Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Faith

The History of an ‘Evil’ Weed: Marijuana’s Cultivation From America’s Founding to Today

Dec. 6, 2012 7:23am Billy Hallowell

SEATTLE (AP) — The grass is no greener. But, finally, it’s legal — at least somewhere in America. It’s been a long, strange trip for marijuana.

Washington state and Colorado voted to legalize and regulate its recreational use last month. But before that, the plant, renowned since ancient times for its strong fibers, medical use and mind-altering properties, was a staple crop of the colonies, an “assassin of youth,” a counterculture emblem and a widely accepted — if often abused — medicine.

On the occasion of Thursday’s “Legalization Day,” when Washington’s new law takes effect, here’s a look back at the cultural and legal status of the “evil weed” in American history.

—

CANNABIS IN THE COLONIES

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp and puzzled over the best ways to process it for clothing and rope.

Marijuanas Cultivation From Americas Founding to Today

Credit: Getty Images

Indeed, cannabis has been grown in America since soon after the British arrived. In 1619 the Crown ordered the colonists at Jamestown to grow hemp to satisfy England’s incessant demand for maritime ropes, Wayne State University professor Ernest Abel wrote in “Marihuana: The First Twelve Thousand Years.”

Hemp became more important to the colonies as New England’s own shipping industry developed, and homespun hemp helped clothe American soldiers during the Revolutionary War. Some colonies offered farmers “bounties” for growing it.

“We have manufactured within our families the most necessary articles of cloathing,” Jefferson said in “Notes on the State of Virginia.” “Those of wool, flax and hemp are very coarse, unsightly, and unpleasant.”

Jefferson went on to invent a device for processing hemp in 1815.

—

TASTE THE HASHISH

Books such as “The Arabian Nights” and Alexandre Dumas’ “The Count of Monte Cristo,” with its voluptuous descriptions of hashish highs in the exotic Orient, helped spark a cannabis fad among intellectuals in the mid-19th century.

“But what changes occur!” one of Dumas’ characters tells an uninitiated acquaintance. “When you return to this mundane sphere from your visionary world, you would seem to leave a Neapolitan spring for a Lapland winter — to quit paradise for earth — heaven for hell! Taste the hashish, guest of mine — taste the hashish.”

Gary Parrish smokes marijuana in a glass pipe, Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012, just after midnight at the Space Needle in Seattle. Possession of marijuana became legal in Washington state at midnight, and several hundred people gathered at the Space Needle to smoke and celebrate the occasion, even though the new law does prohibit public use of marijuana. Credit: AP

After the Civil War, with hospitals often overprescribing opiates for pain, many soldiers returned home hooked on harder drugs. Those addictions eventually became a public health concern. In 1906, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act, requiring labeling of ingredients, and states began regulating opiates and other medicines — including cannabis.

—

MEXICAN FOLKLORE AND JAZZ CLUBS

By the turn of the 20th century, cannabis smoking remained little known in the United States — but that was changing, thanks largely to The Associated Press, says Isaac Campos, a Latin American history professor at the University of Cincinnati.

In the 1890s, the first English-language newspaper opened in Mexico and, through the wire service, tales of marijuana-induced violence that were common in Mexican papers began to appear north of the border — helping to shape public perceptions that would later form the basis of pot prohibition, Campos says.

By 1910, when the Mexican Revolution pushed immigrants north, articles in the New York Sun, Boston Daily Globe and other papers decried the “evils of ganjah smoking” and suggested that some use it “to key themselves up to the point of killing.”

Pot-smoking spread through the 1920s and became especially popular with jazz musicians. Louis Armstrong, a lifelong fan and defender of the drug he called “gage,” was arrested in California in 1930 and given a six-month suspended sentence for pot possession.

“It relaxes you, makes you forget all the bad things that happen to a Negro,” he once said. In the 1950s, he urged legalization in a letter to President Dwight Eisenhower.

—

REEFER MADNESS, HEMP FOR VICTORY

After the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1933, Harry Anslinger, who headed the federal Bureau of Narcotics, turned his attention to pot. He told of sensational crimes reportedly committed by marijuana addicts. “No one knows, when he places a marijuana cigarette to his lips, whether he will become a philosopher, a joyous reveler in a musical heaven, a mad insensate, a calm philosopher, or a murderer,” he wrote in a 1937 magazine article called “Marijuana: Assassin of Youth.”

The hysteria was captured in the propaganda films of the time — most famously, “Reefer Madness,” which depicted young adults descending into violence and insanity after smoking marijuana. The movie found little audience upon its release in 1936 but was rediscovered by pot fans in the 1970s.

Credit: AP

Congress banned marijuana with the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Anslinger continued his campaign into the `40s and `50s, sometimes trying — without luck — to get jazz musicians to inform on each other. “Zoot suited hep cats, with their jive lingo and passion for swift, hot music, provide a fertile field for growth of the marijuana habit, narcotics agents have found here,” began a 1943 Washington Post story about increasing pot use in the nation’s capital.

The Department of Agriculture promoted a different message. After Japanese troops cut off access to Asian fiber supplies during World War II, it released “Hemp For Victory,” a propaganda film urging farmers to grow hemp and extolling its use in parachutes and rope for the war effort.

—

COUNTERCULTURE

As the conformity of the postwar era took hold, getting high on marijuana and other drugs emerged as a symbol of the counterculture, with Jack Kerouac and the rest of the Beat Generation singing pot’s praises. It also continued to be popular with actors and musicians. When actor Robert Mitchum was arrested on a marijuana charge in 1948, People magazine recounted, “The press nationwide branded him a dope fiend. Preachers railed against him from pulpits. Mothers warned their daughters to shun his films.”

Congress responded to increasing drug use — especially heroin — with stiffer penalties in the `50s. Anslinger began to hype what we now call the “gateway drug” theory: that marijuana had to be controlled because it would eventually lead its users to heroin.

Then came Vietnam. The widespread, open use of marijuana by hippies and war protesters from San Francisco to Woodstock finally exposed the falsity of the claims so many had made about marijuana leading to violence, says University of Virginia professor Richard Bonnie, a scholar of pot’s cultural status.

In 1972, Bonnie was the associate director of a commission appointed by President Richard Nixon to study marijuana. The commission said marijuana should be decriminalized and regulated. Nixon rejected that, but a dozen states in the `70s went on to eliminate jail time as a punishment for pot arrests.

—

“JUST SAY NO”

The push to liberalize drug laws hit a wall by the late 1970s. Parents groups became concerned about data showing that more children were using drugs, and at a younger age. The religious right was emerging as a force in national politics. And the first “Cheech and Chong” movie, in 1978, didn’t do much to burnish pot’s image.

When she became first lady, Nancy Reagan quickly promoted the anti-drug cause. During a visit with schoolchildren in Oakland, Calif., as Reagan later recalled, “A little girl raised her hand and said, `Mrs. Reagan, what do you do if somebody offers you drugs?’ And I said, `Well, you just say no.’ And there it was born.”

Credit: AP

By 1988, more than 12,000 “Just Say No” clubs and school programs had been formed, according to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library. Between 1978 and 1987, the percentage of high school seniors reporting daily use of marijuana fell from 10 percent to 3 percent.

And marijuana use was so politically toxic that when Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he said he “didn’t inhale.”

—

MEDS OF A DIFFERENT SORT

Marijuana has been used as medicine since ancient times, as described in Chinese, Indian and Roman texts, but U.S. drug laws in the latter part of the 20th century made no room for it. In the 1970s, many states passed symbolic laws calling for studies of marijuana’s efficacy as medicine, although virtually no studies ever took place because of the federal prohibition.

Nevertheless, doctors noted its ability to ease nausea and stimulate appetites of cancer and AIDS patients. And in 1996, California became the first state to allow the medical use of marijuana. Since then, 17 other states and the District of Columbia have followed.

In recent years, medical marijuana dispensaries — readily identifiable by the green crosses on their storefronts — have proliferated in many states, including Washington, Colorado and California. That’s prompted a backlash from some who suggest they are fronts for illicit drug dealing and that most of the people they serve aren’t really sick. The Justice Department has shut down some it deems the worst offenders.

—

LEGAL WEED AT LAST

On Nov. 6, Washington and Colorado pleased aging hippies everywhere — and shocked straights of all ages – by voting to become the first states to legalize the fun use of marijuana. Voters handily approved measures to decriminalize the possession of up to an ounce by adults over 21. Colorado’s measure also permits home-growing of up to six plants.

