What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- nydrak, on 10/12/2007, -8/+43My biggest disappointment with Bill Clinton was that he did not write an executive order at least decriminalizing pot. After all, he knew all these facts and he knows that Hemp is a suitable alternative to petroleum products. He really let us down.
In my opinion, the reason a Constitutional Amendment was needed to prohibit Alcohol and none was needed for Drug prohibition was that the feds learned we could repeal an Amendment and they weren't about to let that happen a second time.- OBDriftwood, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36Clinton? That was something Carter was supposed to do. I don't remember if it was part of his platform, or just a tacit assumption because of statements made by his advisers, but the Peanut Farmer was set to decriminalize weed. Of course, he eventually wussed out, just like the rest of his tenure as president. He could have done something genuinely helpful to America. Instead we got the hostage crisis.
- ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41All this money and effort and I could still get some within about 15 to 30 minutes, much more easily than I could get alcohol.
- Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Executive orders shouldn't be used for permanent laws... they should be used as temporary solutions to a more immediate problem that congress isn't able to react to quick enough.
- Chupatumama, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8Biggest disappointment ?
I would say its supporting Bin Laden and the tens of thousand of muhajeddins in Bosnia and then bombing a country to support a terrorist group the CIA the largest and best armed in the world. That allowed the creation of two terrorist bases in europe for our old friends, now our enemies.
That disappointment ended up biting us with 911, the madrid bombing as well as training ground for the 3 last Al Quaeda leaders in S.Arabia.
Blowback of THAT caliber is an effing disappointment.
The pot thing was not a surprise neither was the cowardly Rolling Stone interview afterwards if you were following the marijuana chronicles in the 1990s.
It was under Clinton's rule that the drug war really kicked in gear (remember his drug czar was GENERAL McCaffrey, a man whose career was built on how to kill people effectively) and is now in the mid 700,000 arrests per year.
As much as I think Bush is a peckerhead, you can not blame him for the doubling of arrests (88% are for simple possesion).
To say you were disappointed in his lack of action means you have no clue what was happening with pot in the 1990's in the US.
Welcome to the stupification of the population as Sharpton says.
Mapinc.org and Pot.tv are two excellent sources of pot related news. - dstz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Not only that, but the war against marijuana actually had a great boost under his mandate.
FBI Data Confirm Clinton's Marijuana War To Be Toughest In Nation's History
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/norml/weekly/97-10-07.html - ashlvsya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29It's easier to get because the minimum age to by pot is $10.
- rmazel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I agree that it should be decriminalized and causes a lot less societal ills than alcohol but I am always suspicious of peoples motives that point out its use as rope, clothing, petroleum products, etc.... Are our nations ropes severely at a disadvantage? Boats perilously close to ripping from their docks?
Are you people really interested in making ropes and petroleum products out of this stuff or is that just icing on the cake?
I just have never seen natural fibers promoted as much as they seem to when they also get you high.
Are you "pro-aloe" on the side?
It interests me and I actually want to know the answer. (by the way I drink. no personal problems with smoking MJ other than it doesn't seem to agree with me) - billymachine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@ rmazel: It's icing on the cake. But tell me it wouldn't be better to harvest hemp from factory grow rooms than to chop down rain forests. Hemp really does have marvelous uses.
@ ajb2015: Hey man, hook me up with some of that dank stuff!
@ The Government: F**k the police! - BasicEcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@rmazel
The point regarding drugs shouldn't be the highly speculative viewpoints on if they are good for one or not, but rather the freedom to make that choice yourself. It is a property right that if you don't have (present laws) means you are not free because you don't even own your most important piece of property, yourself.
- d1ricks, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Is it worth it? can any sane person claim it to be? the corruption, bribes, and the loss of liberty?
- cybortrip, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4no?
- cybortrip, on 10/12/2007, -13/+27do you have any idea how much pot you could buy for a $1 billion? we could use the money to make the biggest peace pipe ever...puff, puff, pass...to each and every human on this planet in protest of all that is wrong with the world today. we would become better people, love one another, and then hit up the dollar menu at mc donalds...
- OMGWTFROFLMAO, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Prisons are privatized institutions now and are BIG business. They have no interest in reforming prisoners, in fact, they would like it if MORE people became criminals and were jailed in their prisons.
More prisoners --> need for more facilities --> more contracts given to private companies to build/operate said facilities --> increased stock due to higher number of facilities in operation --> more profit. Guess where some of that profit goes. That's right, to the campaign funds of your favorite politicians who happen to be "tough on crime" and want to implement crazy sentences for minor crimes.
And this is all before you start looking at the prison-work programs. Pay prison company xxx amount of money for landscaping, janitorial duties, minor road work, etc. which is less than hiring a profesional. How much do you pay the prisoners for this work? A couple of dollars/week..which goes towards them purchasing over priced items from commissary. Talk about a good hustle.
For god's sakes there's even a video game (from the "tycoon" series) about it!
