cannabisnews.com: Ohio Senator Opposes Marijuana Plan
Ohio Senator Opposes Marijuana Plan
Posted by FoM on October 04, 1999 at 15:43:27 PT
By Katherine Rizzo
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTONAn Ohio senator introduced legislation Monday to overturn a referendum in which District of Columbia voters overwhelmingly approved legalization of marijuana for medical uses.
No matter how well-intentioned the motive behind the initiative, Republican Sen. George Voinovich said, ``it would be unconscionable for the United States Congress not to exercise its constitutional duty and prevent the district from going forward.''``Illegal drug use is wrong,'' he said. ``The district government and the United States government should never condone it, regardless of the professed purpose.''The Constitution gives to the District of Columbia limited self-government with most of the powers of the states but to Congress the power to override them. Voinovich heads a Senate subcommittee with authority over matters involving the city.Last year, by more than a 2-to-1 margin, Washington voters supported an initiative that created an exception to the prohibition on drug possession. The exception allowed physicians to recommend use of marijuana to ease symptoms of a serious illness such as AIDS or to reduce side effects of treatments such as chemotherapy.Anyone without prescriptions caught with marijuana would still be subject to the former punishments: six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.Voinovich said the medical marijuana initiative ``would present an enforcement nightmare to police ... and would serve as a de facto legalization of marijuana in D.C., increasing its prevalence and the number of addicts citywide.''A similar measure already was introduced in the House.Mayor Anthony Williams has asked Congress ``to respect the will of the electorate'' and let the referendum stand. Congress ordered the district not to implement the referendum result in its budget for the new fiscal year, one of the attacks on home rule that prompted President Clinton to veto the bill. Newshawk: Rod GreyMonday October 4, 19995:06 PM ET North Coast NORML:http://www.timesoft.com/ncnorml/index.html
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #33 posted by tipsie on April 26, 2001 at 15:40:12 PT
yes...
I agree, tipsy. I tried to ask Fed Regs earlier what he thought the marijuana high was like, but got no answer. I'm really curious what antis think. I can only imagine that Americans who have experienced decades of propaganda but never smoked mh must think that the marihuana "high" is qualitatively similar to alcohol's, except many many times more powerful, involving a complete lack of mental and muscular control, blackouts, memory loss, severe hangovers, total loss of personal control. Isn't that what you think, antis? A drug like that would be desired by so very few outside the determined suicidal that too few people would want it for there even to be a law against it or for hardly anyone to ever have heard about it. The fact is that mj can be smoked in confidence: it will help you, not hurt you.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by tipsy on April 26, 2001 at 15:29:59 PT
lack of information...makes the world go round
"When was the last time someone smoked weed and decided to go speeding 85 mph in a 55 mph zone?? This is a frequent occassion involving alcohol. There are thousands of car accidents involving alcohol, but none are heard of involving marijauna. How can our politicians permit the use of one drug and not the other?? "Keebler's argument is unassailable. But Americans have been lied to and propagandized for so long that they think marijuana, since it is illegal, must be far more dangerous than alcohol. If someone with a drinking problem gets loaded on booze and dirves 85 in a 55 zone,americans believe that same person, adding marijuana to his cocktail, will then go 125 in the 55 zone. And it's absolute nonsense. Marijuana's innocuous effects are totally different from alcohol and totally benign.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by Keebler on April 26, 2001 at 14:09:05 PT
Contradiction
Our laws pertaining to marijauna are contridictory. We are allowed to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. When was the last time someone smoked weed and decided to go speeding 85 mph in a 55 mph zone?? This is a frequent occassion involving alcohol. There are thousands of car accidents involving alcohol, but none are heard of involving marijauna. How can our politicians permit the use of one drug and not the other?? Afterall, alcohol and cigarettes are considered drugs, as well. It is not the governments business what I place in my own body. As long as I do not invade the rights of another citizen, what can be done about it?? Besides, if the government made this plant and other drugs legal, there would be more control. There could be restrictions placed on it, so that the war on drugs could be successful. The restrictions could be similar to that of alcohol. No children could take it, no public use... there could even be warning labels for goodness sake. Not to mention the taxes the government could make off of it. The government can also provide us with a pure product. No worries about sickos trying to make a profit off of little "extras".... Is there not enough weed smokers to vote on this matter?? What about "We the people....??"