Credit: AP

Both states are working to set up a regulatory scheme with licensed growers, processors and retail stores. Eventually, activists say, grown-ups will be able to walk into a store, buy some marijuana, and walk out with ganja in hand — but not before paying the taxman. The states expect to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for schools and other government functions.

But it’s not so simple. The regulatory schemes conflict with the federal government’s longstanding pot prohibition, according to many legal scholars. The Justice Department could sue to block those schemes from taking effect — but hasn’t said whether it will do so.

The bizarre journey of cannabis in America continues.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (201)

bloomytoad
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:23am
Prohibition is a progressive ideal. It’s just more government control, whether it be alcohol or marijuana. I can not understand how a conservative who says they want smaller government would ever be in support of prohibition.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:17am
  Blows my mind that they can’t see that it’s progressive movement.
  
  Report this comment
- Frederick_Douglass_Republican
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:56am
  Weed is a topic most conservatives get very liberal (that is – emotional) about. To be a conservative you need to look at the facts and history. Prohibition of weed has been a disaster. Calling weed the gateway drug is profoundly ignorant. ALCOHOL (yes I yelled) is the gateway drug. It is the first mind altering drug used by every person who uses other drugs.
  
  Report this comment
- FlamingFartSyndrome
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:44am
  Exactly. It makes me wonder how strong the convictions are of some conservatives. Are you agaisnt the 32oz soda ban in New York, or how about the ban of extra-large McDonalds fries? Why are you agaisnt it? Because government has no place to tell you how to live your personal life. Just like the main argument in Obamacare, your health is between you and your doctor.
  
  Report this comment
- FlamingFartSyndrome
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:49am
  @ Man-on-a-misssion
  
  And what has Obama done to end the war on drugs. Do you know how many medical marijuana dispensaries in my city were raided by the DEA, overviewed by Attorney General Eric Holder, who Obama put in place? And dont start bringing up issues like abortion, its not like anyone in any party has to believe in every single damn thing their party does. We all have conservative views on issues as well as liberal views, but only a moron cant see the difference.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:51am
  @ man-on-a-mission
  may i suggest a “mini-mission”? Read some history of progressivism. Basically, Progressives want to force a “perfect” society. Many of the ideas of the Progressives were “good” — like child labor laws. Those are the sort of things that you heard about Progressives in your high school history class. Now dig a bit deeper. Find out why “Progressives” changed their label to “Liberal”. Find out about Prohibition and eugenics. Yup — forced sterilization was a BIG part of the Progressive agenda.
  
  Report this comment
- BellaMia7
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:00pm
  Because now we have scientific proof that it causes irreparable brain damage and the dropping of IQ. Can manufacturers promote products that are known to cause mental illness and brain damage? People should have to sign a waiver that they will not use government resources to fund the treatment for their self-inflicted brain damage.
  
  http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/is-this-the-tobacco-moment-for-cannabis-8349054.html
  
  Did you see the story of the woman who decapitated her baby while she was on PCP? Let’s legalize all drugs and our problems will be fixed?
  
  Report this comment
- FlamingFartSyndrome
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:04pm
  @bellamia
  
  Did you know that when you sneeze you kill braincells… quick! ban sneezing government! Oh and how about we stick to weed before we start talking about drugs like PCP.
  
  Report this comment
- Jefferson
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:01pm
  It heals cancer among other things. It has been used as a medicine for over 5000 years.
  Take an hour and educate yourselves.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI
  
  The reason the Govt. doesn’t want it legalized is because they make too much money off of it being ILLEGAL. The private prison systems, probation, lawyers, bailbondsmen, courts, more funding for police state anti-liberty activity etc..
  
  The hemp plant (which has NO psychoactive properties) can produce paper, plastics, textiles, fuels, lubricants, building materials, and a host of other things that would be in direct competition with the petroleum and pharma industries.
  
  It’s about time America grew up out of the hysteria that was created by DuPont, Hearst, Anslinger, and the rest of the Govt. and media shills.
  
  Report this comment
- Jaycen
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:31pm
  @BellaMia7
  
  WRONG
  
  To my knowledge, THC (Tri-tetrahydrocannibanol – a ring of three strands of 9 carbon atoms with an OH (alcohol molecule) at the end of one chain, which is why it’s alcohol soluable) doesn’t kill brain cells. THC isn’t a depressant like alcohol – the buzz you get from alcohol is the direct result of killing brain cells.
  
  THC is a mild hallucenagenic. It “randomizes” the firing of neurons in the brain, which is why people on pot tend to “drift” in conversations and have a hard time staying on topic. Instead of a thought following its normal path, suddenly the user sees interconnections to seemingly unrelated ideas.
  
  Cannabis apparently has over 426 different hallucenagenic compounds in it, but THC is the big one. Most pot plants have a THC content of around 17 – 19%. Hemp used for clothing and rope only has about 2 – 3% THC content. The information I learned said (this was 15 years ago) that plants will probably top out at 21%, because anything higher wouldn’t allow the plant to survive.
  
  Report this comment
- leetpriest
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:38pm
  @BELLAMIA7
  
  First off, you need to read the first sentence of paragraph 4 in the article you read.
  
  There are numerous holes in the argument of “well it happened to a handful of people, so we gotta ban it, yo!” What about alcohol, the great brain cell killer? How about the thousands of ounces of GMO’s you probably consume every year? Should we ban those too? What about the fluoride in toothpaste? That’s toxic to human beings, should we ban that? Tobacco? Candy and Soft drinks? Cakes? Brownies? Plastics with BPA? Pesticides? Bleach?
  
  Any argument you have against marijuana, I can turn it right back around on you and show you exactly how much of a hypocrite you are.
  
  Oh hey, let’s take a look at this statement from you:
  
  “People should have to sign a waiver that they will not use government resources to fund the treatment for their self-inflicted brain damage.”
  
  Surely it can’t cost any more to treat that “self-inflicted brain damage” than it does to clothe, feed, board, and provide full healthcare to, inmates that have been wrongly imprisoned for having a dimebag in their car, or all of the resources used to do a drug bust on a guy growing a single plant?
  
  Face it, dummy, the worst thing that will happen to you while smoking weed is a cottonmouth, a case of the munchies, and increased Halo 4 ability.
  
  Report this comment
- Kumo
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:05pm
  @BellaMia7
  
  Not true, it temporarily thickens cell membranes but in average recreational use it is not harmful to neurons. Alcohol by comparison is far worse, but losing a few brain cells won’t make me give up my occasional glass of spiced rum.
  
  I have not touched the stuff in 15 years and don’t have plans to, I have kids to raise. However, I say legalize it, but enact laws to keep kids under 21 from easily obtaining it like we do with alcohol.
  
  Besides hemp makes a very excellent rope and production of the stuff would help many of the local economies in the South.
  
  Report this comment
- Dale Hogue
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:22pm
  In future years, it’s possible that it might be considered a healthy way to control various deseases that attack a human being during his or her lifetime. I do not use it nor do I know anyone who uses it, so I’m not the best person to be discussing this problem, but I believe — from what I’ve learned about it over the years — that it could become a staple in helping cure the aches and pains of the patients at most all medical hospitals. It is worth investigating its medical helping properties and evaluating how these properties assist the medical profession in whatever ways they agree would be positive in the treatment of their patients. It’s worth investigating without the interference of politicians and any do-gooders whose contributions to the medical society is questionable.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 3:01pm
  @ Bellamia7
  
  Unlike most posting regarding this story, I am not an expert on what THC does or does not do to the brain. But I do like the idea of restricting welfare payments to those who are NOT using “recreational” drugs. Is it a “Progressive” idea? Yup, it is — but so is government welfare, so I’m O.K. with it. If someone wants to be Ayn Rand about things, then they don’t take welfare and they can smoke their weed. If they want to be LBJ about things, then they take their welfare but they take it with government-imposed strings.
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 3:46pm
  @ frederick_douglas_republican
  
  “Calling weed the gateway drug is profoundly ignorant. ALCOHOL (yes I yelled) is the gateway drug. It is the first mind altering drug used by every person who uses other drugs.”
  
  But, most likely only because alcohol is typically much easier to get for the young. If weed were just as easy, I would wager it would be at least equal to alcohol in being the first mind-altering drug to be experimented with.
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 3:52pm
  @ bellamia7
  
  “Because now we have scientific proof that it causes irreparable brain damage and the dropping of IQ.”
  