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/prisontycoon/index.html
[edit] sorry for the rant but the criminal justice system here (though better than 3rd world countries or dictatorships) borders on being disgusting - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10How else is the prison contracting market going to achieve growth? Think about the stock holders man. Why is everyone so biased against executives and stock holders? And why does everyone put themselves before the wealthy? (/sarcasm)
In reality that the point of this country "We the wealthy and powerful people of the United States of America...." And the message of our leadership is this "Suck it up pussies and wax the floor this time."
We won't have meaningful change until we have new leadership, we won't have new leadership until we have honest debate and transparency, we won't have honest debate and transparency until we have meaningful change. It's a vicious cycle. I haven't given up all hope that the Internet will solve this countries woes, only most hope. - shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@cybortrip
population of US: 295,734,134 (according to google)
Tax Money that goes agaisnt pot: ~$1,000,000,000
How much per person: ~$3.38
putting harmless hippiest in jail : worthless
getting one billion dollars from the US population: ~$0.01(per day)
getting the biggest peace pipe in history: priceless
- 2ndRevolution, on 10/12/2007, -9/+44Hemp is not legal since it would make a huge dent in the cotton, plastic, fuel, etc. industry's wallets. Talk about a miracle plant. Personally, I had my fill of smoking it in college. The last thing I want is something that makes me lethargic and hungry.
BUT, I think it's your right to do so if you choose. It was good enough for George Washington. Then again, what did he know?
The war on drugs is as big a farce as the war on terror. Both cooked up to keep people afraid and to pick their pockets for tax money. Government was not granted the right to tell us what we can ingest, imbibe, etc. One more example of tyranny.- SpamHater, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4@2ndRevolution
How the hell would a bunch of hippies getting the munchies hurt Cotton growers??? - 3rdeyepro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@spamhater
It's not about that. Hemp has other uses. Like replacing cotton. You musta been high when you typed that... - n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -17/+12Hemp isn't illegal you moron. Maybe you were too busy huffing glue to realize it, but hemp is a HUGE import. Growing the cannabis genus of plants is illegal. Hemp, which comes from the fibers of the cannabis plant, is used to make all sorts of products which are legally imported into the country from various places around the world. How about you get your facts straight before you start running your goddamned mouth?
- n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3OMG factual information? Digg me down FAST! I might confuse people into thinking that these ***** morons just making up ***** on the spot are actually wrong. OH NOES!
- gl00pp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1
can·na - ['ka-n&] ~ noun : any of a genus (Canna of the family Cannaceae) of tropical herbs with simple stems, large leaves, and a terminal raceme of irregular flowers - jblade, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Hemp is legal, get your facts straight.
- ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Guys... sorry but the law says otherwise!
The production of hemp (cannabis growth) is heavily regulated. I.e. illegal in most states. This is because it's too easy to confuse them and makes law enforcement difficult. So he is right and you guys need to actually do some research. The few Hemp products we can get are very expensive, comparatively, because of the higher cost of production.
See:
http://www.naihc.org/hemp_policy/index.html - n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4EZWeave, if you're going to correct someone, at least attempt to read what you're going to post. From the first bit you posted, "The PRODUCTION of hemp..." I explicitly noted that the PRODUCTION of hemp via the cannabis plant is illegal, and therefore hemp products are an IMPORT, which is LEGAL.
HEMP is legal. It is a LEGAL import to this country, and you can buy any number of hemp products. GROWING HEMP CROPS is illegal. Maybe you should read what people say before trying to correct them. My original post says exactly what you quoted. Hemp itself is NOT illegal. Producing hemp is due to the fact that cannabis is illegal to grow. Hemp is the fiber of the cannabis plant, which makes hemp illegal to grow. It is NOT illegal to purchase, possess or distribute. It is a LEGAL import.
Get YOUR facts straight. - H080J03, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2both of you shut up and smoke a bowl
i don't really care if it get legalized or not, because people are always going to do what they want, no government, tribe, parent, manger, boss or religion is going to stop them form doing what they want
only way to control people is killing them, and any human(or animal) can tell that killing is wrong, therefore controlling others is just as wrong.
- SpamHater, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4@2ndRevolution
- voteforblank, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20How else are you going to fund the SS of the US... the easiest targets of the population. Ones that are doing no harm, taking a drug that you can never overdose from. A drug that does not cause you to rob stores, act agressive, start fights.... just gives you the munchies.
The knowlegable folks of this Country know the truth about Weed. They don't trust the B.S. coming out of the ONDCP, MADD, Police Cheif's Association, but read the truth from Medical Reviews, reports from other Countries that have learned about the benefits of it.
I would much rather they get rid of Alcohol. I've had my fair share of wasting my money on it. Drank my teens - my 20's, wasted on booze, lucky to be alive after drinking and driving thinking I wasn't drunk... when I was. At the least, I know when I'm stoned, I'm STONED and I won't drive. Wow- the injustice of it all.- mgainor, on 10/12/2007, -21/+10Just because you're too stupid to be responsible with alcohol means everyone should lose it? You sound like a retard.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7He wasn't arguing for the abolition of alcohol, he was just saying it causes more problems for society.