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by Lehder on February 28, 2001 at 08:14:11 PT
Laura Kriho
sorry about my careless spelling: it's Kriho. Never mention the name 'Laura Kriho' in a courtroom if you wish to serve as a juror.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by Lehder on February 28, 2001 at 08:01:09 PT
juror rights reaffirmed
Thanks, observer, for your link. I had not kept up with the Kirho case and did know that her right of nullification and the rights of juror privacy during deliberation had been reaffirmed.I truly have difficulty seeing how our own judicial system should regard those who exercise their constitutional rights as criminals. It is the height of arrogance that minor public officials should consider their own opinions to be of greater force and validity than the recorded wisdom of our founding fathers. We citizens and our country as a whole will all prosper in all the ways that make life worthwhile if our system were simply permitted to work. After four years of litigation it finally has.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by observer on February 27, 2001 at 09:50:47 PT
FIJA, Government Jury Rigging
All great points by Lehder and dddd. The "Gestapo asking if there are Jews in the house" analogy is a powerful one, I believe. It would be preferrable if the judgeprosecutor would uphold his oath to the Constitution and not succumb to drug-war power trips. Like jury-rigging.From the FIJA site FAQ:Must I answer all the questions asked of me on a juror questionaire, or during the selection process (voir dire)? It depends. Most jurisdictions will allow you to answer a question privately, in front of the judge and lawyers only, if you feel uncomfortable about answering it in front of everyone else in the courtroom. And if you object to answering a question because you feel it's too personal, you should let the judge know. [I would recommend asking nothing, and assuming the worst: the prosecutorjudge is attempting to rig the jury. Your intelligent question will flag you as a 'nullifier', etc. -observer]In the federal 5th Circuit jurisdiction, because of a recent case [1], your objection will enable the judge to ask the attorney who posed the question to explain why it is relevant to jury selection in the case at hand, or else to withdraw the question.The idea is to balance your right to privacy against the defendant's right to an impartial jury. So, at least in the 5th Circuit, unless the judge performs this test of "balance" in response to your assertion of your right to privacy, sanctions cannot be used against you for refusing to answer.If the decision is that the question is relevant to jury selection, and it is therefore ruled that you must answer, it is still up to you to decide how to answer this or any other question asked. This can be very important, especially if you have moral qualms about the consequences of telling the truth. (Think of the dilemma faced by German citizens when Hitler's secret police demanded to know if they were hiding a Jew in their house...)A couple of especially hard questions for those who understand and appreciate the political role of the jury are "Will you follow the law as given, even if you disagree with it?", and/or "Have you read any material on the topic of jury nullification?"Should you give answers that are likely to get you excused from serving, or say whatever it takes to get selected, so you can do your part to see that justice is served? It's your moral choice. Who asks these kinds of questions, and why? Questions like these are most often asked by prosecutors, sometimes by judges, and are used to disqualify people from serving if they appear to understand their power as jurors, or are aware that the jury has a political role. This makes it easier for the government to get convictions, especially under laws of questionable value and spotty public support -- precisely the kinds of laws which our nation's founders wanted juries to question.The jury selection process has thus become a battlefield in the endless struggle between citizens who want to enjoy, exercise, and preserve their individual rights, and a government bent upon increasing its control over the citizenry. Purging juries of anyone who disagrees with the law is an easy way to maintain that control, but it violates the main priciple of our Constitution -- that the people are the master, and the government is the servant.As jurors, keep in mind that your primary obligation is to serve justice -- which may in some intances mean deciding not to provide information which will cost you your chance to serve, and therefore enable the legal professionals to fill the jury with people who don't know their rights. from: http://www.FIJA.org/faq.htmmore on the outcome of the Laura Kriho case --Holdout Juror Acquitted of Wrongdoing http://www.fija.org/kriho/immrelease.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by dddd on February 27, 2001 at 08:27:11 PT
Compensatory adjustments
More good stuff Lehder.Personally,,I dont like to lie,,it's bad hoodoo.But when faced with answering a question from a corrupt,devious,and lessthan honorable inquisitor,who represents a crooked,and skewed empire,,,then,,I think that "lying",,is somehow strangely justified....this isan akward,and debatable thing,,is it still considered a "lie",,if you are "lying"to a lyer?...Maybe one would be more comfortable to say,"I didnt tell the completetruth,,,).....I could go on for hours,,,,If you think I'm lying,,,call my attorneys....The Law Firm of Lehder and Observer.,,,,,they will shred you,,