  Weed? I know alcohol destroys brain cells … but weed, too? Of course, if science tells us this, do you REALLY believe it? Those scientists just use hocus pocus… .not facts. I mean, these are the groups of people that try to tell us there is climate change ongoing, that evolution occurred, that the earth is some 4 billion years old, that dinosaurs once roamed the earth, We all know those are all lies so why would we believe scientists in claims that weed causes the death of brain cells?
  
  I’d continue this with you but I have to find some chips as I have the munchies …
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 3:53pm
  @ ballamia7
  
  ” Can manufacturers promote products that are known to cause mental illness and brain damage?”
  
  You mean like flouride? Agent Orange resistant seeds? Roundup Ready Corn?
  
  Report this comment
- chris72sax
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 4:33pm
  Try for a moment to see yourself, an individual, as supreme. You are free to speak your mind, look at what you want, eat what you want, live where you want, travel where you want. Now imagine that you have neighbors with the same rights, not property of you or the state. You come to an agreement with your neighbor and others that even though you each have the liberty to live your lives as you wish, you need rules to punish those who infringe on you, your rights, and your property; and to enforce contracts.
  The same reason, you have the right to own guns to protect yourself is the same reason there should be no laws against you buy, selling, growing, using drugs and worshipping or not how you wish, or owning property….. Because you are supreme and are not a subject, and government has no right to rule you, only a responsibility to protect you and your property from others!
  You don’t get your rights from the Constitution, that’s where government gets theirs. Government is subject to you, not you to it! Our founders gave it such limited power and responsibility. It couldn’t even levy a direct tax on you until an Ammendment created the income tax.
  Act like free men! Like you’re worthy of the God-given gift of libert.
  
  Report this comment
- GCT
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:59pm
  One of the original strains of the Progressive Movement contained people who believed that you could legislate moral progress. They weren’t purged from the Progressive Movement until decades later after “the Scopes Monkey Trial”.
  
  Report this comment
- JohnnyinthePedros
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:03pm
  Well said, Chris.
  
  Report this comment
- Nala77
  Posted on May 24, 2013 at 10:29pm
  To me the police that are kicking in doors and raiding and steeling peoples money amd homes
  Are the real criminals and its not somone selling a plant that has never hirt a soul. Its a discrace the police only care about the money they can steel cus they clearly know this plant doesnt hurt anyone and all they want is a reason to take money
  
  Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:16am
I am goind to sound just like a liberal progressive. I am 64. The drug war has been going on for most of that time. It is a war we have lost. Much of the marijuana consumed in the US comes across our border with Mexico. The drug cartels, just like the bootleggers, get rich of the illegal sale of marijuana since our border is unsecured. Legalizing marijuana really dents their cash flow and provides a source of consumption tax revenue for a cash strapped US. I don’t believe people who do not use marijuana currently will be attracted to it if marijuana were legal.

I have to admit I have tried it twice in my life. When I was a senior in college, I dated a stoner for a short period of time. I smoked a joint and promptly went to sleep. My first thought was who would want to use it if all it did was make you sleep. Not a lot hard partying when you sleep. I used it once on an assignment while in Army intelligence. Same thing happened.

I think any thing that cripples the drug cartels and raises consumption tax and “sin tax” revenue is okay.

I understand the concern about the moral decay we all see around us but I also recognize that a war has been lost.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SCREW-WINDOWS
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:40am
  It’s hard to stop a infection with antibiotics if you don’t take them as prescribed same holds true for the drug war and illegal immigration. Progressive it is soon murder will be accepted as a norm.
  
  Report this comment
- Capt_Gregg
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:19am
  @ DISMAYED VETERAN
  I’m 68, and we’re both thinking along the same lines. Both of us have dabbled with weed (some 45 years ago in my case), so we are looking at it objectively — neither from the perspective of those to whom it’s an evil menace nor of those who extol its virtues.
  
  Report this comment
- BellaMia7
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:02pm
  Make murder legal in Chicago since the war against it has been lost. Alcohol consumption and it’s associated degeneracy went up after Prohibition was eliminated costing society hundreds of billions year in damage now.
  
  Report this comment
- Capt_Gregg
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:41pm
  @ BELLAMIA7
  “Make murder legal in Chicago since the war against it has been lost.”
  
  That’s the kind of “apples/oranges” comment one can expect from the terminally stupid.
  
  Report this comment
- Jaycen
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:33pm
  @Dismayed Veteran
  
  You don’t sound like a Progressive, you sound like a Common Sense Constitutionalist. Laws that tell people what they can and can’t do to themselves have no place in our country. Prohibition doesn’t work. It has never worked. It only breeds a black market and crime (see the 1920′s).
  
  Alcohol prohibition was a Progressive construct. So, no, you are on the winning side of history, my friend.
  
  Report this comment
- leetpriest
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:43pm
  @BELLAMIA7
  
  This is what you sound like to us:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azf320JDdqU
  
  We laugh at you, nanny.
  
  Report this comment
- GCT
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:05pm
  Legalizing pot could make it uncool if done right. But i wouldn’t count on the government getting that right either. Personally, I don’t tolerate any kind of smoke around me.
  
  Report this comment
Spidertroll
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:06am
Why is smoking bad? Why do people insist on putting a natural plant in with synthetic and refined substances? booze is a killer, why is drinking it not a crime? Pot may be a whole hearted waste of time, but wasting time is not a crime. Fire brought us freedom, but smoke is evil? Come on now, priest burnt incense all the time, was that bad? The peace pipe helped europeans and native americans to have peace, was that bad? I am very confused as to why everyone blindly subscribes to the idea that smoking is evil, isn’t that in actuality a leftist theory?
Non-violent and completely natural actions of one individual upon himself that cause no harm to others don’t make a crime in my book.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- carolsue1ok
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:59am
  the thing about the plant being natural is right up their with poisonous plants. The poisonous plants look innocent and they are natural but they will kill you. some poison work slower then other plants so just because it is natural is it good? If you are not in your right mind and you are not in the hospital being treated by doctors and nurses but let to drive or roam the streets is that good? I love chocolate but I have never robbed anyone or broke into a house to get money to buy chocolate. I have never caused a car accident. I was told pot is bad. Now I am being told it is good. How can they both be true. I can understand the medical aspect of it but not the recreation part. So while it may be natural so are mushrooms, and rattlesnakes, and stinging briers but are they good for me?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:06am
  “Why do people insist on putting a natural plant in with synthetic and refined substances?”
  
  What does natural have to do with it? I can grow hemlock, but it’s still a crime if I poison someone.
  
  That’s not analogous to pot which never directly kills anyone, but the “natural” argument is a non-starter for anyone who isn’t heavily invested in pot culture. It certainly holds no weight with conservatives.
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:45am
  carolsue1ok
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:59am
  
  the thing about the plant being natural is right up their with poisonous plants. The poisonous plants look innocent and they are natural but they will kill you.
  ======================================
  
  Why aren’t the other poisonous plants illegal then??…….
  
  Report this comment
- ANTISOCIAL-IST
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 12:57pm
  @carol: in re being told it’s bad and good, doctors used to advertise on television regarding how good product X was for you to smoke.
  at the end of the day it’s all about freedom. you use the example about you’re liking chocolate and criminal acts, etc. i will guarantee you that more laws are broken by a large margin regarding consumption of alcohol than with marijuana. cigarettes are far more harmful to your health, yet are legal. marijuana is just another gov. created boogie man. people in prison at a cost of $25,000 to $40,000 a year. for possession! for a plant! who is the gov. to tell anyone they cannot possess a plant that God created and obviously has purpose, medicinal and otherwise. drug war is costing us liberty and boatloads of cash. it has militarized our local “peace” officers, which is now a standing army, which the founders warned us against. it has created another mafia, just like prohibittion took the italian mafia from the street corners of their neighborhoods onto the big stage, corrupting police, judges, and politicians in the process. drug (marijuana) cartels are brutal in protecting their turf and profits. the gov’s war on drugs (marijuana) has created that. was a report out just this week about the new-found horrors of consuming soda. want it band? want a war on soda? want people inprisoned for consuming or possessing soda?
  