- jdh24, on 10/12/2007, -25/+2Marijuana must be the most villianized of all drugs because it is in fact just as harmful as a cigarette. It is a way for the government to control the population.
- Burly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10So it is the most "villianized" of all drugs because it is as harmful as cigs? Do you even read what you write?
- oknothing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you are talking about tobacco cigarettes, actually cannabis is much healther. For one thing, it doesn't cause cancers. Tobacco users suffer from a 20 fold increase of lung cancer, whereas cannabis users have no increase in lung, head, or neck cancers, or any other kinds. Nicotine in tobacco also promotes tumor growth, but cannabis has been linked to shrinking tumors since 1974. Also, cannabis users are less likely to develop Alzheimers than non users, new studies show.
Saying cannabis is as harmful as tobacco is a LIE. There isn't even much evidence that cannabis is harmful at all. I search for cannabis studies every day and haven't been able to find much scientific causal evidence.
- spiritamx79, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38people who smoke pot end up in more trouble than people who rape, murder, and beat their spouses.
its a damn shame. the most a pot smoker is gonna do is eat too much.- lakawak, on 10/12/2007, -26/+2Have ANY evidence to back that up? Any at all that shows that people who are arrested for POSSESSION of marijuana end up in jail longer than rape or murder?
No, you don't. Becuase there is no evidence.
This article is typicla Lew Rockwell *****. Almost ALL of that billion dollars is to incarcerate people with major drug trafficking offenses, NOT simply possession charges. - spiritamx79, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18actually i work at a radio station, and alot of news stories pass by w/ someone caught w/ a gram of weed gets a week in jail, 5 thousand dollar bonds, has to pay other court fees, pay police 'search' fees, and gets 6 months probation. thats harsh for a gram.
even repeat drunk drivers dont pay that much - Doghound, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"Almost ALL of that billion dollars is to incarcerate people with major drug trafficking offenses, NOT simply possession charges."
Do you have any evidence to back THAT up?
lakawak, if you bash someone for not having proof and then make a statement without proof, you kind of give your comments absolutely no credit. - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"people who smoke pot end up in more trouble than people who rape, murder, and beat their spouses."
What? Sorry, but I've been caught more than once with a joint and there are no felonies on my record and I've never done any time for it. Most people who say they are in jail for weed were busted for something else altogether. - masterspeaks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think they mean a drug posses ion nets the same punishment as a violent crime. It is just that statistically, nearly six out of every ten federal prison inmates are there for non-violent drug-related offenses, it's clear that drug prohibition is the primary source of prison over-crowding. I am 100% for legalizing marijuana and instituting some penalties similar to alcohol abuse. Each prisoner in the system costs taxpayers $40k a year. Instead of incarcerating them they should be out in society working to put money into the economy.
What's more, drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. - jhug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Smokers certainly aren't punished more harshly than murderers and rapists. It's just an easy way for them to snag a few dollars. Thats all the courts want. Money. I've spent well over a few thousand dollars through court fees, bonds, police department fees, probation charges and even a few bucks for my lawyer. I'm sorry that was a lie. He was expensive as hell and didn't do a thing that I couldn't have done myself at that time. All of that was for $20 worth of weed.
The worst part is I was almost kicked out of college for it. That would have been another, oh, 30 grand down the hole.
- lakawak, on 10/12/2007, -26/+2Have ANY evidence to back that up? Any at all that shows that people who are arrested for POSSESSION of marijuana end up in jail longer than rape or murder?
- toasty168, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17i really can't understand why pot is criminalized. you'd think this facsist government would want it's citizens to be lazy, compliant, pot heads.
- jonstafari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2well... some are lazy, and some of us are compliant. some. not all ;-)
the US Gov would rather stuff your head and body with experimental and more addictive pills.
sigh - Eleo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sensible liberty is not part of the philosophy of neoconservatives. Furthermore it's difficult to be on their side and wanting the destruction of the enemies they've provided for us if you're high.
- oknothing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the fact that they smoke pot means that they arent compliant, sorry for disproving your logic.
- jonstafari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2well... some are lazy, and some of us are compliant. some. not all ;-)
- scotus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20legalize it. tax it. then instead of being down a billion bucks and ruining people's lives we could be in the black from a new revenue source and wouldn't have so many overcrowded prisons.
- NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Id like to see a bill that legalized pot and make harder drugs (Crack and heroin ect) even more illegal. Think of all the wasted police efforts busting pot heads when there is a crack house two blocks down. Taking pot out of the black market would also keep most Americans out of it and thus they would not be introduced to harder drugs.
- macweirdo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Making it more illegal would only further fuel the black market, leading to more gang violence, etc. I'm not in favor of legalizing crack and heroin and such, but I worry what the social consequences of such actions would be.
- H080J03, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2NinjaBoy, you have been hitting it on the head.
- jonj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8i imagine that the goverment could make a lot more than $1billion a year in tax revenue if they were to legalize pot and turn it into a regulated drug, like tobacco.