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by Lehder on February 27, 2001 at 08:04:48 PT
playing dumb
As a side note, I want to mention a minor observation I made as an observer of voir dire. The judge gives the potential juror an oath prior to questioning. I'm doubt I could back this up with the court record - because I bet it is identical in each oath - but I noticed that the oath administered by the judge varied slightly in its wording from juror to juror. I forget the exact wording now, butin some cases, with which I would have no trouble, the juror was simply required to testify truthfully, while in others the juror was asked to swear that she would "answer any question..." - ANY question without qualification. Like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" My instinct, as an argumentative person concerned with the exact meaning of words, would be to reply, "Listen, buddy, I can easily imagine an infinitude of insulting questions for which I'll bloody your big nose!" But this is the time to play dumb:"I do, Sir. [ agree to answer any question]" Oh yeah, "so help me, Yahweh." So there are times when you should be as smart and alert as you can be, and, in our drug war society founded on the principles of violence and universal ignorance, many more times in which, for your own safety, you must be just as dumb as the rest of them, as dumb as they want you to be.Being otherwise, you risk bodily mutilation. Because Force is the drug warrior's only answer to a rational argument or ajustified criticism: drug warriors are equipped and sanctioned by the state to physically mutilate you if you should disagree. It is a sad and barbaric suystem of governance, as primitive, as kap once observed, as the system in which barnyard animals were brought to testify against defendant's. We are ruled by dumb, dangerous animals today too.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by dddd on February 27, 2001 at 07:50:50 PT
shocking stuff Lehder
If I was in trouble,,I would wish that I had a phone number for;Observer & Lehder,Attorneys at Law.....OJ would be in the statepen if you guys were Marsha Clark and Chistopher Darden
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by Lehder on February 27, 2001 at 06:50:07 PT
in an ideal drug war....
>>After you get on the jury (by pretending to be an obiedient robot-citizen and having no opinion on anything during the jury screening process -- where the government attempts to rig the jury in its favor), during the actual trial you are perfectly free to IGNORE what the judge may say concerning "the jury is to decide only on the facts of the case, and not the laws", and you as a juror may judge the law, anyway. --observerBut in a real, mature drug war, the prosecutors are now one step ahead of this strategy. Jurors are typically asked if they would accept the judge's instruction on any determination of law and restrict their own findings to a determination of fact. That is to say, jurors today are required to give up their right of nullification as a condition for acceptance as jurors. This screening is often made prior to voir dire and en masse so as not to use up prosecutor's challenges. An officer of the court will address a large gathering of potential jurors, "Now is there anyone in here who objects to certain laws and who might find a person not guilty based on your disagreement with that law?" Only after the potential nullifiers have been eliminated from the juror pool in this way are the remaining juror candidates questioned individually. It may be possible, as observer suggests, to pass through this system of eliminating informed jurors by playing pathetically dumb. But if you agree to give up your right of nullification and then use it anyway, as Laura Kriho did to find some methamphetamine manufacturers not guilty, then you can yourself wind up in prison for contempt of court:http://thewinds.arcsnet.net/archive/government/jury_nullification08-98.htmlProbably playing dumb for as long as possible, getting as far into the system as you can by being as stupid as the government wants you to be, and, in fact, has trained you all your life to be, is the best strategy. But if you give up your right of nullification to qualify for jury duty, you had better not use it later.Personally, I would be little discouraged by giving up this right: The prosecution must still convince me, "beyond a reasonable doubt", of the defendant's guilt. So persuading me might be very difficult in the drug-war age of 'testilying', planted evidence, motives of forfeiture, paid and coerced witnesses. There's really not much you can be legally faulted for in a statement like, "Well, I just didn't believe the cop. I did not think his testimony was altogether true." And in many drug cases there may well be ample reason for such reservations.In short, drug warriors, in addition to crooked cops and perjured witnesses, fix the courts with rigged juries. I once watched voir dire proceedings in a murder case out of curiousity. The level of ignorance in the jurors remaining after the mass screening was sickening. Of the five jurors I saw questioned, four of them were of the opinion that a defendant was guilty until the defendant himself could provide proof of innocence. ( One juror was eliminated because he claimed a special prior insight into the defendant's guilt.) One