Why is marijuana illegal? the commericals are retarded,they use it for medical reasons,it could only get worse if you let and i think that should be the choice of the person, right?

Comments

• a -3 for telling the truth ...lol, just shows how thick trolls really are and blind to the fact that the government is lying about it ...maybe you should go and look ...its all on the public record ...fool!

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on May 28th, 2008

Comments

• Not sure why this was DR'd... makes sense to me. +

  • Report
  

  by Jay Was Here - AYPWIP on February 8th, 2008

• Yeah, tis a mystery to me too.
  Probably another right-winger with an itchy trigger finger and no quail in sight.

  • Report
  

  by Littlebirrd on February 8th, 2008

Comments

• Totally!

  • Report
  

  by Littlebirrd on January 29th, 2008

Comments

• Exactly the same arguments used previously to outlaw the use of opium by Chinese, they were enticing white women to their opium dens in order that they might pleasure themselves with the virtue of America.

  • Report
  

  by JohnOBonno on January 5th, 2008

• Some turd marked me down. Whassamadda wingnut. Can't stand the truth? :)

  • Report
  

  by xhepera on January 30th, 2008

• Not to make you feel any less special but it seems he/she got me too, probably hit everyone. Some folks just can't handle the truth! I guess they have this perfect little Leave it to Beaver image of America and they don't want anyone to burst their bubble. We should all just drink the kool-aid and not question authority, right? ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Littlebirrd on January 30th, 2008

• Yeah I saw that there was wholesale carnage visited upon our ratings for the question. Some people, eh? ;) Bless their little kool-aid drinkin' hearts.

  • Report
  

  by xhepera on January 30th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

• bullshit!...sorry but thats just bullshit ...peanut bloody butter has killed ...pot has not

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on January 5th, 2008

• Really? So the person who gets high and runs over your son has not killed anyone?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 5th, 2008

• What's his name?

  • Report
  

  by JohnOBonno on January 5th, 2008

• bloody stupid reply and not worth answering

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on January 5th, 2008

• You only think it is a stupid reply because it completely destroys your rationalization that "pot is harmless."

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 6th, 2008

• no not at all ...its not the pots fault ...it the fool who drove while high...and if it wasn't pot you can bet your life this idiot would have been drunk and driven ... so its not the substance its the f*ckwit who drove the car in the first place

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on January 6th, 2008

• Well, then, we should just legalize all dangerous substances. Nevermind that "f*ckwits" choose to get behind the wheel because they are impaired, and you are encouraging the legalization of substances that impair. We should take DUI off the books. It is not the alcohol that causes the harm, it the person deciding to drive, right? But wait, the substance impairs the person. Thus, these "f*ckwits" were not "f*ckwits" until they used the substance.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 6th, 2008

• again your missing the point ..these fools would do this no matter what they took ..legal or illegal substances and getting back to the origional question ...80% of legal substances can and have killed people ....(forget about driving) and yet I challenge you to find a case where pot alone killed anyone .... good luck

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on January 6th, 2008

• Actually, pot alone kills people everyday. It is much more rare to die from pot than other substances such as alcohol, but it does happen. However, this is besides the point. I completely agree that pot is far less dangerous to the user than some other substances, but that does not make it any less capable of impairment. The law regulates substances that impair because impairment kills innocent third parties. So even if we assume that pot is completely harmless to the user, it still impairs, and therefore be regulated. Since the reason pot is illegal is because it impairs, I challenge you to stay on subject and address this.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 6th, 2008

• no your wrong, the only reason pot is illegal is because big business(DuPont) wanted it banned to stop competition from it when it introduce its new wonder fibres nylon and rayon and for no other reason at all and as far as pot killing people everyday ...oh please what a load crap ...lol sorry but thats exactly what it is ...crap

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on January 6th, 2008

• That is nice rhetoric, but false. The federal and state laws banning pot have been challenged many times, and they are always upheld. If the reason pot is illegal is the reason you say it is, it would be unconstitutional to restrict its use. However, it is not unconstitutional because it impairs.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 6th, 2008

• it is fact ...look it up and find out for your self and stop listening to the bullshit properganda the government is putting out about it

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on January 6th, 2008

• I did. The great thing about America is that we have an open government. The transcripts and debates about each new law is public record. And guess what, not one transcript dealing with pot laws mentions dupont. Neither does the legislative history of the laws, neither does the law itself. So I suggest you look it up. But feel free to cite some source of legislative history that mentions dupont. "I challenge you."

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 6th, 2008

• DuPont, William Randolph Hearst and hemp
  
  The decision of the United States Congress to pass the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was based on hearings[2], reports[18] and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.[19]
  
  Marijuana activtist Jack Herer has researched DuPont and in his 1985 book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Herer concluded Dupont played a large role in the criminalization of cannabis. In 1938, DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp. If hemp would have been largely exploited, Herer believes it would have likely been used to make paper and plastic, and may have hurt DuPont’s profits. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was DuPont's chief financial backer and was also the Secretary of Treasury under the Hoover administration. Mellon appointed Harry J. Anslinger,

  • Report
  

  by Littlebirrd on January 29th, 2008

• who later became his nephew-in-law, as the head of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), where Mellon stayed until 1962.[20]
  
  In 1916, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) chief scientists Jason L. Merrill and Lyster H. Dewe created paper made from hemp pulp, which they concluded was "favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood in USDA Bulletin No. 404."[21] Jack Herer, in the book "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" summarized the findings of Bulletin No. 404:[22]

  • Report
  

  by Littlebirrd on January 29th, 2008

• USDA Bulletin No. 404, reported that one acre of hemp, in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres of trees being cut down over the same 20-year period. This process would use only 1/4 to 1/7 as much polluting sulfur-based acid chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds the fibers of the pulp, or even none at all using soda ash. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is avoided in the hemp paper making process, which does not need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper making process requires) but instead safely substitutes hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process. ... If the new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were legal today, it would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags.

  • Report
  

  by Littlebirrd on January 29th, 2008

• source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States

  • Report
  

  by Littlebirrd on January 29th, 2008

• thank you ...thank you ...thank you 'littlebird'...I rest my case!!!

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on January 29th, 2008

• Why stop there? Let me give you some more hemp facts. From 1000 B.C. to 1883A.D., hemp was the world's largest agricultural crop, providing materials to support civilization's most important industries, including fiber for fabric and rope, lamp oil for lighting, paper, medicine and food for both humans and domesticated animals. From 1619 to the mid 1700's, many colonies passed laws mandating that farmers grow hemp. As early as 1929, Henry Ford was conducting research on the use of hemp as a source of alternative fuel.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 30th, 2008

• But you forgot the most important fact. That is, why was it made illegal. Clearly there are many great uses for hemp, just as there are many great uses for asbestos. In fact, did you know that the first nine floors of the World Trade Center was sprayed with asbestos to prevent it from collapsing due to fire. Many experts believe the towers would not have collapsed had they finished the spraying. Yet, we still made asbestos illegal, just like we made marijuana illegal.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 30th, 2008

• So again, where is the legislative history that says pot is illegal becasue DuPont did not like it?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 30th, 2008