- pumacub, on 10/12/2007, -28/+5My friend's 11yo son was run over by a guy driving while he was high. When the police arrived he was still in his car with a friend laughing about the situation.
So, no sympathy on my part.- musters, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15the same rules obviously would apply as drunk driving... driving under the influence of anything is wrong. I don't see how you can relate your story to legalization though...
- Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Uhh... He could easily have been drunk instead, but should we make alcohol illegal?
making marijuana legal != making driving under the influence of marijuana legal - NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11so lets ban alcohol too. And cellphones while were at it.
Edit: Wow two peopel beat me too it. - pumacub, on 10/12/2007, -22/+2Here's the difference, people drink alcohol for various reasons, people only smoke pot for one reason, to get high.
I also don't agree with people drinking for the sole purpose of getting drunk, but then again I have no sympathy for drunks either.
We already have enough problems with alcoholism and drunk drivers, why invite more problems? - floatingpoints, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20It's already illegal to drive under the influence of any substance, so that part is pretty much taken care of.
As stated, doesn't matter if it's weed, liquor, or f'n benadryl. If you're hopped up on something and it impairs your driving, it's illegal.
Has NOTHING to do with weed. While it is unfortunate what happened to the 11 year old, I don't think a lot of people appreciate it being tossed around as an excuse to keep it illegal.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but people drink to get buzzed or drunk. To alter their state of being. You don't drink because it's nutritious.
It's no one's business what another person puts in or does to his body. Period. And that is the fundamental idea behind all of this. You can't argue that. - pumacub, on 10/12/2007, -22/+1@ floatingpoints
Again, my point is this: alcohol, cellphones, benadryl, they all have real purposes beyond getting wasted. Pot does not, it's sole purpose is to impair your judgment.
People don't drink only to get drunk, people of drink wine that pairs well with their meal, or for taste reasons. - techwrekfix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We have laws now that protect against DUI, the problems is there are holes in those laws. Other countries have lower age limits on drink and some have legalize marijuana and they don't have the DUI problem we have. I can't watch the news in Texas without seeing some jackass wrecking his car while drinking drunk.
- ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You're opinion on what people do with it has nothing to do with the law.
The crime in your example was driving... your opinion on drunks/stoners are two very different things. There is a level of personal responsibility with everything. If it had been an alcoholic the only difference would have been that his "drinking" in and of itself was not a crime.
I am sure there are lots of legal activities that you disagree with, but the law shouldn't cater to what you prefer. That only results in hypocrisy and another kind of immorality. Read some Chomsky!
The racist attitudes and corporate interests involved in the war on drugs is just immoral and flat wrong. Even hard drugs: junkies are not criminals, they have a problem. The anecdotal part: I had high school friends whose lives were ruined by jail sentences related to this. Ruined as in: seventeen year old white kids... you fill in the blanks.
Uh and, there are many many different levels of "high" just like alcohol, smart guy. - Gimmic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@pumacub
Really, enlighten me. What other uses of (drinking) alcohol are there? It's a drug designed to alter your state of mind. That's it.
Wine is a poor example because you're still drinking to enhance something. The alternate to that would be to quote half baked (paraphrased)"the guy who thinks everything is better on smoke" or someone who lights up before a meal because it makes it 'taste better'. - pumacub, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2@ Gimmic
Are you really that stupid? If people drank solely to get drunk and for no other reason then why are there expensive wines? - floatingpoints, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Expensive wines exist because people are stupid.
Let's put it this way, why drink wine? Why not drink grape juice instead?
Answer? Because people like to get buzzed. Or they do it for the health effects, but mainly to get buzzed.
Claiming there's a use for alcohol other than altering your conscious state is just silly and you know it.
Pot has the same purpose as alcohol: it's relaxing (in moderate amounts) and alters your consciousness. In fact, alcohol impairs your judgement WAY more than weed. Have you ever even smoked it before? - ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@pumacub
Not trying to flame you, just a point I think you are missing.
If I go to the bar and have a couple pints, I have a little buzz. It's part of why anyone drinks, even that little buzz. But guess what, I am totally okay to drive and way under the legal limit. Maybe you never get that, I don't know. But it feels good. (I have one of those key chain breath-a-lyzers cause they are funny at parties.)
Similarly, those who "toke up" can do the same thing. A mild buzz is quite different from being "baked out of your mind". Much like a glass of wine or something. So of course the purpose is "to get high", but even one beer makes you feel a little something.
Medical evidence also points to legit uses for it as well. I think your feelings are clouding objectivity and your lack of familiarity results in the "it shouldn't be legal cause it has one purpose" argument. No hard feelings, just think about it that way, okay? - CDHarrisUSF, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Have you never heard of "medical marijuana" programs? Excluding their intoxicating effects, pot actually has MORE benefits than alcohol. It treats symptoms like nausea/vomiting, at least one bone disorder, glaucoma, leprosy, asthma, actually exhibits a slight anti-cancer effect (or has no statistical difference, depending on the study) unlike tobacco, and has several other medical benefits.