potential juror was eliminated because he was adamant in his insistance that the more serious the charge, then the more incontrovertible must be the defendant's offered evidence of innocence. These prescreened jurors, evidently, were even too moronic to comprehend TV cop shows: these people are foisted upon you, as defendant, as your peers. The remaining three jurors, all of whom initially expressed their opinion that the defendant is obligated to provide proof of innocence, were all accepted for duty. One of them was the wife of a cop. (I can imagine the dinner table conversation in that house.) Each of the three had to prodded and coaxed by both the judge and the prosecutor into finally mumbling something about "innocent until proven guilty", words spoken, in my opinion, more out of a fear of not cooperating and from being over-awed by the profundity of the proceeding than from conviction or understanding.There are, of course, jurors with the brains and information to make it through this corrupt process, but even then it often takes very highly skilled professional help to get them on the jury. There are available to the wealthy the services of extremely competent teams of psychologists and legal professionals who can be hired by the defense as consultants in jury selection. These professionals, as much or more than the famous high-powered attorneys, were responsible for obtaining the not guilty verdict in the O. J. Simpson case....in my nonprofessional opinion.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by observer on February 26, 2001 at 22:48:12 PT
FIJA -- Fully Informed Juries Take Action
THE LAW IS THE LAW! THERE'S NOTHING YOU PEACE LOVING WAR HATING PEOPLE CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!To the contrary. In addition to the ballot box (and the CARTRIDGE box, as a last resort), there's still the jury box. One person is all it takes to hang a jury.please see:http://www.FIJA.orgFully Informed Jury Association1-800-TEL-JURY (or 1-800-TELL-JURY both should work)Let's put this right down where the rubber meets the road for you.After you get on the jury (by pretending to be an obiedient robot-citizen and having no opinion on anything during the jury screening process -- where the government attempts to rig the jury in its favor), during the actual trial you are perfectly free to IGNORE what the judge may say concerning "the jury is to decide only on the facts of the case, and not the laws", and you as a juror may judge the law, anyway. Say for example, if someone is before you for the heinous crime of "narcotic distribution" (meaning, perhaps, the person possessed 29 grams of cannabis rather than 27 grams, and demanded his right to a jury trial), and the person clearly is "guilty" of the "crime" of having marijuana (what the government persecutor will call "intent to distribute", naturally), you can just vote "not guilty", simply because you don't like that particular law. One juror can hang the jury; one person is all it takes to halt that trial's conviction. Often one person can convince others to take the same course of action. But even if not, even if all the other jurors scream and cuss and the judge does the same and orders everyone back into a small, hot room over the holidays, etc., that one woman or man can hold out, can legally vote her or his conscience. That's called "jury nullification" and it is an ancient right under English common law, shared by citizens of the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and of course the United Kingdom. In fact, in the UK right now, it is getting very hard for the government to get a conviction for medical marijuana use. More and more, informed juries "Just say no" to convicting marijuana users and ostensible "dealers."For more on jury nullification -- your ancient and traditional right (a right that government prosecutorjudges hate) -- see the FIJA site.
FIJA -- Fully Informed Juries -- Jury Nullification
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by observer on February 26, 2001 at 16:21:46 PT
Why is Marijuana Illegal?
Why is marijuana illegal? The short answer: Marijuana is illegal because corrupt, racist and lying police and prosecutors want it that way. They want it that way because it gives them power and authority over more people. Some police actually believe their own propaganda, however, and insist that adults must be jailed for smoking marijuana, to "save the children", etc. But the real reason is power. Pure, corrupting, police power.see:The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 The history of how the Marihuana Tax Act came to be the law of the land. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htmThe History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/mustomj1.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by observer on February 26, 2001 at 16:10:35 PT
ABSOLUTLY SHOULDN'T BE JAILING CANNABIS USERS
