate population has increased by 81 percent since 1995, and 55 percent of federal prisoners are incarcerated because of a drug offense, serving an average of three years and seven months. (For African-Americans, the average jumps dramatically to four years and nine months.)
Former prisoners with felony drug records can't access public housing, federal assistance for education, and many other social services, to say nothing of the permanent black mark against them when it comes to finding a job or getting back the right to vote. Is it any wonder that so many federal and state prisoners end up back in jail or prison?
The ridiculously costly war on the consumption of cannabis is clearly misdirected, as detailed in a May 2005 report by the Sentencing Project. Of the nearly 700,000 marijuana arrests in 2002, a shocking 88 percent were for simple possession. (The number of marijuana arrests far exceeds the number of arrests for murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault combined.) And the Sentencing Project estimates that 27,000 men and women are currently locked up for a marijuana-related offense. Legalizing marijuana would be an appropriate start to a long-term vision based on rational fiscal and public health policy.
If we're so worried about our kids' experimentation with recreational drugs, why aren't we pouring our resources into providing accurate information about drugs (alcohol and cigarettes being not only the most commonly used but the most obviously damaging as well) and into effective treatment programs for those who develop a destructive habit?
Unfortunately, and this is the bad news, American drug policy is still being shaped by political rhetoric rather than fiscally or medically sound strategies for keeping people healthy and out of trouble. For the latest and most egregious evidence of that, look no further than H.R. 1528, introduced this session by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and named in classically Orwellian doublespeak as the Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005.
There hasn't been anything this scary in the already frightening reach of the American drug war in a long time. As written, this bill would create a new, three-year federal mandatory minimum for parents who witness or gain knowledge about drug activities happening around their kids and do not report what they know to the cops within 24 hours, or provide requested assistance to law enforcement in a resulting investigation, apprehension or prosecution. It would also create a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for parents who commit a drug crime in or near the presence of their child, add a new five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone who sells drugs to someone who has ever been in treatment, and increase to five years the mandatory minimum for the sale of drugs within 1,000 feet of a school, library or drug treatment facility. That means just about anywhere in urban centers -- and especially in the concentrated inner cities.
The bill is fundamentally aimed at subverting important Supreme Court decisions about the unconstitutionality of federal sentencing guidelines by converting those guidelines into a new framework of mandatory minimums -- once again, with little or no judicial discretion possible.
Civil liberties groups like Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the ACLU, the Drug Reform Coordination Network and the Drug Policy Alliance are combining forces to raise awareness and prevent the bill from passing, but it's too early to say if their efforts will succeed.
Enough already. The ongoing war on drugs has reached into every echelon of society, dragging medicinal-pot smokers and would-be college students into the mix. And it has made the lives of millions of citizens more miserable than they ever would have been on their own as either recreational or habitual substance users. We certainly don't need another piece of regressive legislation to add to the damage by turning us into a nation of drug-war spies.
After all, who wouldn't prefer Middle Earth, unless they've been corrupted by a Ring of Power?
Jeff Elkins; Tolkien's Libertarian Vision
-
Do you actually think I'm gonna read all that ::bwahaha:: :lol:
-
On 2005-06-09 15:40:00, Reagan Youth wrote:
"Do you actually think I'm gonna read all that ::bwahaha:: :lol:
"
what RY said and what he really meant.
"do you think I'm gonna read all that? I can't even focus enough to tie my shoes, let alone read a thoughtful post by a thoughtful person; read, Christ, I can't even walk and chew gum at the same time. . . "
-
Reagan youth, too busy with scoring some meth to learn how to read.