On the other hand... alcohol, when used in moderation, decreases the risk of heart disease... and, IIRC, that's pretty much it. Everyone else drinks it because of the intoxicating effects.
So, beer has less positives and it can cause some severely dangerous conditions... including liver failure and alcohol poisoning... and it lowers your inhibitions, making you more likely to do something stupid. Which one is better? - jblade, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@pumcab
With your horrible argument towards alcohol, the same can be said for weed.
People smoke cause of depression, to eat more, and even to do artistict things such as make music.
Some people buy weeds that give them more muchies, less laugher.
Some smoke weed strains that gives them the gigles.
Some dont care and just smoke to get high
Some even smoke because they have a freaking illness and its all they can do instead of being in the hospital with Morphine.
- techwrekfix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I think they should legalize it then tax it. If was legal then you control it a little better. Keep out of the hand of little kids. Better quality control too. no more skunk weed.
- NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3No more skunk weed FTW
- lakawak, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Ninja...there is this cool website where little kids like you can go and say all these childish acronyms, like LOL, FTW, etc. It is called MySapce. I think you would fit right in there.
- RckmRobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@techwrekfix
Apparently you don't know too much about the issue. Legalizing it doesn't give the government the power to tax it. It's currently listed on the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule 1 drug. Legalizing it means to take it off schedule 1 so it can be used for medical purposes (e.g. cocaine). To tax it requires taking it off the CSA list (e.g. alcohol and tobacco).
Legalizing it must come first. Not just first, but way before taxing it can even become possible. - nodong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Actually, Marijuana is already taxed in most states. You get time or extra fines added to your sentence for possession, if you didn't pay for a tax stamp, which nobody ever does for obvious reasons. Seriously.
- BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"the common claim from law enforcement officers and bureaucrats, specifically the White House drug czar, that few, if any, Americans are incarcerated for marijuana-related offenses."
This is bull. First of all, I've never heard any government official say they aren't arresting pot smokers. Secondly, I see these type of arrests in my small home town newspaper, every day. Then they blame whatever real crime was committed on the drug of choice. Alcohol,weed, H, whatever. - NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9ok lets do some math.
1 billion a year while they are in prison, 8 billion to put them into prison. That makes 9 billion. With 300 million Americans that means on average each American paying $3,000 a year for this *****!- Burly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Surely that can't be right? I think maybe the 8 billion is from all drug related criminal costs?
- NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah I have hard time buying that number too. And im fine with my tax money going to lock up meth dealers. So lets just go with the 1 billion the title points out. Thats still $3,33 a year. Thats more than my rent.
- marc26uk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4you mean $30 each ?
- nodong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Umm, sorry ninja, but you need to try your math again. Use a calculator this time. It's $30 a year per person.
- EvilPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1marc26uk is right, why are people digging him down?
http://www.google.com/search?q=9+billion+/+300+million&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
- VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What happens to money they seize from dealers? is that factored into this number?
- NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No the department that seized it gets to spend that how they like.
- voteforblank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5They use it in the department to fund Speed Traps! Gotta make sure you cover all the 'Real Criminals', Terrorists (I mean)!
Keeping Dunkin Dougnuts safe 24/7 - VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The whole purpose of speed traps is to collect funding, but I doubt that they generate enough revenue for drug busts to be used as starter funds.
But where do those profits from the speed traps go? Why, back into fighting pot.
- socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Just ponder how much of that billion dollars per year is being funneled to congress men's family members with no-show jobs. How many drug and mental treatment facilities are dependent on these Pot Criminals to be court ordered to their treatment facility to maintain revenue. The justice system is all about spreading the money. Give and take deals. Support my election with campaign donations, and I'll funnel your treatment facility all the money you need through court ordered patients.
- floatingpoints, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11It should be legal for a few very good reasons.
One, it's no one's business to tell you what you can or cannot put in your body. Period.
Two, obviously all the money and manpower tied into police busting people, judges and prosecutors for court appearances, and money for jail/prison upkeep. This could be better spent on other, more important things. Treatment for those who feel they need it, perhaps. This also counters the argument, "Well they're wasting time and money for their health problems" - no different than addicted smokers or drinkers. So that argument is trash.
Another argument is that it will encourage use, which is false and nonsensical. It wouldn't make people use it any more than they currently want to. If you wanted to smoke weed right now, trust me, you could. You know someone that can get it, and even if you don't, you could find someone in no time. It being illegal won't stop you.
It's not exactly an open invite for everyone to just join in, either. Case in point: cigarettes. We know they're bad and harmful, yet people continue to smoke. They made the choice. No one forced them. More of a curiosity - "Hey, everyone keeps tellin me it's bad.. but they do it a lot, I wonder what it's like.."
Does the legality of cigarettes appeal to people? Do you see them flock to the store to get a pack because it's legal? No.