THE LAW IS THE LAW! THERE'S NOTHING YOU PEACE LOVING WAR HATING PEOPLE CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!In free countries, the people make and change laws. US Laws and Treaties are made and changed by the people at will; US law is not the "law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not."(Dan 6:12) (This concept may be lost on police-state minions, granted.) (NO OFFENSE INTENDED.) THE POLICE ARE JUST DOING THEIR JOBS. Police every day, just as prosecutors, decide which laws to enforce, and which laws not to enforce. And that doesn't even touch upon all the laws that are directly written by police (like the "Justice" Dept.), and given to legislators to rubber-stamp. I HAPPEN TO BE A MILITARY POLICE OFFICER Oh ... so, in other words, you make your living busting dope-smokers. And look forward to getting a job in a police department after your hitch in the military. No vested interest, there. AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOOOO MUCH MORE TO LIFE. DON'T LIMIT YOURSELF. Limit yourself ... like decide (based on rabid propaganda) to not use certain politically-incorrect plants? It is esay enough to see who throwing people into jail for using plants. It is easy to see who's limiting who, here. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT DRUGS. Anything is possible with drugs, too. . .Was respected scientist and prolific author Carl Sagan "limited"? Without "morals or values"? I think not.see:Marijuana Uses: Carl Saganhttp://marijuana-uses.com/examples/Mr_X.htm DRUGS ARE NOT "COOL." It depends where they are stored. If stored in the freezer, they can be very cool! IF ONLY YOU REALIZED HOW IMMATURE YOU SOUND WHEN SAYING THAT... IF EVERYONE OBEYED THE 7 ARMY VALUES... LOYALTY DUTY RESPECT SELFLESS SERVICE HONOR INTEGRITY PERSONAL COURAGE Nothing about defending the freedoms of American citizens there. Nothing about upholding the Constitution. I guess that is because it is the duty of modern-day police (MPs too) to steal traditional rights from adults Americans, while protecting the "rights" of government officials, instead. MOST drug users have no morals or values. What an untrue and insulting lie. I can see why you'd make an excellent cop: everr willing to believe and spout the government/party line, cops like you would be right at home in Nazi germany, or Stalinist Russia. Yeah, just following orders. (It worked for the Nazis tried at Nuremburg, I'm sure that will work for you, too.) PLEASE stop and think about what you're doing to your bodies. there is a life out there waiting to be lived. You'll feel better about yourself and just plain feel better pysically. Here's something that I just read today. It shows what bunk cops spout, when they defend their powers to throw "potheads" and "dopers" and "druggies" and "stoners" in jail. Smoking and AsthmaI'm a born againg Christian and an asthma sufferer. About 4 years ago my asthma had gotten so bad that in addition to my three inhalers and Pulmoaide (home breathing machine that administers medication like they do in hospital, my doctors wanted to put me on steroids. I was horribly reluctant but I had view choices as my trips to the emergency room were becoming more and more frequent. I had smoked pot in high school but had quit before my senior year.I thought a lot about what I should do until I read a high times article about a 10 year old girl controlling her asthma with pot. I didn't think I had much to lose despite my "religious" convictions. Two hits stops an attack immediately. I've never had such quick relief and as an expectorant it works better than any prescription med I've tried. I've had breathing and lung trouble sice early childhood. Now I can breathe. God knew what he was doing when he made pot! Knowlegde is everything. Take charge of you health. You are your own best advocate.-- lizziehttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread7749.shtml#4 Do I get to choose between Lizzie, who speaks from experience, and and a self-serving cop spouting propaganda?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by Jessica on February 26, 2001 at 15:42:58 PT:
ABSOLUTLY SHOULDN'T BE LEGALIZED!!!!!!!!!
THE LAW IS THE LAW! THERE'S NOTHING YOU PEACE LOVING WAR HATING PEOPLE CAN DO ABOUT IT!!! (NO OFFENSE INTENDED.) THE POLICE ARE JUST DOING THEIR JOBS. I HAPPEN TO BE A MILITARY POLICE OFFICER AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOOOO MUCH MORE TO LIFE. DON'T LIMIT YOURSELF. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT DRUGS. DRUGS ARE NOT "COOL." IF ONLY YOU REALIZED HOW IMMATURE YOU SOUND WHEN SAYING THAT... IF EVERYONE OBEYED THE 7 ARMY VALUES...LOYALTYDUTY RESPECTSELFLESS SERVICEHONORINTEGRITYPERSONAL COURAGEMOST drug users have no morals or values. PLEASE stop and think about what you're doing to your bodies. there is a life out there waiting to be lived. You'll feel better about yourself and just plain feel better pysically.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by kevin on February 25, 2001 at 13:54:19 PT
why did marijuana become ellegal
can some one please tell me why the goverment made marijuana elligal
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by kevin on February 25, 2001 at 11:09:44 PT:
marijuana should be legalized
read over this then email me at loveandpeacdude yahoo.com and tell me what you thing about what i wrot
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by kevin on February 25, 2001 at 11:05:52 PT:
marijuana should be legalized