:lol: :lol:
-
CHOREBOY
Hardcore punk and I parted ways at a Dicks show sometime in 1980 when I was hit in the face with the studded wristband of a slamdancer. At that moment, the fun was over for me - I preferred the Pogo - but all those memories came thundering home to me at Choreboy. Trouble was brewing before the band even took the stage, as vocalist Phil Owen taunted the club's security guards while checking the mikes. In a flash, one tattooed guy jerked Owen off the stage onto the club's concrete floor while a second guy, a ponytail in a security T-shirt, stood with his boot on Owen's chest to the horrifying dismay of the band's audience, wives, and friends. Owen wrested his way back onstage and Choreboy cranked up with "I'm Not Sorry," dedicated, of course, to the club security. He continued the baiting and in mid-song, Ponytail responded by charging from sidestage and punching Owen in the jaw as the bassist brought his guitar down on Ponytail's neck while both slid back onto the floor. Moments later, Owen sprang back on his feet chant-singing "I think I've had a bad day... Mommy, I've had a bad day..." following it up with "Dicks Hate Police." No shit, I thought - hell, this was only the second song. "Ain't nothing like a boot sandwich to lighten things up," sneered Owen by way of intro for "Bury Me in Texas." For "Bust Your Ass," Owen, pacing the stage like a jungle cat, growled, "It sure is lonely up here without a boot to my throat," and I could see exposed skin on the back of his head from one of his plummets to the floor. Meanwhile, guitarist Chris Gates is chunking chords of punk muscle into the audience against the band's relentless outpouring of "Stay Out All Night," "Alternative to What?" and "Skinheads." Suddenly, "Fun Fun Fun" segues into "The Eyes of Texas," and Owen's at it again, questioning the security guards' sexual orientation in graphic terms and the atmosphere grows tense again. Choreboy then breaks into "Chemical," and as soon as it ends, Owen stalks off stage, screaming "No more!" at Ponytail, who has met him on the side of the stage, camps forming to separate the two. Damn. I was really hoping to hear "Rub It Raw," but the adrenaline rush was enough to send me back out under a sky so dark and shiny it looked like black leather. - Margaret Moser
-
On 2005-06-09 18:25:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-06-09 15:40:00, Reagan Youth wrote:
"Do you actually think I'm gonna read all that ::bwahaha:: :skull:
-
Then I'll stab you in the neck with a screwdriver.
::bigsmilebounce:: ::bwahaha2:: ::nod:: :evil:
-
And todays lesson kiddies: Never fuck with a tweaker
-
1. Not About Pot
Washington Post editorial
Wednesday, June 8, 2005
The Supreme Court's decision Monday in the case of Gonzales v. Raich is a defeat for advocates of the medical use of marijuana, because the court ruled that federal drug laws can be enforced against patients even in states that would permit them to light up. But the true importance of Raich has nothing to do with drugs; it relates rather to the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The government's crusade against medical marijuana is a misguided use of anti-drug resources; that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. A Supreme Court decision disallowing federal authority in this area would have been a disaster in areas ranging from civil rights enforcement to environmental protection.
The Constitution's commerce clause, which provided the foundation for the court's ruling in this case, is the foundation of the modern regulatory state, underpinning since the New Deal huge swaths of federal law: worker protections, just about all federal environmental law, laws prohibiting racial discrimination in private-sector employment. Over the past decade, however, the court has tacked away from its most expansive vision of national power, emphasizing that the commerce power is not unlimited. The court said, for example, that Congress can't use the clause to legislate against sexual assaults or to regulate gun possession near schools. That made sense; without some outer bound of the commerce power, Congress would have authority over anything. But the court's recent reconsideration of the commerce clause carried dangers, too. Limit the legislature too much and Congress lacks the power to run a modern country whose national policy is necessarily more ambitious than it was in the 18th century.
The plaintiffs in Raich , patients who regard pot as essential medication for their conditions, contended that because their use of the drug is noncommercial and within a single state that tolerates medical marijuana, the federal government lacked the power to stop them. This may seem like an attractive principle, but consider its implications. Can Congress protect an endangered species that exists only in a single state and may be wiped out by some noncommercial activity? Can it force an employer who operates only locally to accommodate the disabled?
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, emphasized the critical principle that if Congress enacts a regulation aimed at "the interstate market in a fungible commodity" -- in this case drugs -- "[t]hat the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment." Justice Antonin Scalia reached the same conclusion for slightly different reasons. The result is a six-justice majority that stands strongly against a revolutionary approach to commerce clause jurisprudence. While questions remain, the importance of this cross-ideological statement is enormous -- even if it means the Justice Department can continue harassing sick people.
Click here to view story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01578.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060701578.html)All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine, American revolutionary
-
Washpost
Justices Rule U.S. Can Ban Medical Pot
1. Not About Pot
Washington Post editorial
Wednesday, June 8, 2005
The Supreme Court's decision Monday in the case of Gonzales v. Raich is a defeat for advocates of the medical use of marijuana, because the court ruled that federal drug laws can be enforced against patients even in states that would permit them to light up. But the true importance of Raich has nothing to do with drugs; it relates rather to the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The government's crusade against medical marijuana is a misguided use of anti-drug resources; that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. A Supreme Court decision disallowing federal authority in this area would have been a disaster in areas ranging from civil rights enforcement to environmental protection.