In fact, there's no reason for it to be illegal. There's really no good argument for it.- socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12As an intelligent consenting adult, I reserve my God given right to use upon myself any chemicals I see fit.
- TheKillDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It is human nature to desire to alter ones mental state through the use of various substances. It is common in almost ALL mammals, plant some catnip in your back yard and watch all the neighborhood felines party hard in your backyard.
It is criminal to deny us from altering our consciousness as we see fit. - TrancePhreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You forgot to mention second-hand smoke.... See, alcohol is a liquid, and it's a little harder to accidentally make everyone around you drunk by drinking it. Smoking weed is not the same, smoking cigarettes around people is similar. Most people hate second hand smoke, how many people hating second hand marijuana does it take to get it pushed outside like cigarettes?
- floatingpoints, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Second hand smoke isn't a reason to make it illegal.
Just like cigarettes, if people around you don't like the smoke, step outside and do it. Since you'd more than likely be at a designated bar or house doing this, that really isn't a problem.
Might wanna make cars illegal too since their exhaustion is more destructive than second hand cigarette or marijuana smoke.
I'm telling you, there's no good argument against it :)
- marc26uk, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1I am a recovering pot addict - if you think this is not possible you are woefully uninformed.
But I STILL think people should be allowed to smoke if they want, just like ciggies, just like alcohol. like someone said, its not the governments place to tell us what we can and cant ingest/imbibe.
Unless of course said ingestion/consumption affects others in a negative fashion, then there is an argument.- jblade, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9You can't get addicted to POT, period. No if ands or buts. There is plenty of research backing this. The only thing you have is bad self control.
- StaplesGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1That's right. While you have a craving for more, there's no physical dependancy.
AKA if you don't smoke pot for a month you won't go through withdrawl, you'll just want some really bad (as opposed to nicotene where you start pissing blood and being a general bitch to everyone around you if its not in your system for a week) - marc26uk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Knew that was coming, you've obviously not been there, trying to stop for years b4 finally cracking it.
So you think you can only get addicted to things physically ? What about gambling ?
Don't post ***** unless you know what you are talking about, and if there is *plenty* of evidence, how about some links ? I got some :
http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/atod/marijuana.htm#6
http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,383060,00.html
How about "criteria of addiction" by Dr. Lynn T. Koslowski, an addiction expert at Pennsylvania State University:
A diagnosis of mild dependence on a psychoactive drug is determined by meeting three of the nine criteria. Five items show moderate dependence and seven items indicate a strong dependence. (Not all nine items apply to each drug. For example, time and effort spent acquiring a drug are a significant feature of heroin addiction, but have no meaning in nicotine addiction.) Criteria of Addiction
1.Taking the drug more often or in larger amounts than intended.
2.Unsuccessful attempts to quit; persistent desire, craving.
3.Excessive time spent in drug seeking.
4.Feeling intoxicated at inappropriate times, or feeling withdrawal symptoms from a drug at such times.
5.Giving up other things for it.
6.Continued use, despite knowledge of harm to oneself and others.
7.Marked tolerance in which the amount needed to satisfy increases at first before leveling off.
8.Characteristic withdrawal symptoms for particular drugs.
9.Taking the drug to relieve or avoid withdrawal.
Er, how about ALL nine.
--------------------
Whoever dugg me down is ***** irresponsible, people can read this and think "hey i can smoke loads of pot without worry of addiction", then 10 years later they try to stop and find they cant. Idiots. Granted its far less dangerous/addictive than other drugs, that's why I would argue FOR its legalisation, but to say its not addictive is giving the other side easy ammo. - floatingpoints, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Addiction to gambling is merely bad self control. Gambling itself is not addictive. Repeat after me, and to yourself: you were not addicted to weed. I don't care what the people around you told you, or what therapy groups (if any) drilled into your head. Weed is not addictive. You have bad self control.
Just like everyone else can gamble just fine, but some moron without any control thinks he can go blow his mortgage because he doesn't understand odds, or thinks, "This time it's the big one!"
Saything those two are addictive is just a politically correct way for calling someone stupid.
Sorry to say, but it's *you* who is the problem in this equation, not the weed. Bad mental state. - marc26uk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0FYI Nobody told me I was addicted, It was something I had to admit to myself, after trying to stop about 50 ***** TIMES over a period of about 5 years, and kept failing.
You think its bad self control when you get up every morning and roll a spliff to have with your tea, even though you long ago got bored with being stoned all day ?
It took me a long time to admit that I was addicted, mainly because I had read so many times that cannabis was not addictive, and even longer to kick the habit. You think you're so smart, but you actually dont know what you're talking about.
In regards to the gambling addiction, I kind of agree that its a bad analogy, but what I mean is that something doesn't have to be (classically) physically addictive to make it habit-forming.
And just to reiterate - I am NOT arguing for prohibition, I just started my comment with the fact that I am a recovering pot addict, if you dont think thats possible, thats your opinion. - oknothing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Anything can be addictive. I do not doubt that you were a pot addict. Some people are sports addicts. They watch too much sports and never have time for their families. That's like you.