I KNOW THAT I WROTE A LOT BUT PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ OVER THIS .EVEN IF YOU DONT USE MARIJUANA PLEASE JUST TAKE THE TIME TO READ WHAT I HAVE TO SAY THANKYOU people say that marijuana messes up peoples lives but thats not true. what messes up peoples lives is that marijuana is illegal . people who smoke marijuana are just liveing there live in peace and happenis thay art caseing and troble with any one or any thing . but when some one gets arrested for marijuana thats what cases problems in there lives becouse that person is going to go to jail and who knows what kind of sick stuff will happen to him there . then when he or she gets out of jail its going to be hard for he or she to get a job becouse it will be on ther records . and there going to be still useing marijuana when they get out and ther not going to have very much money with out a jod or with out a good job . so then he or she is going to have to come up with money some how to get marijuana so thay might start steeling money get it . so now this poersons live is messed up all becouse the goverment made the gift that god gave us illegal i never really belived in god to much befor but when i exermented with marijuana it made me belive in him . i remeber one time when i was high off of marijuana the moment i asked god to be my saveyear i could feel him in my hart i could feel the wormth of him in my hart and i started haveing visons of angel in heven it was the most peacefull thouth ever it was like i was in parudice . words cant explan what im trying to tell you and if your agents marijuana you will never understand what im trying to say. and what kind of moron whould make alchol legal so many people die from alchol even the ones that dont use alchol die from it becouse of the stuped things people do when they use alchol when some one is drunk they have no contol over what kind of stuped stuff ther going to do . now how aften do you hear about some one dieing from marijuana i have never once in my life heard of any one dieing form it and it doseint efect your driveing if any thing it will make driveing mare safe becouse people who use marijuana seme to drive slower . but marijuana dose efect your driving if you are young and havent been doing marijuana for very long yet. i wouldint drive if i have been useing marijuana even if i have been doing all my life i still wouldint . but i know it dosint efect your driving becouse i remember driveing with people right after they got done doing useing it but this guy was about 30 years old and had been doing for a long time of his life so im saying that only after you been useing it for a wile it dosent efect driveing but alohol no matter how long you bee doing it you still have no chanch of being abol to drive a car. im not saying useing marijuana is good for you becouse its not but its allso not as bad as people make it seem to be and im not saying any of you that dont do it should start im just saying that people should int make such a big deal over something as harmless as marijuana. and the people who use marijuana dont have any problem with people who dony use it they dont really care if you do it or not so why do the none useers have to make such a big deal about people who do use it. all you people have the freedome not to use it so why cant you just give the people that do use it the freedone to use it i have to go peace out
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by observer on December 15, 2000 at 09:55:38 PT
What would Jesus do about Medical Marijuana?
. . . I will arrest you. . . . Jesus did not take drugs.Also, nobody here said "Jesus took drugs." (I.e. dawg just handed us a classic straw man.) A transparent attempt at justifying police to continue to imprison marijuana smokers. Please note: Jesus never told anyone to arrest people for using a plant. Drug warriors, like Hitler asking for God's blessings in public for-show prayers, assume they're serving God when they arrest peaceful cannabis users. see:What would Jesus do regarding medical marijuana?http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.chrisconrad.com/bible.htm(author: Chris Conrad, http://www.chrisconrad.com )
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by observer on December 15, 2000 at 07:26:49 PT
Protect and Serve (Keeping the Slop-Trough Full)
Smoking marijuana became the wrong thing to do when it became illegal. I wouldn't expect a corrupt drug warrior to understand anything that reduced his power to steal (like you do), and incarcerate innocent people (like you do). It is not in his vested interest to understand those things. After all, the Nazi police, also, protested that Jews were evil "vermin" and a "cancer" needed to be eliminated. (For the children, of course: all for the children.) Not too much difference there, between the Nazi attitudes and yours. (Of course, the Nazi's used to knock before raiding a house, which is more than we can cay about modern, corrupted US PDs.) I never heard of mandrake drug. That's not too surprising, either: obviously you are ignorant of the Bible, too. But, for a drug warrior to be ignorant of the word of God (as well as laws that don't suit him just right), isn't really news, is it?mandrake http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/05587.