  Report this comment
jungle J
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:04am
To argue that marijuana is good for a society it to argue for the demise of a society…only the sane understand.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:08am
  I don’t think anyone outside of major pot heads are arguing that smoking pot is “good” for society… in the same way few argue that getting drunk is “good” for society. I think what you’ll find most saying is that it shouldn’t be on the government to outlaw it, and that legalization (not necessarily recreational usage) comes with societal and financial benefits.
  
  Report this comment
- MGrilla
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:05am
  Freedom and liberty are usually best for society.
  
  Report this comment
sdvausa
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:58am
Yes legalize it, but most of the population will not be able to smoke it. If your job does drug testing and fires you for using marijuana don’t come crying to us about making your employer not test for it…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MGrilla
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:24am
  Do you take a breathalyzer test every day when you show up to work, or do you disclose everything you consume with your employer? What right does an employer have to judge an employee, out side of job performance. Point is the only “DRUGS” that produce negative response from your employer are the illegal ones. Time to figure out what laws stop crime and what laws create crime. Remember its totally “LEGAL” to KILL your baby so long as you follow the governments law . I’m just saying don’t let government, corporate, or societies policies set your moral center point.
  
  Report this comment
- dflocks80
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:45pm
  @MGRILLA
  
  The employer is paying someone to voluntarily show up and do a job. No one is forcing the employee to work there. An employer is well within his or her rights to require daily breathalyzer and drug tests if they wanted to. If that is seen as too oppressive, free market principles will ensure that this employer will not attract employees.
  
  Living under government is not voluntary however. By virtue of birth, you (assuming you are living here) and I live under the government of the United States. Therefore, it is sensible to fight for basic freedoms. Telling employers what they can and can’t do (outside of very basic things such as endangering the lives of their employees via neglect) is government oppression.
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 4:03pm
  “but most of the population will not be able to smoke it. If your job does drug testing and fires you for using marijuana don’t come crying to us about making your employer not test for it…”
  
  If it was legal, your job wouldn’t drug test you for it. Similarly, I don’t know of any workplaces that drug test you for alcohol use … do you? Now, if you’re under the influence of said drug during your work hours, that is a different matter entirely.
  
  Report this comment
- Pomona
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:33pm
  Drug testing does nothing for workers, only employers. As a worker, I’d much rather work with a reeking stoner than worry about someone that “has gone off their meds”. With pot, you smell it and can look someone in the eye and know. Legal drugs, you gotta put up with a lot of crazy crap, if they go off their drugs….and frankly, when that happens, I really wish they could go outside and smoke a big fat one. But it’s all well and good if its a legal drug, right? Can’t really complain if your co workers are NOT on their meds right? It’s a privacy issue. My point is drugs can be a force for good or bad. Either way, people use them. There are plenty of people abusing legal drugs and somehow people think that is at least ,somehow, I don’t know…respectable, maybe? Like, when Rush Limbaugh admitted his addiction, it wasn’t like he admitted to an “illegal” drug, so that was somehow, more forgivable. For me it is a behavior issue, not an issue of legality. I have had too many problems with legal drug abusers. Drug testing is only for illegal drugs….yes, those mandatory drug tests keep the workplace safe. Ever had a boss off his Thorazine? Drug testing to get and keep a job, but no drug test for welfare recipients. Who is the genius that thought of that one? Drug tests…everything will be fine, just threaten them with a drug test….and if you don’t like your worker, tell them they failed it and make their life hell. Drug tests, yes that is the answer!!!!
  
  Report this comment
Obamalarky
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:46am
It is a states rights issue. If you don’t want the government in your life why would you want it in the life of someone who partakes in the herb? To say all who smoke it are unmotivated slackers puts you up there with the progressives that say all conservatives are religious zealots. Bet if alcohol prohibition returned there would be an uproar. Don’t be a flippin hypocrit, we have enough of those on the left.

Yes, I did, I do, I work 40-60hrs a week, pay taxes (so I must make more than 50K a year), help my kids with their homework, tithe to my church, and am going back to school just to learn a new skill. Can the same be said for the critics of those who partake. BTW, I work in technical field and there are many I work with who do the exact same thing.

Yes, there are alot of unmotivated slackers out there, but I would opine they are bred that way and just never learned what an honest days work does for the soul. Heck, alot of them don’t do drugs at all, they are just freakin lazy azzes.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cloudsofwar
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:37am
wow now obama can go to either one of those states and smoke pot legally. can you say Choom Gang.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cloudsofwar
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:33am
obama says good….. keep the people high so they wont know whats really going on. soon pot will be legal everywhere. hey the cartels can ship pot to wash and colorado legally. the so called drug war is over that should make the progressives and libertarians happy.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MGrilla
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:35am
  I take it you don’t drink , or leave the house very much. Why would you spend your money and give it to a foreign drug cartel if it was legal to grow in your back yard . The drug cartels want it legalized about as bad as the Baptist. Example the more carpenters there are in my market the less work there is for me and I don’t make as much for the work I do get .
  
  Report this comment
Dudley Do-Right
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:33am
A mind is a terrible thing

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Eastinfection
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:14am
  ….to taste…
  -Ministry
  
  Report this comment
- Dudley Do-Right
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:52am
  Pufff…Oh Yeah!
  
  Report this comment
Capt_Gregg
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:30am
I’m in favor of legalization for a number of reasons, such as:
(1) In order to obtain it at present, one usually has to patronize a dealer who also stocks other drugs. Which would he rather sell you for the evening, $10 worth of weed or $100 (or more) worth of crack?

(2) Even if heavily taxed, legal marijuana would be so much cheaper and easier to obtain than that on the illicit market, providing a major blow to the Mexican drug cartels. (I had a great-uncle who was a pharmacist. He told me that, before it was outlawed, “Indian Cannabis” was a normal part of his inventory, and sold for 10 cents an ounce — far cry from the present price of the illicit product that can run into the hundreds of dollars.)

(3) It would provide a considerable windfall in tax revenues.

(4) It would save the states the millions of dollars now being spent on enforcing anti-marijuana laws, and on the prosecution and incarceration of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

(5) It would remove the “forbidden fruit” appeal that attracts so many young users.

(6) After roughly 75 years of prohibition, it is obvious that its use has only increased. It took only 13 years for the national prohibition on alcohol to be conceded a failure and be repealed.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- sdvausa
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:49am
  Why does everyone use ‘Tax Revenues’ as a way to justify legalizing it? Don’t you pay enough taxes? Why do you wan’t to add a whole new layer of bureaucracy? You people act like taxing it is going to be the end to our troubles and a revenue panacea…
  
  Just legalize it, free people that are held on Marijuana related charges.
  
  Report this comment
- circleDwagons
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:23am
  Capt. excellent post. taxes really would not be a big deal because many people would grow their own. I find the plant attactive and could easily grow it.
  
  Report this comment
- Capt_Gregg
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:54am
  @SDVAUSA
  Do you think that legalization will happen without a tax on it? In the real world, if it is legalized, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be, just as there is on tobacco and alcohol. Another “layer of bureaucracy?” Every state already has departments dealing with alcohol, tobacco and taxes. No sane person would argue that a tax on marijuana would solve any state’s financial problems, but it could help to lessen them. Do a search to see how much your state takes in on tobacco taxes alone — I’d wager it would take in even more from a marijuana tax. I would guess that even with such a tax, those who choose to use it would still be paying less than they are now.
  
  I’m no fan of exorbitant taxation, but since I don’t use it, I wouldn’t be paying any such tax. :-)
  
  Report this comment
- ComeTakeIt
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:33pm
  @CircledWagons
  I agree. Also having it be illegal made it easier for us to get weed then alcohol in highschool. To get weed all you needed was to know someone that had it. To get alcohol you had to find someone that was old enough that didn’t care if you drank, then hope that they would take the risk for you to buy it and give it to you. It was much easier, for me and my friends anyway, to get weed in highschool.
  
  And for those who say it lowers IQ, makes you dumb/lazy. It may for some people. I can only speak for myself, but when I was a fresh/soph in HS i made 3 As 3Bs and a C usually. I never smoked until my junior year. Jr/Snr year I made 6As and 1B, went to a big engineering college and got my Mech. Eng. Tech. degree. All while smoking the majority of the time. Sometimes I would quit for a few months at a time, if I didn’t feel like spending money on it or had a specific reason not to, or if i just wanted to quit to kinda “clear out” everything. No withdrawals, no hallucinations/fantasies of killing puppies, etc.
  