Meth addicts, cocaine addicts... these people are not much like you. The so-called withdrawal symptoms of cannabis are a fricking joke.
Let me take a look, from NIDA, at the withdrawal symptoms of cannabis: "increases in the severity of craving and sleep difficulty, decreased appetite, and increased aggression, anger, and irritability."
Well, guess what. Cannabis is a drug known for making people hungry and docile. OK, you stop cannabis users from smoking, suddenly they are less hungry and less docile. How the ***** can you call that a mother ***** withdrawal symptom?
Do I need to clarify further that the withdrawal symptoms of cannabis are a fabricated hoax? To me, this should pop up as common sense to any person who actually reads into the study. - marc26uk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0But I don't NEED to read about the withdrawal symptoms, I don't NEED to rely on 'common sense' to 'assume' that the withdrawal symptoms are a fabricated hoax. Because I have actually been there myself and experienced them.
I am NOT saying that it is anywhere near on the same level as coke/crack/heroin etc. , but to argue that it is not addictive/habit forming is incorrect.
And saying that prolonged use of a mind-altering substance is the same as watching too much sport is an absolute joke.
- Hobart, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2a billion dollars!? that a lot of weed!
- euphoria922, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@pumacub
"Pot does not, it's sole purpose is to impair your judgment."
You are just being ignorant
some people smoke because it eases very real medical conditions
some people smoke because they truly love the complex flavors or different strains
(yes, just like fine wines! there is an extremely broad spectrum of flavors and highs)
also like alcohol, there is a social aspect to it - DucoNihilum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3And what did we get out of this 1 billion dollar investment? 1/2 our prisons are overcrowded with 'drug offenders', its SLIGHTLY harder to buy pot (anyone can still get it, for the most part), and we have legislation on a drug less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.
- chaimpot0k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Marijuana will hopefully be legalized/decriminalized in the next decade (or sooner)
- baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3leagalize pot, we like it a lot :^P
- gl00pp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We just have to start some fortune 500 corporations and use the money we make to lobby politicians.
We are up against these things: Prison Industrial Complex. Big Pharma (is there any other kind) and Big Tobacco and basically Budweiser.
It's an obstacle, till then I'll be rollin pockets full of tropical. - donolsen1155, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Darn, I thought this was a Digg about a buddy of mine that spends about that on pot every year!
- u16085, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The Entire "War On Drugs" Is *****... Fighting a war means theres has to be a winner (eventually) .. This is not a war, this is bull *****. Take California's Prop 215.. Your doctor is able to recommend cannabis, but the government (dea) sticks their noses in YOUR medical issues. The government needs to realize thats its OK to admit they were wrong. But, that will never happen, and billions more will be spent on this useless war.
- LilBoyLuver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It is like when people talk about how the terrorists hate us because we are free, and we are fighting for freedom. What freedoms do we have that the rest of the world does not. The only one I can think of is the freedom to bare arms.
- LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4My friend does a lot of research on this subject exactly. I think the rape/murder vs weed comments primarily stem from the descrepency between setenced and served time.
A good example would be a murderer in for 20, out in 10 vs a casual pot dealer in for 15, out in 15.
Again I'm not expert so if you have some hard numbers I'd be glad to hear them. - nocre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Marijuana and marijuana-related crimes make up the majority of all drug-related arrests per year. However, -very- few of those arrests result in adjudications of guilt. However, this does not stop them from eating our tax money, clogging up our judicial system, and busying our police forces.
Marijuana not only should, but -needs-, to be legalised. It's too much of a waste and provides too much potential for putting money in the wrong hands, whether that be black market cartels or government-run 'programs'. - Glandmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7071
Original article with more depth. Amazing that sites can copy press releases word for word but are too lazy to copy hyperlinks or link to the original... - iwantrevenge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't knoooow. I mean, if marijuana does get legalized it'll probably be manufactured just like cigarettes and you knnnnow Philip Morris has got a plan for marijuana cigarettes already, dog poop and all.
Legalize growing it in your home instead...? I don't know. I'm all over the place on this issue. I do like to get baked once in a while though :D Hahah. - GoYe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1This one is too easy.
Sell drugs, die.
Yep, make drug dealing a capitol offense.
You don't have to pay to incarcerate someone who's dead.
And eventually, all the drug dealers are dead, or too scared to sell. What happens, people don't buy it, and people don't go to jail for using it.
You don't make something legal, just because it's too expensive. You do the right thing and appropriately punish the guilty!- LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sounds great, we'll let you be the one to tell all cigarette smokers and alcohol drinkers that what they are doing is now punishable by death.
It's all or nothing, and that's the biggest problem with the current laws. Some things that are worse are legal, and lesser things are illegal. - GoYe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Reality check.
Pot is illegal. Cigarettes and alcohol are not.
I’ll do more than tell them that selling pot is punishable by death; I’ll volunteer to pull the trigger!
- LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sounds great, we'll let you be the one to tell all cigarette smokers and alcohol drinkers that what they are doing is now punishable by death.