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/07982.html etc. http://www.nigms.nih.gov/news/science_ed/medbydes.html#d Can't say if it's legal or not. Aw, shucks. Now, when did a little thing like "legal" ever stop you and your corrupted ilk from trumping up a few charges? After all, (you tell yourself), the people you frame, set-up, entrap, and lie about when you're on the stand, they probably did something else bad, anyway. Yeah, sure they did. But if I catch you smoking marijuana along my road I will arrest you. You mean if the bribe isn't big enough? Of if the person you stopped isn't your cousin? Oh sure: smoking, or not smoking: what's the difference? Your word against theirs, anyway. Toss a baggie or two in the n****r's or hippie's car, who's to know better? (wink, wink, oink, oink) (Nice car for the department, to seize, too.) If you tell me your name is Jesus I will put you in the hospital. Uh, yeah ... same to you, buddy. Jesus did not take drugs.Oh, I see: now not only are you a "law" (?) enforcement expert, you just turned into a biblical scholar, too! Hey, tell me, doggie, do I get to choose between a self-serving corrupt oinker with a badge on his uniform and a lie ever on his lips on the one hand, and a host of biblical scholars on the other hand? Guess what, I think you'll come out second best on that one, as you do in most situations where you cannot rely on the threat of violence. (Don't feel bad: when you have a gun pointed in someone's face and your backup-buddies slapping nightsticks in their hands, I'm sure you're very persuasive, then.)Bottom line:a) Using cannabis isn't any more "wrong" than wearing a head-scarf. Corrupted police/politicians can make anything "illegal".b) When discussing whether or not marijuana should be legal (i.e: "legalization of marijuana for medical uses", the topic of the article), saying "cannabis is wrong because it is illegal and illegal because it is wrong", is evading the point. We're talking about whether or not cannabis should be made legal. The moral opinion that illegal things are always "wrong" because they are illegal is not relevant to whether or not something should be illegal or not. (Unless you're looking for a full slop-trough due to more drug-war gravy-train, in which case any excuse will do to keep marijuana illegal, and thus keep the overtime and seizure -- police stolen goods -- rolling in.)Yeah, thanks for "protecting" (your income) and "serving" (yourself, at the expense of our traditional freedoms, not that freedom would mean a thing to you).Perhaps when America's police go back to being constables on patrol (versus trying their dead level best to emulate Nazi police), they will begin to regain some of thier former respect. But right now, increasing numbers of people are waking up to the fact that due to prohibition, too many of our police have become little better than theives with a gun and badge.
Drug Warriors and their Prey (1996)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by Deputy Law Dawg on December 15, 2000 at 02:09:55 PT
Right vs. Wrong
Smoking marijuana became the wrong thing to do when it became illegal. I never heard of mandrake drug. Can't say if it's legal or not. But if I catch you smoking marijuana along my road I will arrest you. If you tell me your name is Jesus I will put you in the hospital. Jesus did not take drugs.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by observer on December 14, 2000 at 20:50:10 PT
``Illegal drug use is wrong,'' he said...
``Illegal drug use is wrong,'' he said. ``The district government and the United States government should never condone it, regardless of the professed purpose.''I beg to differ with authoritarian moralizer Voinovich. circular reasoning: "wrong because illegal; illegal because wrong". anything can be made "wrong" by governments in that case (which would suit Voinovich fine, no doubt)http://www.google.com/search?q=fallacies+circular+reasoningif cannabis use was always wrong, when, exactly did it become so? was Jacob "wrong" when he consumed psychedelic mandrakes prior to having relations with his wife?http://www.bju.edu/bible/gen/30.html#14http://www.google.com/search?q=Jacob+mandrakeswas it wrong when the hebrew levitical priests annointed each other with this substance?http://www.google.com/search?q=kaneh-bosmwas it "wrong" for english monk Robert Burton in 1621?http://www.google.com/search?q=%22anatomy+of+melancholy%22+cannabiswas it "wrong" for Queen Victoria to use cannabis? For her majesty to have her spirits lifted and her melancholy assuaged from cannabis?http://www.google.com/search?q=cannabis+Queen+Victoriawas it morally or otherwise "wrong" for the US Pharmacopeia (and that of other nations) to list cannabis as a remedy for depression? Migraine? Asthma? When, exactly did it become "wrong" to use cannabis for "melancholy", say?http://www.google.com/search?q=%22US+Pharmacopeia%22+marijuana
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by Bobohead on December 14, 2000 at 18:48:15 PT:
It's a prohibition against marijuana
Just thought I would drop Sen V's email so that we can all let him know what we think about legalization. No profanity and try to use good english and spelling to make a good point.senator_voinovich voinovich.senate.gov
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by Renee on September 25, 2000 at 12:06:11 PT:
research
I need help with finding medical info and for phycological effects of marajuan. I am hoping to write a paper for collgege on Legalizing Marajuana. I hope I can get some help. My mom isn't too keen on the idea of pot. I've been trying to change her mind for years, so for the subject, please just put in Renee.MRlorfeld aol.com
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by Jeremy on July 19, 2000 at 15:39:26 PT:
Word
Yo is why is it so illegal. All Igot ta say is I think if everyone did it ther would be a lot less problems in Pepols lives, And in the world its self.And for all you who think its so bad you dont even know intell you try it, Witch you sould try it If not you dont need to down it!!!!!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by dessie on May 17, 2000 at 16:48:22 PT:
make it legal!!!