  Report this comment
SREGN
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:28am
When Obama kills all the jobs, what else are we going to have to do? Might as well dull the pain with something you can grow yourself.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cloudsofwar
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:27am
this truly is bad news. our culture our society is begin taken apart by the progressives. next we will have legalize prostitution. we are pre war germany anything go’s along with our money. things are going to get much worse over the next year.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- neffy812
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:57am
  Yeah, and we’ll legalize marrying girls as young and 5 years old, and we’ll legalize televised human/dog sex. We’d better watch out or we’ll legalize rape and murder too. Are you kidding me? You have no f-ing brain whatsoever.
  
  Report this comment
- n7plus1
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:08am
  yeah, this guy is pretty retarded and un-informed (i mean, come on, read his posts)
  
  Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:18am
One more step to the end of our national culture due to the progressives efforts.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SCREW-WINDOWS
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:23am
  Totally agree step by step immorality is taking over.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:30am
  What do you mean? Federal prohibition, criminalization of drugs, and establishing federal policing agencies were all part of the progressive movement to begin with.
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:40am
  Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:18am
  
  One more step to the end of our national culture due to the progressives efforts.
  =================
  
  Prohibition was created by the Progressives (why do you think they call that period of time the “Progressive Era”?):
  
  ———————
  “Progressive reformers also took to Prohibition for they saw it as a continuation of their efforts to improve society in general. Temperance societies and Progressives alike saw the need for more governmental control and involvement in citizens’ lives. They were successful in passing several laws at the local level. Between 1905 and 1917, states across the nation were imposing laws that prohibited the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages. They did not stop there, however. The temperance societies began to push to change American society and elevate morality through national legislation.”
  http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/volstead-act/
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:54am
  Actually the history of prohibition predates Progressives by a few centuries. Benjamin Rush for example was proponent for prohibition of alchohol by the government. Also several states passed prohibition laws, and supported prohibition. Plus many states supported blue laws which also had an limited prohibition on alchohol being sold on sunday for often religious reasons.
  
  The progressives actually just latched on to what many people, generally religous and conservative groups had wanted before progressives. They joined hand with temperance groups on that issue. However, many progressives knew if they could ban it they could get rich by selling it under the counter, black market. It’s an amusing trivia fact that during the era of Prohibition DC, particularly politicians was one of the biggest buyers black market boos… Actually one of the guys who was the biggest sailers to the Capital was a WW1 veteran, who turned to bootlegging, after he failed to find jobs after returning home. He also went on to be one of the big leaders for the Bonus Army movement who lead thousands of WW1 veterans to protest on DC to Hoover’s chagrin.
  
  Report this comment
- n7plus1
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:13am
  how is it a “Progressive” movement if it was done and started by our fore-fathers?
  
  I love how every negative comment is “liberals taking over”, “Progressives!”, “OMG, our country” you all sound like candidates that need to smoke pot. You all have a serious issue with consipiracy and what you THINK you know.
  
  And to those of you comparing it to smoking tabacco saying its just the same or worse…DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Its been scientifically proven that smoking pot is better for you than smoking cigarettes.
  
  Report this comment
- n7plus1
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:19am
  “OMG CHANGE!” … some of you cannot deal with change, and cant see past your own blindess of hate towards something you know nothing about. Some of you are becoming the thing you hate. Close mindedness…open to nothing.
  
  Progression is good…moving foward, building…etc…
  
  The whole “Progressives” term is very misleading. Most of you only see in black and white and label people so. Theres a rainbow of colors out there. Why are you so quick to judge others. Arent most of you of the Christian faith here? Arent you taught not to judge others? Arent you taught to be the most accepting people on Earth? Only God can judge us, right? So get off of your high horse.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:26am
  @SacredHonor1776, Not at the federal level against the 10th amendment. Progressive began using a different type of constitutionalism to side step the amendment process and nationalize the drug laws and whole crap load of other expansive programs. But yeah, you’re right early reformers existed, but they were an insignificant minority during laissez faire constitutionalism. The Civil War gave justices the tools to pervert our founders’ intent.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:34am
  @N7Plus1
  
  “Its been scientifically proven that smoking pot is better for you than smoking cigarettes.”
  
  I think you meant to phrase this as “smoking pot is less harmful than smoking cigarettes.” There are a few medical benefits (especially in motivating hunger and lessening pain), but there are also drawbacks (and a lot of it depends on where you stand: some think getting high is a good thing for relaxing, others think it is dangerous and causes slacking).
  
  Report this comment
- n7plus1
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:58am
  @Locked, yes, thats what i meant. Thanks for the correction…as we all should know there isnt just tobacco in cigarettes.
  
  Report this comment
- KwisatzHaderach
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:59pm
  Progressives, just like conservatives, are not perfect. However, compared side by side, the progressive movement was responsible for most of the advances throughout our history. Lest we forget, it was 56 progressives that signed the Declaration of Independence vs. 720 conservatives that signed the Declaration of Dependence. It was progressives that abolished slavery vs conservatives that were pro-slavery. The conservative Supreme Court of Chief Justice Melville Fuller overturned the first child labor laws (Newt Gingrich as recently as this year advocated the same, i.e. fire one adult janitor and hire 15 children to do his job…), gave us Jim Crow, voter literacy tests and poll taxes, said that the U.S. didn’t have to honor its treaties with Native Americans, and said that state sanctioned sex discrimination against women was constitutional. Fortunately for America, the progressives did not give up in the face of conservatism. It took almost 80 years to undo most of that craziness, but we did it. Now, we find ourselves fighting to keep those hard won advances and move forward still.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 3:38pm
  I’m progressives didn’t exist when constitution was signed. Those were federalists and Democratic republican party. And anti-federalists. They were enlightenment era, “classical liberal”. Which has nothing to do with the future “progressive” platform. Post civil war, but generally Theodore Roosevelt’s time. Most of the early progressive movement was into eugenics sciences, and even supported systems being out together by Mussolini. Centralized authoritarian government.
  
  But thanks for the revisionist history.
  
  Report this comment
kaydeebeau
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:09am
I really “love” how the pot lobby “loves” pot smoking but spurns tobacco smoking – another leftist hypocricy illustrated. Either smoking is bad or is isn’t – the substance shouldn’t matter

With that being said, legalize everything – at the same time – until we as a society are willing to let our fellow citezens trully suffer the consequences of choices – in other words – do whatever you want – but when you are diseased or infirm due to those choices – take care of yourself…don’t expect the rest of us to aid you –

Yo – :”aPaulogist libertarians” – how does this strike you ? Until we are willing as a society to let those who chose to fall into the gutter – remain in the gutter (this is not to be confused with those who are truly infirm or incapable through no fault of there own) we are forever held hostage to welfare programs. We cannot continue to enable those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves. I have yet to hear an aPaulogist propse any such thing – most are caught up in juvenile “rebellion” secure in the safety net of gov’t programs and the compassion of the rest of us

The Ron aPaulogists don’t ever seem to make this correlation. fine you want to do whatever you want – stop expecting there to be a safety net for your poor choices

Tough love started Nov 7…..Pain and shame is a good thing to reform bad behaviour – sadly we seem to be losing that concept

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SCREW-WINDOWS
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:16am
  I remember back when illegal meant illegal and you had to pay a consequence for your actions.
  
  Report this comment
- stoptheliesbho
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:30am
  But what if we can’t come back from it, man? I believe in tough love. Really, I do. But what if another 4 years of Obama’s policies (more like fail-icies) take us down and road from whence we cannot return?!? I say, we ALL start smoking weed. No fearmongering – no stress – no worrying. Peace, love, and happiness. And sex. Lots of sex.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:45am
  Did the federal government expand or shrink when marijuana was criminalized nationally without authority from the Constitution? BTW no Libertarian has ever asked for a federal safety net for people that make bad choices.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:02am
  “I really “love” how the pot lobby “loves” pot smoking but spurns tobacco smoking”
  
  Interestingly, this is a fairly bad comparison for a number of reasons:
  1. A pot smoker (even a “pot head”) will never, EVER smoke as many joints as a tobacco smoker chain-smokes cigarettes.
  2. The majority of carcinogens in cigarettes come from additives. Studies on smoking pot and lung cancer over the course of 20+ years have not shown any correlation between the two (http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer).
  3. One does not need to “smoke” pot to get high from THC. Side businesses in CO and CA are food businesses with THC injected into the food or pot used as an ingrediant.
  4. Unlike tobacco (nicotine), pot (THC) is not physically addicting.
  