- friend18, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I would rather that billion dollars be spent on actual pot instead of locking people up. :)
- pawchikapawpaw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1SURPRISE! Pot is illegal!
Here's a good solution: legalize pot, but make it illegal to smoke it everywhere.
Then declare cigarettes illegal.
Sounds like a good plan. - FarmHand, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0First off the main reason why the feds will not make MJ legal is because they will not be able to tax the sale of it.... if it becomes legal everyone could grow there own smoke..(not taxable) and for those that don't want to grow there own they can get it from a friend....
if you look at the taxes received from tobacco, you can get an idea at the amount of money the feds will be lousing out on
"All those taxes add up to a pile of money. In 2001, the federal government collected $7 billion in cigarette taxes, while the 50 states collected almost $8.7 billion."
source http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=442&sortorder=articledate
Secondly the attorneys that would have defended the people that get busted would louse a lot of there income. so they will fight it to the death....
it all comes down to the all mighty $ - bberry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Legalize it
- mst3kcrow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Besides being able to get around taxes, there is something else which I haven't seen mentioned yet. Drug companies probably don't want the public to have a pain reliever that they can grow themselves. Interesting thing though, I've heard quite a bit that Philip Morris has a few patents on the manufacturing process of marijuana to maximize thc output. If this is true, Philip Morris is probably hoping to see the legalization of marijuana within the next 20 years because the patent's term will probably end by then. If anyone could do it, Philip Morris could with their pull on the population and congress. (Imagine a campaign promoting the benefits of marijuana with tons of financial backing) I wouldn't trust what they put in their product though. :S
- nydrak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wow .. I make on comment and leave for a day.... Ha.
Its revealing that the constitutional amendment point has caused so little if any feedback.
The point is... who owns your body? you or your 'state'. I vote for me owning my own body with the liberty to do with it what I want as long as I do not cause harm to others. - scorchedearth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2the fact that the engineered addiction of cigarettes is legal while pot is so absurd that i don't even know where to begin
as a person who has successfully quit both, i can tell you that quitting pot was leaps and bounds easier than quitting cigarettes....and those who haven't experienced the cigarette addiction (or one just as bad) have no idea how hard it really is.
legalize it already america, canada, etc- marc26uk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0ohhhh, watch out you're gonna get buried for saying you had to quit - ppl might think you were addicted to pot
- prbinder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It is important to the maintenance of order to make people do illegal things. When people know that they can be punished for something they are doing, they are far less likely to vehemently protest other actions the government is taking. Weed is illegal not because it is harmful, but because its being illegal makes us more compliant in other ways. It is illegal for the same reason that we have a tax code that requires us to calculate for ourselves what we owe the government. If the government can get all of us to cheat just a little on our taxes, then they assume we won't want to be as visible in protesting the government because we will be subject to penalty if they review our returns.
They have made most of us law breakers. They have made most of us compliant.- nydrak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1prbinder You have my admiration for a case well stated
- Koros8, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1***** stoners can all suck it. Disgusting, stinky *****! ***** HEMP!
- vivreetamour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
I'm 15 years old, and I can get weed easier than I can cigarettes.
In fact, I can get weed by tomorrow morning before school, right now being 10:30 at night on a monday night, the fact that it's illegal does nothing to stop teens from getting it.
The fact that the government has no evidence it's actually 'bad for you', other than it's the 'doorstep to more dangerous drugs' should not be enough to make it illegal, and the fact there are many legal things much worse than weed, is ridiculous. The government spends millions of dollars trying to change peoples minds about weed, when really the government could make millions of dollars regulating and taxing weed.
I understand taxing and regulating is a long step away, but to realize how much money the government could potentially make, not to mention the money they wouldn't have to spend on the 'above the influence' commericals.
Floating points, I completely agree with everything you had to say, such as how it is not the governments decision on what you do to your body. In that sence, in should be legal.
Let's face it, the only people who think alcohol is worse than pot, are the people who have never smoked weed before, and listen to the government's commercials and the schools speechs on 'how to say no'.
And as for the 'doorstep to more dangerous drugs', that wouldn't be a problem if it was legalized. You don't see alcohol being a 'doorstep to more dangerous drugs' because it is legal, and it would be the same with weed. Instead of the drug dealers becoming rich and using it to promote street violence and crime, the government would have the money using it on better things.
BUT the point of the matter is, the government should have NO control on what you do with yourself and to your body, as long as it's not harming others.
The government one day will have to realize they're wrong, and stop spending money taxpayers put into the 'war on drugs', when the drug is less worse for you than alcohol and tobacco.
&as for the 'addiction to pot', it's all a mind set, which goes back to bad self-control. To not have the power to set aside your craving, will lead you to some future problems in life. Better get started on that one. - vivreetamour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
and the fact that the mj is classified as a 'schedule 1' drug is *****,
and another way the government is trying to control what we can/cannot do,
by scaring us into thinking it's as harmful as heroin, which is also a schedule 1 drug.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is