The Constitution's commerce clause, which provided the foundation for the court's ruling in this case, is the foundation of the modern regulatory state, underpinning since the New Deal huge swaths of federal law: worker protections, just about all federal environmental law, laws prohibiting racial discrimination in private-sector employment. Over the past decade, however, the court has tacked away from its most expansive vision of national power, emphasizing that the commerce power is not unlimited. The court said, for example, that Congress can't use the clause to legislate against sexual assaults or to regulate gun possession near schools. That made sense; without some outer bound of the commerce power, Congress would have authority over anything. But the court's recent reconsideration of the commerce clause carried dangers, too. Limit the legislature too much and Congress lacks the power to run a modern country whose national policy is necessarily more ambitious than it was in the 18th century.
The plaintiffs in Raich , patients who regard pot as essential medication for their conditions, contended that because their use of the drug is noncommercial and within a single state that tolerates medical marijuana, the federal government lacked the power to stop them. This may seem like an attractive principle, but consider its implications. Can Congress protect an endangered species that exists only in a single state and may be wiped out by some noncommercial activity? Can it force an employer who operates only locally to accommodate the disabled?
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, emphasized the critical principle that if Congress enacts a regulation aimed at "the interstate market in a fungible commodity" -- in this case drugs -- "[t]hat the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment." Justice Antonin Scalia reached the same conclusion for slightly different reasons. The result is a six-justice majority that stands strongly against a revolutionary approach to commerce clause jurisprudence. While questions remain, the importance of this cross-ideological statement is enormous -- even if it means the Justice Department can continue harassing sick people.
Click here to view story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01578.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060701578.html)
No! Justices rule that DEA can go on prosecuting 5 or 6 cases per year! The other 500 or 600 (and growing) can go on living the dream of those long haired, hippy freak founders; freedom! I know that our bodies were made to thrive only in pure air, and the scenes in which pure air is found.
-- John Muir
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;
-
On 2005-06-07 14:49:00, Reagan Youth wrote:
Fuck Legalization. How do you guys expect drug dealers to make a living??
In a word, we don't! We expect far better!Why should we take advice on sex from the Pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't.
--George Bernard Shaw, Irish-born English playwright
-
On 2005-06-09 15:40:00, Reagan Youth wrote:
"Do you actually think I'm gonna read all that ::bwahaha:: :lol:
"
Actually, no. I expect the illiterate to get ground up in the gears of progress, as always. Too bad, so sad.
It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life, that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
He can read...he just doesnt give a fuck..
Thats my take on it anyway..
-
What's the diff?
I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!
-- Monty Python
-
Righteous Monty Python quote!!!!! :nworthy:
damn i need a Monty Python fix!
ALBATROSS!
Remember the one with the athlete they're following like those Olympic vignettes? "And for lunch, he stops, and rubs gravel in 'is hair." :rofl:
or eltz;
"No, no, it's the Judean People's Rebublic!"
damn those brits! they're fuckin' 'ilarious even when they're tryin' to sound serious!
-
Ok, I'm cribbing from Richard Lake's homework. Sparing you the editorializing, guilt tripping and sanctimony, I'll just give you the juicey bits. These are the editorials on the recent sp decision cropping up like fairey rings in the nation's newspapers. Every one has a contact email or url. Respond if you're so inclined.
US MI: Editorial: No Compassion For People In Pain?
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a04.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a04.html)
US MI: Editorial: Medical Pot Ruling Tramples States' Rights
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a06.html)
US HI: Editorial: Federal Law Needed For Medical Marijuana
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a01.html)
US TX: Editorial: Marijuana Ruling Was About Federal Law, Not Medicine
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a02.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a02.html)
US OR: Editorial: Reclassify Marijuana As a Schedule II Drug
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a07.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a07.html)
US MA: Editorial: Marijuana And Congress
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a03.html)
US OH: Editorial: Where Is the Compassion
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a04.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a04.html)
US CO: Editorial: High Court Twists Pot Ruling
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a06.html)
US FL: Editorial: Opening A New Front
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n934/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n934/a03.html)
US WI: Editorial: High Court Muffs Ruling On Medical Marijuana
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n934/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n934/a01.html)
US WI: Editorial: Let States, Doctors OK Marijuana Use
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n934/a02.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n934/a02.html)
US FL: Editorial: Marijuana Ruling Burns States
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a01.html)
US: Editorial: High On The Commerce Clause
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a02.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a02.html)
US GA: Editorial: Court Goes To Pot
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a05.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a05.html)
US NY: Editorial: Let The Sick Use Marijuana
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a07.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a07.html)
US TX: Editorial: Congress Should Make Exception To Drug Laws
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a08.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a08.html)
US OR: Editorial: Oregon's Medical-Marijuana Law Just Got Hazier
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a09.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a09.html)
US CA: Editorial: Court Ruling Allows Persecution By Feds
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a10.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a10.html)
US NC: Editorial: State Law Allowing Medical Use of Pot Is Not Invalid
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a01.html)
US CT: Editorial: A Medical Setback
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a04.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a04.html)
US MA: Editorial: The Case For Medical Pot
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a06.html)
US OH: Editorial: The Court On Pot
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n931/a07.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n931/a07.html)
US TX: Editorial: States' Rights Go Up in Smoke, Thanks to U.S. Supreme Court
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n931/a09.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n931/a09.html)
US MO: Editorial: A Stretch Of Court's Reach
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n930/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n930/a03.html)
US: Editorial: The High Court Errs
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n928/a08.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n928/a08.html)
US NC: Editorial The One Drug You Can't Have
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n928/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n928/a01.html)
US IL: Editorial: Marijuana As Medicine
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n927/a14.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n927/a14.html)
US NC: Editorial: Court Ruling Ensures Enforcement
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n926/a05.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n926/a05.html)
US MT: Editorial: Idea of Limited Government Goes to Pot
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n926/a07.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n926/a07.html)
US FL: Editorial: Suffering and States' Rights
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n926/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n926/a01.html)
US AL: Editorial: Myths Up In Smoke In Medi-Marijuana Case
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n923/a05.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n923/a05.html)
US CA: Editorial: Just Where Is The Humanity?
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n923/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n923/a06.html)
US KY: Editorial: Expanding Federal Power
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n923/a02.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n923/a02.html)
US TN: Editorial: Open Up Marijuana Debate
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n922/a07.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n922/a07.html)
US GA: Editorial: Congress Needs To Decide
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n921/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n921/a03.html)
US AZ: Editorial: Medical Marijuana Up In Smoke
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n919/a05.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n919/a05.html)
US NY: Editorial: High Court Flops On Medicinal Pot
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n919/a09.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n919/a09.html)
US RI: Editorial: The Marijuana Ruling
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n919/a10.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n919/a10.html)
US TN: Editorial: States Should Decide Legality Of Medical Marijuana Use
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n919/a02.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n919/a02.html)
US DC: Editorial: Not About Pot
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n918/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n918/a01.html)
US AL: Editorial: Just Say No
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n918/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n918/a03.html)
US NJ: Editorial: Still a Wisp Of Hope
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n918/a07.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n918/a07.html)
US VT: Editorial: A Criminal Prescription
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a05.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a05.html)
US TX: Editorial: U.S. Must Turn to Congress After Ruling
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n916/a04.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n916/a04.html)
US IL: Editorial: Pot and the Constitution
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n915/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n915/a03.html)
US MA: Editorial: Marijuana Not Yet Ready For Medicine Box
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n914/a04.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n914/a04.html)
US CA: Editorial: State Should Push Federal Medical Marijuana
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n913/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n913/a06.html)
US ME: Editorial: Medical Marijuana Debate Headed Where It Belongs
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n912/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n912/a06.html)
US WI: Editorial: Court Ruling Was Dopey
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n911/a05.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n911/a05.html)
US NY: Editorial: The Court and Marijuana
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n909/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n909/a01.html)
US TX: Editorial: Let States Decide
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n909/a02.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n909/a02.html)
US MA: Editorial: Some Justices Need To Take A Pill
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n908/a07.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n908/a07.html)
US SC: Editorial: Supreme Court Limits the Right of States to Make Their
Own Decisions and Laws
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n903/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n903/a03.html)
US OR: Editorial: High Court Points the Way on Pot
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n901/a05.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n901/a05.html)
US OR: Editorial: Supreme Court Clouds Medical Marijuana Laws
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n901/a07.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n901/a07.html)
US MA: Editorial: Medical Marijuana Not Reefer Madness
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n897/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n897/a06.html)
US MA: Editorial: A Win For U.S. Drug Laws
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n896/a08.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n896/a08.html)
US MO: Editorial: U.S. Supreme Court - Pot and Power
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n896/a10.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n896/a10.html)
US: Editorial: Court's Ruling on Marijuana Reeks of 'Reefer Madness'
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n896/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n896/a03.html)
**********************************************************************
US IN: Column: You Make The Judicial Call
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a05.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a05.html)
US MI: Column: Getting Tough on the Terminally Ill
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n936/a03.html)
US MA: Column: Align Drug Laws With Common Sense
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a08.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a08.html)
US UT: Column: States' Rights Get Burned By Medical Marijuana
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a09.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a09.html)
US FL: Column: Hard To Tell Who's An Activist
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a10.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a10.html)
US FL: Column: How Congress Can Quickly Strike a Blow for Common Sense
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a01.html)
US GA: Column: Why Put Pot To The Test?
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a03.html)
US IL: Column: Dazed and Confused About Federal Power
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a10.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n933/a10.html)
US FL: Column: High Court Burned Medical Pot
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a08.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a08.html)
US OK: Column: Ruling Clouds Assumptions
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n925/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n925/a01.html)
US AL: Column: Justices Keep Defying Simple Political Categorization
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n925/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n925/a03.html)
US MA: Column: Justices Aren't Always Predictable
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n924/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n924/a03.html)
US MA: Column: Justices Aren't Always Predictable
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n924/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n924/a06.html)
US FL: Column: In The Grip Of Reefer Madness
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n919/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n919/a03.html)
US DC: Column: Judging This Court
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a04.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a04.html)
US NH: Column: Lifting A Glass, Or A Joint, To States' Rights
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a06.html)
US MT: Column: Ridiculous Court Ruling
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a07.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a07.html)
US CA: Column: Getting Tough With The Terminally Ill
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a08.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a08.html)
US MS: Column: Just How 'Conservative' Was It to Ban Home-Grown Cannabis
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n916/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n916/a03.html)
US MN: Column: Legal Medical Pot Now Up To Congress
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n915/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n915/a01.html)
US CA: Column: How to Treat Terminally Ill? Let 'em Suffer
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n914/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n914/a06.html)
US IL: Column: Will Congress Have the Guts to Tackle Medical Marijuana
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n913/a04.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n913/a04.html)
US OK: Column: Setback For Terminally Ill
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n912/a10.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n912/a10.html)
US MS: Column: Let Those Poor Sick Folks Inhale
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n911/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n911/a06.html)
US FL: Column: Getting Tough With The Terminally Ill
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n909/a06.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n909/a06.html)
**********************************************************************
US WI: OPED: High Court Must Be On Something
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a02.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n935/a02.html)
US CO: OPED: High Court Has Gone Potty
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a02.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n932/a02.html)
US TX: OPED: Reading The Smoke Signals
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n931/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n931/a01.html)
US DC: OPED: 'Medical' Pot Up In Smoke
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a03.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n917/a03.html)
US CA: OPED: Medical Marijuana Needs Remedy
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n916/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n916/a01.html)
US NY: OPED: Smoke Must Have Blinded The Court
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n915/a07.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n915/a07.html)
US NY: OPED: Good To Grow
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n914/a02.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n914/a02.html)
US CA: OPED: Pot Fight Far From Over
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n913/a02.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n913/a02.html)
US WI: OPED: Medical Marijuana: Should It Be Legal?
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n901/a01.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n901/a01.html)
US WI: OPED: Medical Marijuana: Should It Be Legal?
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n900/a10.html (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n900/a10.html)
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
--Napoleon Bonaparte, French emperor
-
And todays lesson kiddies: Never fuck with a tweaker
:nworthy:
-
Oh shit, smoking weed is like a $10.00 ticket nowadays. ::soapbox::
JAYWALKERS RIGHTS ::troll::
JAYWALKERS RIGHTS ::both::
-
Now here's a guy you just want to see walk out in front of a truck!
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... s138.html# (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0613monlets138.html#)
Marijuana use an un-Christian act
Jun. 13, 2005 12:00 AM
Marijuana is an un-Christian pleasure, therefore illegal. No matter how it helps a medical condition, the illicit pleasure it gives is not permitted. God is in control.
If you are sick and there is treatment that is not illicit and you can afford it, use it; that is what God intended.
However, no one is permitted to do anything illegal just because it makes them feel better or live longer.
Stealing food when you're starving to death is illegal.
So if you're dying and marijuana would help, go to church instead. Find your Mother Teresa for comfort and die.
Or do drugs, go to jail without comfort or marijuana, and die. This is a Christian nation. It's God's rules. Quit complaining.
- John Gatti, Scottsdale
----------
With soap, baptism is a good thing.
--Robert G. Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer
-
That letter makes more sense if you replace every instance of "God" with "The Government".
-
OMG, this is the best troll ever! Just found out it's a hoax. :nworthy:
It really puzzles me to see Marijuana connected with Narcotics - Dope and all that crap?it's a thousand times better than whiskey - it's an Assistant - a friend.
Louis Armstrong
-
Do tell...
-
real live trolls!
http://http://billionairesforbush.com/index.php
-
God bless them, and God bless America!
-
Marijuana use an un-Christian act
I knew there was another reason I liked it