  None of this means that using pot is a healthy choice necessarily; anything can be abused, and I contend that getting high is psychologically addicting even if there’s no physical component. I personally don’t use pot, nor would I. But I also look for facts about it and think it’s on people to decide for themselves and face the consequences of their actions.
  
  Freedom. What a concept, huh?
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:10am
  It’s simply insane to do anything federally that would increase drug use (and let’s not kid ourselves, that’s exactly what would happen) until after we’ve secured the southern border drugs are currently pouring across, and dismantled whatever federal programs currently force taxpayers to pay for drug users’ bad decisions.
  
  For leftists, drug use is a personal lifestyle choice, the condemnation of which would be the unpardonable sin of judgmentalism, while Liberal-tarian legalizers on the “right fringe” frame the issue around personal responsibility, suggesting it’s paternalistic for government to keep people from putting harmful things in their systems… blah-blah-blah…
  
  If government is essentially the collective exercise of the individual right to self-defense, then of course people are within their rights to protect themselves from drug-related crimes and accidents by prohibiting the source. “Conservatives in particular” should know better than to fall for Liberal-tarians’ superficially appealing arguments about the “right” to do drugs… John Locke himself argued that man’s power over his own body was not absolute, that liberty didn’t cover the right to enslave or destroy one’s self.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:12am
  @Kay
  
  Such blatant ignorance regarding things libertarians believe in….You are talking like one of those ‘man on the street’ interviews
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:27am
  No, Time2 it’s simply insane to put the society over the individual. That’s collectivism. You’re a collectivist statist like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc… You’re just too stupid to realize it. Take solace that many here are right with you, mostly religious altruists.
- circleDwagons
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:38am
  @Time. blau,blau,blau…. So you are fighting to criminalize tobacco? How about limiting cars to 20 mph to save lives? You agree with bloomberg about salt and sugar? We must draw lines to protect the masses. All for the collective good.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:56am
  Just a “collectivist”
  everywhere I go
  people know the part
  I’m playing
  
  Paid for every “comment”
  selling each ‘posting”
  every night some heart
  betraying
  
  There will come a day
  youth will pass away
  then what will they say
  about me
  
  When the end comes I know
  they’ll say just a “collectivt”
  as life goes on
  without me
  
  Lmao. I “volunteered” for ‘Nam JUST.. and the old Liberal-tarian and his warped ideology that you subscribe to thinks the “draft” is “collectivist” (Paul’s own view), yet he went along with that “collectivist” demands of our country and allowed himself to be drafted. Why? He could have stood up for his beliefs, stood his ground and pulled an Ali… but instead, chumped out. Coward.
  
  Hmmmm…. Ron Paul a “collectivist” enabler as well as an Obama enabler I guess.
  
  ‘Cause I aint got nobody
  nobody nobody cares for me
  I’m so sad and lonely
  sad and lonely sad and lonely
  Won’t some sweet mama
  come and take a chance with me
  cause I aint so bad
  
  Report this comment
- kaydeebeau
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:57am
  @ Locked – great except you still ignored the other part of the debate – as long as the rest of us are supposed to “take care of those who make poor choices”
  
  here is my deal – you are free to engage in whatever behavior you want – pot, cigarettes, homesexual (HIV) STDs, just be willing to live (or die) with the consequences of your behavior choices – don’t expect me to fund your “rescue”
  
  And still a “paulbot” who can claim “freedom” untill the cows come home but is still unwilling to accept the responsibility of the consequences of those choices – gee – why am I not surprised???
  
  Living (or dying) with the consequences is real freedom – Do what you want – don’t expect me to pay for it and oh by the way – if you get sick or disabled – live (or dies) with it – That is the freedom you moron apualogiszts claim you want but are still unwilling to live with – thus why those of us with any sense claim you are no diiferent than a democrat.
  
  Risk – reward – risk – failure – living with either as your choice is where eral freedom comes from – risk without a sfaety net is wher the rubber hits the road – unfortunately the paultards want all the lax rules with put the consequences – immature children – and oh – by the way – these immature, selfish, ignorant, entitled children are ours!!!
  
  Save the country – cut off your kids….
  
  Reaaly a “libertartian” Prove it….
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:03am
  CIRCLED. I don’t care to breath second hand smoke and don’t drink to get drunk. And I don’t suffer the fools that do gladly.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:13am
  @Keydee
  
  “as long as the rest of us are supposed to “take care of those who make poor choices””
  
  Maybe you missed it, or didn’t understand it. I said: “I also look for facts about it and think it’s on people to decide for themselves and face the consequences of their actions.” This is exceptionally ironic considering you use almost the exact same words later on in your tirade. Agreed: people need to face the consequences of their actions.
  
  “homesexual (HIV)”
  
  Oh, sorry, didn’t realize you’re a moron. A personal anecdote. I had a friend in the 1980s who got HIV from a contaminated blood transfusion. He died in the ’90s from AIDS and pneumonia. Every day up until his death he had to endure being called “gay” or “a f a g g o t” or somehow deserving of his fate. He was straight as an arrow.
  
  HIV is NOT a “homosexual disease” and I hold a personal animosity toward anyone who calls it such; gay men might be more likely to get it, but it’s virtually impossible for lesbians to contract it (thus completely disproving the “homosexual” angle you seem caugh up on). Such rhetoric is outdated, insulting, and idiotic. You should be ashamed of yourself.
  
  Report this comment
- circleDwagons
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:29am
  Time, I don’t like second hand smoke either, that is why i don’t go places where people smoke. I think smoking, tatoos, and body piercings are Stupid but God gave manking freewill.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:50am
  CIRCLED. Let’s talk basics and forget about the circle-jerk argument of tabacco, alcohol, tattoos and body piercings. Keeping drugs illegal is one of the best ways to keep drugs out of the hands and brains of children. We know three things here
  
  First, children who don’t use drugs continually tell us one of the reasons they don’t is precisely because they are illegal.
  
  For example… “perceptions of the risk and social disapproval of drug use correlate very closely with drug taking behavior.” When those in the drug prevention community ask teens who don’t use drugs why they don’t, time and again, the answer comes back “because it’s illegal.” This, of course, explains why a greater percentage of teens abuse legal substances like tobacco and alcohol over illegal drugs such as marijuana even when they say marijuana is easily accessible.
  
  Second, keeping drugs out of the hands of children is the best way to prevent drug addiction generally, as study after study has confirmed this… that if we keep a child drug free until age 21, the chances of use in adulthood are pretty slim.
  
  Third, we don’t need to guess at hypothetical legalization schemes. Our experience with legally prescribed narcotics has already proven it, and we now have an epidemic. This, despite doing everything the theorists have asked, from oversight to regulation to prescription requirements.
  
  Normalizing, de-stigmatizing, and legalizing illegal drugs lowers their price and increases their us
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:55am
  From 1789 to 1914, then there were no laws against cannabis…..
  
  It wasn’t until the Harrison Act of 1914 that the first federal law regulating cannabis ever came into existence…..
  
  So how did the USA ever survive from 1789 to 1914??
  
  Surely all those stoners living in the U.S. from 1789 to 1914 would have brought the U.S. to the apocalypse by then……wouldn’t they?
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:26am
  KID. You’re living in the past as are most Liberal-tarian pot head sympathizers and drug pushers who just try to rationalize bad behavior from the uneducated past and bring it into a more educated present.
  
  However… as educated as we are… we have become more morally bankrupt and you just want to add more horse crap to that mix. I see that as pretty selfish as well as an uneducated viewpoint.
  
  Ohhh, that’s right… it’s all about the freedom and liberty of the argument. Yes, the freedom that is taken away by mind-altering substances that cloud all judgement and common sense.
  
  Report this comment
- SCREW-WINDOWS
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:37am
  I love second hand cigar and cigarette smoke it smells of America however second hand pot smoke smells of idiocy.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:05pm
  Time2
  
  “we have become more morally bankrupt” Yeah we have. We have idiots that think state sponsored MURDER (a commandment) is OK and smoking weed (not a commandment) is the end of the world.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:33pm
  JUST. I can envision your candy-@ss now (with SOY and LOCKED), wearing tie-dye tee-shirts with marijuana leafs on them and sitting at the gates of Little Creek Naval Base (where sweaty Seals roam) singing…
  
  “where have all the flowers gone.”
  
  SOY is Peter, LONGED is Paul… and you of course studly (a guy who thinks sweaty men are disgu”th” ting)… you… are Mary.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:58pm
  Time2, The way you use “Rules for Radicals” when presented with logic that makes your head spin is consistent with your collectivism.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 2:02pm
  And Time_2 is the guy who shoots hippies, right? Well, at least that part sounds right!
  
  Report this comment
- circleDwagons
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 3:56pm
  Time, like totally agree.. alcohol, tobacco , soda and jerky should be outlawed.
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:32pm
  TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:10am
  
  It’s simply insane to do anything federally that would increase drug use (and let’s not kid ourselves, that’s exactly what would happen)
  ====================================
  
  Are you trying to say that you would start using drugs if it were legal to do so?
  
  Yes or no?
  
  Report this comment
paultard
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:06am
Of course the Blaze make this another Reefer Madness “HIT” piece when our own constitution was printed on hemp paper.. Our own money, clothing and countless other products were made from hemp. Even Henry Ford built a car whose body panels were made from hemp fiber bonded with resin and it would not dent, or crack.10 times stronger than it’s steel counterpart. Hemp is a relative of marijuana and has no THC. That isn’t mentioned either but both have the same industrial uses. It takes little care to grow, needs no pesticides, and has 4 times the yield over every competitive crop. Clothing, Food & Beverages,Paper, Building Supplies, Plastics, Fuel ( we wouldn’t be burning our food) & Chemical Cleanup are only the top & uses for hemp. Here is a link to the WWII propaganda film and the Henry Ford car video left out on purpose along with the benefits of this crop used fr THOUSANDS of years and it’s our own Greed and narrow mindedness that stopped it here.. Some references http://hemporganic.com/whyhemp.html WWII propaganda film “Hemp for Victory”:1942 http://youtu.be/s9Sdr6ZWcUU Henry Ford hemp car film 1941: http://youtu.be/ryO2JLzFPTY. Glenn did you ever think the venture capitalists may be buying up farmland to grow HEMP for fuel? It would be a brilliant idea.. Glenn, you need to tell your staff to do more homework and stop the propaganda.. You mat be telling the truth but leaving out the truth for your own agenda is still a lie. Tell ALL the truth GLENN.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DougHuffman
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:15am
  Hence the demise of the repugnant libertarians. Their progressive embrace of all things hemp is revealed.
  
  Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. God Bless Bitter Clingers, damn progs, druggies.
  
  Report this comment
- kaydeebeau
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:18am
  I have no problem with legalizing everything – as long as the rest of us are not expected to take care of those who are in the “gutter” due to those choices. You paultards never address the other half of the problem. Somehow the rest of us are still expected to take care of the rest when the bad choices lead to destruction, poor health and startvation.
  
  As long as it will be acceptable for me to let you starve, die from the illlnesses contracted from lifestyle choices, whatever other bad consequences may befall those who want full freedom – remember that same freedom means to live (or die) by those choices – I am fine with that.
  
  You want to choose behaviours that lead to slothfulness, illiness, whatever – fine – just don’t expect me to rescue you from those consequences.
  
  I have yet to hear a “paultard” willing to suffer for their choices = which is the biggest prblem the rest of us have with your “group” / you want the “freedom” to do what you want as long as there is a safety net to protect you from the consequesnces of that freedom
  
  Freedom is being willing to live through those consequences.
  
  Report this comment
- toiletclogga
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:21am
  It’s not about making paper, it’s about getting high. Weed makes people stupid! Period! It rots the brain. It prevents clear thought. It demotivates people. It has just made the populace of Washington and Colorado that much dumber!
  
  Report this comment
- paultard
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:27am
  #1 my choices are mine and I have made some bad ones and suffered for them.. On the other hand I have benefited from some good choices. #2 I don’t smoke the stuff but have NO problem with those that do. Gave it up 30 years ago. #3 the problem with The Blaze is that they do not understand the concept of freedom. They want Liberty and Freedom it but don’t like what YOU may do with yours so YOU will have restrictions on your freedom and liberty..
  
  Report this comment
- toiletclogga
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:42am
  @Paultard–So long as we have to support these deadbeats in our Socialist society, I do have a problem with legalizing something that makes them not want to work! Clouding your mind, and preventing clear thought does not make you a contributor to a working society. What about prostitution, heroin use, beastiality? Are you OK with those things too? A lawless society leads to chaos. What you Paulies don’t understand is that some law is good. No law is anarchy, and that leads to law abiders such as myself having to mete out justice in a way dope fiends wouldn’t like.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:59am
  Toiletclogga, Libertarians don’t want that safety net. Religious altruists do. Lefty collectivists do. No difference really. The bottom line is welfare is on the RNC and DNC not the Libertarians. Get it?
  
  Report this comment
- toiletclogga
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:37am
  JustAngry–It’s not religious altruists who want the “safety net” of a society of laws, it’s people who choose to live in reality. Mind altering drugs do nothing but destroy a person’s sole, and self worth, and in the end, they become a burden on the society in which the reside. In a society of laws, there is no room for the Libertarian.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:57am
  Angry, you always assume all ‘libertarians’ are all one homogenous group. You forget Libertarians break down into many different subtypes… Including Left-libertarians, and Right-libertarians.
  
  Which causes problems since most libertarians don’t all see eye to eye, and can’t agree on how to get things done.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:16am
  “and in the end, they become a burden on the SOCIETY” (emphasis added) There you go, champ.
  
  @SacredHonor, What you say is true that there is a split, but I’ve never seen any Libertarian faction ever argue for the welfare state or safety net.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:32am
  Look up socialist or marxist libertarians ;P, for one. Left libertarians, and some forms of anarchism tend to fall closer to that subtype.
  
  Basically they don’t want the ‘man’ telling them what they can and cannot do. But also want the gov to give them benefits, if they ask for it…
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:43am
  What you stand for is basically extreme objectivism, which is only one school of libertarian thought. Classical liberalism wasn’t nearly as ‘objectivist’ as Ayn Rand’s beliefs.
  
  The founders supported government control on many fronts (thus you have for example several founders promoting gov stop slavery, or prohibition). Although they didn’t support government security nets (and taxation was done altogether differently). They were also pretty quick to stop ‘uprisings’ in general. Of course the government’s support of institutions such as the military Chaplins, and in a few examples missionaries…
  
  Most supported altruim, in general as long as it wasn’t government mandated, and didn’t create leeches on society. Teach a man to fish, help the out of a lurch, so to speak. Focus most help on those who were truly helpless. But you had few examples where it funded missionaries or other ‘support’ groups.
  
  It’s not easy to pigeonhole every founder into one group. That’s why there was the whole Federalts vs. Anti-federalists arguements so to speak. With the arguements going into how much the goverment should have a say so in society, or how limited it should be.
  
  Of course early on there was a certain grain of ‘minarchism’ in the government.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:41am
  @SacredHonor, OK, I’ll look into it this afternoon. Yes, I suppose you’re right about standing for extreme objectivism. I can’t help it, I believe she was right on most things. (My love of untouched wilderness seems to contradict what she believed in) And when I refer to “the Founders” I’m obviously thinking Jefferson and Madison considering they were the ones who wrote the Declaration and Constitution. It just doesn’t make any sense to me to look else where.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:01pm
  Well I suppose I agree with Rand on many points as well. About the only thing I question is her complete elimination of altruism even to personal altruism. I’d agree with the government staying out of altruism. But she essentially tought that individual altruism was bad too. But I come from a view where I think charity is a good thing but only to those diserving. Someone needs a little help out of a slump but won’t end up relyin on charity to live. As well as helping the inferm. That is the job of churches and private organizations though.
  
  Report this comment
- tmone70
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:30pm
  “the constitution was written on hemp paper.”
  
  FALSE- the rest of your argument is deemed invalid.
  
  Report this comment
- leetpriest
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 1:53pm
  @toiletclogga
  
  Of the many times I smoked marijuana several years ago, I never once had to replace any of the soles on my shoes. Therefore, your theory of how weed destroys “soles” is incorrect.
  
  If you meant “soul” and simply couldn’t be bothered to learn to spell correctly, well, that’s intact too, not that it’s any of your flippin’ business anyway. What you should be bothered about is the fact that your proficiency with the English language while straight is a fraction of what mine was while high, moron.
  