i think that pot should be legal for all god made it we should smoke it!!!!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by Pink Floyd on May 10, 2000 at 12:42:12 PT
Who invented all these things in the world today
Let me ask you this. Why have a cell phone that causes caner, because it makes life easier, right? It makes life less stressful. So does alcohol, codiene, valium perks, and tobacco. They are legal drugs, even if you do need a perscription for some of them. There are worse drugs out there then pot. Like for instance, somuia root (might be miss spelled) is a legel herb. Try smoking that, you want to go crazy for 20 minutes, give it a try. maybe Bill Clinton can run for senator like his wife and legalize it. Because we all know He likes dobbies. To everyone out there "legalize it, don't crictize it." Stay Stoned.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by Linda on March 17, 2000 at 22:33:41 PT:
marajauna
I over heard these two ladies discussing the drug marajauna, one said it was legal in all states as long as a doctor prescribed it for you,the other lady said it was only legal in two states for a doctor to give it to a very sick patient, also she said that they grew it in Georgia and Alabama and shipped it to the doctors to give to their very sick patients, now could you give me the truth of this matter. Thank You Linda Meadows E-mail address lm760m yahoomail.com
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by Snoop Dogg on October 21, 1999 at 07:33:18 PT
Reefa
GOD created the marijuana plant. God only created good things. The only proof I need is God's word. If God put Marijuana on this Earth, he intended for us to use it. He didn't make it so that the whack politicians can say "I don't use it so no one can!" Making marijuana illegal is killing my future. If I am ever caught, bye bye future. I am a straight A student SINCE I started smoking weed. If marijuana is illegal, sugar should also be illegal because if you eat it then your teeth will rot. You can say that there is something wrong with everything just so you can make it illegal. For those that understand me, Peace. For those who say "That's another messed up kid", well I guess messed up kids will be running the country in the future! BITCH!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by Thomas on October 05, 1999 at 07:40:23 PT
The Police
Who cares about the police. Their job is to enforce the law, not create it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by Freedom Fighter on October 04, 1999 at 17:36:50 PT
Voinovich.....
With around 70% of the electorate supporting the medical use of marijuana, the Republican asses are digging their own grave. This shows the ingorance of this party and how out of touch they really are. Ultimately they will pay.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by John Kuzemka on October 04, 1999 at 17:21:08 PT:
Ohio Senator Opposes DC MMJ
When will our elected lawmakers actually think for themselves and listen to the people instead of blindly following the "party line"? Given the approval of MMJ initiatives in multiple states, it should be obvious to anyone who pays attention that the people want this.Those who continue to block the will of the people should be voted out of office in the most embarrasing way possible. Vote third party and wake up the politicians! Let them build a personal legacy in the unemployment line!jk
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by Dave in Florida on October 04, 1999 at 16:54:31 PT
It's A Plant !
And the lies continue.>"No matter how well-intentioned the motive behind the >initiative, Republican Sen. George Voinovich>said, ``it would be unconscionable for the United States >Congress not to exercise its constitutional duty>and prevent the district from going forward.''"Duty, The only duty they have is to uphold the constitution. But, They choose NOT to do that.>``Illegal drug use is wrong,'' he said. ``The district >government and the United States government should never>condone it, regardless of the professed purpose.''How about legal drug use like ciggaretes and achohol, which the government condones. The government has known that ciggarete smoking is bad for people, at least since 1966 when they had tobbaco companys put WARNING LABELS on. At the same time they subdized farmers for growing tobbaco. Now Janet Reno, a typical party liner, files suit against the tobbaco companys for health cost. DUH ! What has the government been thinking since 1966? Does the FDA know what other substances the big three put into ciggaretes?Achohol is not a natural product, it must be manufactured. It doesn't grow on trees. As some members of Congress go home after work and sip their martinies, they dream up other lies about marijauna. The only reason marajauna is illegal is because the Government says it is. It's a plant that has survived for centuries. People don't manufacture marihauna, it occurs natually. How can a plant be illegal! As John Stossel would say "gimme a break" Dave
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by observer on October 04, 1999 at 16:22:57 PT
Dictators Know Best
And here we can observe the respect little police state cheerleaders like George Voinovich have for democracy, that they have for the expressed will of the people: none whatsoever.To tin-horn dictators like Voinovich, freedom and liberty (traditional American freedoms) "would present an enforcement nightmare to police". In other words, any time traditional rights and liberties get in the way of "police", the rights and freedoms are to be abridged. No thanks "King" George Voinovich, we prefer freedom and traditional American rights to your brand of fascist police state.
Drug Crazy : How We Got into This Mess ...
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment
Name: Optional Password:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL:
Link Title: