-
Re: Who here is interested in
Tue, June 19, 2007 - 5:14 AMWhoah Don't all start shouting all at the same time. -
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Tue, June 19, 2007 - 3:23 PM> Whoah Don't all start shouting all at the same time.
Should marijuana be legalized? Sure.
Does Congress have the "political will" to make it so? Nope. -
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Wed, June 20, 2007 - 9:36 AM**************Does Congress have the "political will" to make it so? Nope.****************
Indeed.
However every successful grass roots organization starts out with simple things like letter writing campaigns and phone calls to representatives.
It's been my experience that one letter to a Rep may get read if it's short and sweet but, a million over the course of a year or two get stood up and attended to. Corporate money can take a back seat to enough letters all saying the same thing. Letters are way far more valuable then petitions. Letters express personal investment. Petitions are - well cheap and easy.
So as to will of congress. They can be given the will on a silver platter by simply hearing from enough constituents. If enough people are writing enough letters to enough Reps then the stigma evaporates and the path to legislation opens up.
-
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Wed, June 20, 2007 - 1:51 PMLet's talk stratergy.
Which 67 Senators are most likely to vote to override the president's most certain veto? -
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 5:41 PMit takes a looooooooooooooooooooong time for humanity to make its cultural (read to include "legal") social behaviors to incorporate the biological imperitives -- what's "natural" -- as a species we go back and forth and up and down and around and around . . . whch is to say, I don't expect it to be "legal" in my life time . . . but I think it will be someday . . . if we survive as a species to someday . . . the Islamic world forbids alcohol the same way we forbid pot . . . we know what prohibition can bring -- the Kennedy klan, all kinds of suthern wannabees, my ancestors amongst them, not to mention the mafia and the homegrown versions of them -- here's what I think about it . . .
grow your own on city or county or state or federal land . . . taking care about when you harvest it . . . enjoy . . . todays seeds are better than the seeds of yesteryear . . .
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Fri, June 29, 2007 - 9:19 AMExcellent question Weazie. My thinking is that a strong undercurrent of grassroots will convert everyone in time.
Politicians fearing or even participating in the stigma will bend to mountains of one paragraph letters from constituents. So by my thinking it's not he politicians that need to be converted it's the people.
They need to believe they can make a difference and then to try, and stick to it. Look at MADD. From humble beginnings and now an unstoppable juggernaut that has single handedly brought back a form of Prohibition lite, manipulated the courts, legalized jury tampering, owns polititians and seduced so very many people with their mom and apple pie position.
All I want is to legalize it. I can skip the jury tampering court manipulation, and political corruption. -
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Fri, June 29, 2007 - 10:12 AMOne often-overlooked counter-argument is that the citizens of this country are already sufficiently fat and stupid; making pot legal --even assuming it is not a gateway to any other more risky behavior-- will only make that worse via the munchies and the dead brain cells.
How about making it legal but with a license required, based on intelligence? If you're at or above a predetermined threshold (e.g. IQ > = 120), toke away. If not, too bad, you're already too stupid to get any dumber. I'm sure the Moron's Rights movement will then develop, but I'm willing to accept that risk. -
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Fri, June 29, 2007 - 10:57 AM*********One often-overlooked counter-argument is that the citizens of this country are already sufficiently fat and stupid; making pot legal --even assuming it is not a gateway to any other more risky behavior-- will only make that worse via the munchies and the dead brain cells.********
I never saw it as a gateway drug. I rather suspect that the phrase and "stepping stone drug " concept are outgrowths of the anti pot people. Look at the cancer myth~!! The current and well accepted myth is that it causes cancer at a higher rate than nicotine. Which is entirely made up hooey.
Nicotine's cancer causing mechanism is that the nicotine molecule binds to very specific receptor sites in cells in the resperatory system. Once the binding is done those cells send messages to sick or dying cells that they should not die but rather that they should live and attempt to replicate. The net effect is that cells that would have otherwise died and been flushed normally don't die but produce mutations because they are ill or broken and that exponentially larger volume of mutations leads to higher incidents of cancer.
There is nothing in Marijuana that binds to any such receptor sites in the human producing such a result..
************How about making it legal but with a license required, based on intelligence?*************
Might present Con Law issues ;-)
-
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Tue, July 3, 2007 - 7:19 AMI didn't say it was a gateway to other drugs, I said more risky behavior (like driving stoned, going home with someone butt-ugly, etc.). And I didn't say it did lead thereto, I said let's assume it doesn't.
As for the Con law issue, if the overwhelming majority of people are either too fat or stupid to smoke, how is that a suspect classification? : ) -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Who here is interested in
Tue, July 3, 2007 - 8:14 AM**************As for the Con law issue, if the overwhelming majority of people are either too fat or stupid to smoke, how is that a suspect classification? : )*************
lol
-
-
-
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Fri, June 29, 2007 - 2:10 PMGrassroots conversion is the likely answer. (The government has always been playing catch-up on green/recycling, for example...the pressue to change came from the people.) I guess, in my mind, that such conversion isn't (or isn't at least initially) about "legalization" per se.
Some states have medical marijuana laws, or basically have stopped enforcing personal-use possession. So I think at the state level, legalization is possible (especially if it can be put on the ballot, so no politican will fear a yes-for-pot vote ever haunting them).
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Who here is interested in
Sun, September 16, 2007 - 7:01 PMI'm in favor of legalization, but it is a political issue more than a legal issue.
Now, I could make an excellent law & economics argument for legalization. It has been at least ten years since I have read Posner's Law & Economics text, but I am certain he argued that controlling the supply side -which is what the war on drugs does - never works.
But no pays any attention to law & economics theories, do they? -
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Mon, September 17, 2007 - 12:23 PMStudents who have to write about do. -
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Wed, September 19, 2007 - 6:01 PMwe don't have enough pot smoking professors -
-
Unsu...
Re: Who here is interested in
Fri, September 21, 2007 - 5:21 AMI think some of my undergraduate professors smoked.
I doubt many of my law professors did. Some of them probably should have. They could be a little stiff, a little up tight, you know.
I'm sure a few of my law professors did smoke pot, and can only imagine how uptight they would have been if they had not. -
-
Re: Who here is interested in
Fri, September 21, 2007 - 6:45 AMLaw professor. Now there is a do nothing produce nothing job that actually pays pretty well.
The Myth busters produce more than most law professors.
-
-
-
-