  P.S. I’m a Christian, and last I checked, weed didn’t make an appearance in the Bible. Wait let me make sure my “sole” is good……yup, still there.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 4:50pm
  @SacredHonor1776, I just read the Wiki description of Marxist Libertarians, but haven’t seen that movement in the states. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that type of movement isn’t on any of the sites I look at. I have seen the anarcho-capitalist movement, which I’m not all that convinced would work. But, admittedly I’m still bouncing between Libertarian Party, Constitution Party and the Randians and not quite sure where I fit yet. I know Rand’s stance on personal altruism sounds harsh.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 5:10pm
  Btw, Just Angry, although there are many things that Jefferson said that would support modern libertarian ideals; He didn’t always have the best track record as far as being ‘constitutional’ or modern libertarian in practice.
  
  Many Federalists at the time thought his Louisiana Purchase went beyond the authority granted in the constitution. He bought it because he wanted get france’s influence out of the territory. His Embargo Act of 1807 was essentially a strike on laisse-faire capitalism, and caused economic chaos during his second term (and may have exacerberated the problems with Britain, leading up to the War of 1812). He also supported and utilized the Aliens and Seditions Act against his political rivals (I know that’s something you criticize and ignore John Adams views for). He accused his vice president of treason and trying to foment civil war (which seems to support if an actual civil war had broken out he’d been just as likely as Lincoln in trying to ‘keep the nation together’, and accusing those who tried to secede as ‘traitors’). Some may argue that went against his ‘non-interferrence’ ideas by the wars he fought such as the barbary wars. He supported tax-funded schools, and government funded missionaries to the native americans, as well.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 5:23pm
  Just angry I’d say that what’s his name, the comedian, Bill Maher falls closer to the liberal socialists/marxist viewpoints on many issues. He has always considered himself a ‘libertarian’ (and in the past has often been referred to as such by others). But he seems to be of the ‘let me do what I want, gov get of my person life’ crowd, while also trying to use the government for ‘security net’ benefits…
  
  Left-libertarianism for example in general doesn’t support ‘private property rights’, they generally are more concerned for social liberty.
  
  Right liberterianism tends to fall more towards private property rights and laisse faire capitalism. But may not be so libertarian about ‘social’ issues.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 5:34pm
  I think one of posts vanished, or never was posted. Basically I was trying to say that I don’t think we have ever had a ‘perfect’ or ‘ideal’ president (i’m not sure it will ever be possible). Most have of the presidents under the Constitution have expanded the role of the government in some form or other. I think that’s why its good to listen to what all the founders had to say to get as close to original intent as possible. It’s good to know the arguements of the federalists and the anti-federalists. Federalists and the democratic republicans the two parties of that day.
  
  However, I think as far as libertarianism and objectivism in practice was probably closer to and freer under the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution. Once the constitution was signed, states rights were whittled away little by little. Each president had a tendancy to grow the size of government in some form or other. On the flip side Articles of Confederation while possibly more open to laisse faire economics, tended to fall a bit more towards ‘anarchy’, with rivalaries between states over trade disagreements, and competition… So it had many problems… Hence, the ‘Federalists” arguements to make a stronger federal government.
  
  Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:06am
.
Roll another one, just like the other one……..

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SCREW-WINDOWS
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:05am
“A drug is neither moral nor immoral — it’s a chemical compound. The compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats it as if consumption bestowed a temporary license to act like an *******.”
Zappa, Frank

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DougHuffman
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:59am
@LEL2007, well said. A simple razor between the First World and all the rest is cultural tolerance of drugged bliss.

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. God Bless Bitter Clingers, damn progs, druggies.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 9:06am
  “A simple razor between the First World and all the rest is cultural tolerance of drugged bliss.”
  
  Most of the EU is “First World” (isn’t the proper term “industrialized” now? First/Second/Third used to refer to pro-US/pro-USSR/unaligned countries…) and has highly liberal laws on drugs. Your statement seems false.
  
  Report this comment
338lapua
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:53am
Ultimately this is a states right to either do or not do. If a state elects to look the other way, it should do so in a way that respects ALL citizens of a state and treats them like responsible adults. I note that Mexico is having a FIT over this. OK fine Mexican pot is still illegal. All imported pot is illegal. All cannabis for consumption must be produced in the state of consumption. Simple rule that is good for local production and is not overly invasive. Simple sales taxes on sales. This can be so simple, why does everyone want to make this so difficult.It is clearly open for discussion whether or not this is a desirable path to take…..look at “our” president, but if you do…just keep it simple.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Some1else
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:53am
Weed is a gift from God! Too bad most people fear it rather then embrace it!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SCREW-WINDOWS
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:20am
  It’s not the weed it’s what idiots do with the weed. Your train of thought seems that paint thinner should be huffed.
  
  Report this comment
- OniMan
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:33am
  thats right, just like guns and oil its a gift from god we should be free to use!……… ;)
  
  Report this comment
lel2007
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:47am
Marijuana could serve as the ‘little blue pill’ to keep Americans docile while the Constitution is dismantled. Sedated, wearing rose colored glass, everything is mellow and cool.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:58am
  No, Americans are already hooked on pain-killers, sleep pills, and every other mind altering prescribed drug
  
  Report this comment
- Godswatching
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:02am
  I could not agree more!
  
  Report this comment
- circleDwagons
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:11am
  What do yo think Hollywood and sports are for?
  
  Report this comment
- SCREW-WINDOWS
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:12am
  Why must people alter their minds ? Perhaps they are to lazy to change the things in life that makes it so unbearable. You cannot escape the ills in life it will still be there when you sober up.
  
  Report this comment
- booger71
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:34am
  The Constitution has been dismantling before our eyes for over 200 years without it. The big spikes were driven through it during the Civil War,1913, and by FDR
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:47am
  The Constitution was dismantled by making it illegal in the first place. Ever read the 10th amendment?
  
  Report this comment
Macman1138
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:45am
My grandfathers grew “Victory Hemp” during both World Wars.
My mother’s father, my grandfather, said after WWII that the government sent people to Kentucky to destroy and hemp fields and any wild growing hemp.
Sorry, don’t know the timeframe on those raids.
Legalization of hemp would bring much needed jobs and tax revenue to the poor south.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:00am
  i understand certain parts of the plant are very nutritious and the plant is way more efficient for ethanol than the corn we currently use
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 10:58am
  Actually pretty sure ‘hemp’ is a term generally limited to a form of cannibus with low amounts of ”tetrahydrocannabinol”. It’s low grade not fit for drug use. I think its the seeds that people eat, and also used to make hempseed oil. I think that part is actually legal for import.
  
  Report this comment
KINGRUDDY
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:43am
Don’t Bogart that joint, My friend!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
keepingthefaithFL
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:43am
http://youtu.be/o7pe3_VQbUM
Please watch this video its about what scripture says about this.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:56am
  what does that video have to do with marijuanna?
  
  Report this comment
338lapua
Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:39am
Legalization is a BAD way to go. Simply de-criminalize posession and allow small scale growing. With legalization, the government gets its grubby little paws into it and you have new taxes and regulations….and when the good folk want to place limits on this new “right” they will be the bad ones.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Macman1138
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 7:51am
  Hemp is not the same as marijuana.
  Same plant, just cultivated and harvested in different ways.
  Smoking anything is nt good for anyone.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:01am
  “Simply de-criminalize posession and allow small scale growing.”
  
  I thought that is exactly what CO did?
  
  Report this comment
- 338lapua
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:10am
  Good or bad is ABSOLUTELY up for discussion. I don’t believe I have a preference. If I had to choose, I would choose the path of greatest freedom. You are correct, smoking anything IS bad. But I prefer people choose their own path and endure the consequences of their actions.
  
  Report this comment
- 338lapua
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:19am
  De-criminalization and legalization are different animals. With de-criminalization, it could still be prohibited in a community. By statute. Therefore you do not commit a crime by having it, maybe you lose it or pay a fine. The state simply has decided that no community in this state can make a person a criminal for this behavior. Legalization is where the govt allows certain things and can regulate,tax etc.
  Katie bar the door. Some places might not want to participate in the full legalization of cannabis. In my scenario, that is fine.
  
  Report this comment
- SCREW-WINDOWS
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:42am
  @ soybomb315_II
  Give a inch they’ll take a mile.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.