Selling Weed Legally

[Legend]

Published on Oct 11, 2012 by vice

We went to Otherside farms, one of California's premier medical marijuana shops. They showed us how they use pot to help patients cope with serious illnesses the natural way, all while dodging the feds.

[Gearhart 1st MRB]

I hear you can get cannabis for alcoholism..

[Legend]

I hear you can get cannabis for anything

[Magoo]

Bunch of junkies

[Jablonski]

Bunch of junkies

Nuff said.

[Legend]

Bunch of junkies

Ahhhhh Let people do what they want magoo, Euthanasia!

[Magoo]

Criminals, they're all criminals I tell ya!

[Legend]

Criminals, they're all criminals I tell ya!

Only by Law, But that can be changed. EH?

[Lafy BAR]

Ahhhhh Let people do what they want magoo, Euthanasia!

I hear from new age fools that euthanasia can help with the common cold.

[Legend]

I hear from new age fools that euthanasia can help with the common cold.

Legend Likes This Post.

[Rather 1st MRB]

Colorado 2012

[Englebretson 1st MRB]

Legalize it by using Kevin Swartz as a guinea pig.

[Legend]

Ron Paul shows Mitt Romney the issue is the Constitution not legalized drugs.

The huge misconception about Ron Paul and Libertarians in general is that they are for legalizing drugs. The truth is that Ron Paul is for the Constitutional right of the people of each State to decide these issues through State Legislature. He simply and correctly says that it is not the federal governments business and is far beyond their Constitutional scope to require or prohibit personal choices of the citizens of each State. Example/ Requiring every citizen of every State to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine and/or go to jail.

That is why, when the federal government wanted to prohibit alcohol they had to change the Constitution. They no longer feel that they have to bother because we no longer know or exercise our Constitutional Rights.

You won't hear this on main stream media because they are funded and controlled by the federal government. Their version is that Ron Paul and Libertarians want to legalize heroin. WAKE UP AND THINK IT THROUGH FOR YOURSELF

[Perrone]

The huge misconception about Ron Paul and Libertarians in general is that they are for legalizing drugs. The truth is that Ron Paul is for the Constitutional right of the people of each State to decide these issues through State Legislature. He simply and correctly says that it is not the federal governments business and is far beyond their Constitutional scope to require or prohibit personal choices of the citizens of each State. Example/ Requiring every citizen of every State to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine and/or go to jail.

Actually, you are wrong about the health insurance. Not everyone is required to buy health insurance. If you're making under a certain amount. Also under "Obamacare", no person can be jailed or have their property seized for refusing to pay the fines. For more information, here's a link to Factcheck.org about the subject.

That is why, when the federal government wanted to prohibit alcohol they had to change the Constitution. They no longer feel that they have to bother because we no longer know or exercise our Constitutional Rights.

Actually, Prohibition did not outlaw the consumption of alcohol, that's a common false view of prohibition. The Eighteenth Amendment's language was ratified by Congress to be presented to the States for approval of said amendment. When it came into effect, of the 48 states, 36 states approved of the ratification of the amendment, eventually 46 states ratified it, with only two states who rejected the amendment, or at least the amendment's language. Hence, the Federal government did nothing illegal. As well, the Constitution is changed every time a new Amendment is added. I point to the Thirteenth Amendment, where as it outlaws the Constitution, thus changing the original language of the Constitution which stated that African Americans were Three-Fifths of a person, to a full person. Also granting all African-Americans born in the US before, during and after the US Civil War, as American Citizens. Previously they were considered non-citizens.

The Eighteenth Amendment's aim was not outlawing "intoxicating beverages" (of which, it does not even clearly define the term intoxicating; also this did not apply to religious or medical purposes), but the manufacturing, selling, and transportation of "intoxicating beverages".

I did a paper on this for political science class years ago. But if you wish to check the facts, here and here are good places to view info.

You won't hear this on main stream media because they are funded and controlled by the federal government. Their version is that Ron Paul and Libertarians want to legalize heroin. WAKE UP AND THINK IT THROUGH FOR YOURSELF

Actually... much of the "mainstream media" has been extremely critical of the Obama Administration. During the Bush years, the media was rather silent about criticizing Bush policies. As well, can I ask for proof that the "mainstream media" is funded by the Federal government? Also, if you bothered to pay attention, some of the harshest attacks against Ron Paul this past year as well as in previous years, was from conservative pundits.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

[McKenzie 1st MRB]

I'm just sayin....

We should legalize weed, just so fucking pot heads have nothing to talk about ever again.

Quote that shit.

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

Actually, Prohibition did not outlaw the consumption of alcohol, that's a common false view of prohibition. The Eighteenth Amendment's language was ratified by Congress to be presented to the States for approval of said amendment. When it came into effect, of the 48 states, 36 states approved of the ratification of the amendment, eventually 46 states ratified it, with only two states who rejected the amendment, or at least the amendment's language. Hence, the Federal government did nothing illegal. As well, the Constitution is changed every time a new Amendment is added. I point to the Thirteenth Amendment, where as it outlaws the Constitution, thus changing the original language of the Constitution which stated that African Americans were Three-Fifths of a person, to a full person. Also granting all African-Americans born in the US before, during and after the US Civil War, as American Citizens. Previously they were considered non-citizens.

The Eighteenth Amendment's aim was not outlawing "intoxicating beverages" (of which, it does not even clearly define the term intoxicating; also this did not apply to religious or medical purposes), but the manufacturing, selling, and transportation of "intoxicating beverages".

I did a paper on this for political science class years ago. But if you wish to check the facts, here and here are good places to view info.

Nobody said the federal government prohibited the consumption of alcohol. he just said prohibit. drugs are prohibited. its not technically illegal to be high on heroin or weed. its illegal to posses, which is a step farther than prohibition of alcohol took it. its illegal to manufacture, transport, or distribute. the argument and the point is, back then the federal government knew the only way they could prohibit anything of the sort and take that choice away from the citizen was to pass an amendment. current drug prohibition requires no such amendment, because the federal government decided they werent going to go that route. citizens dont fight it because they dont realize how bullshit it is. and even when the do, the supreme court refuses to hear cases arguing that drug prohibition by the federal government via unilateral legislation is unconstitutional, just like for decades they refused to hear cases involving personal possession of firearms. (until DC vs Heller 2008)

btw legend, +1 on your post =)

[Perrone]

Nobody said the federal government prohibited the consumption of alcohol. he just said prohibit. drugs are prohibited. its not technically illegal to be high on heroin or weed. its illegal to posses, which is a step farther than prohibition of alcohol took it. its illegal to manufacture, transport, or distribute. the argument and the point is, back then the federal government knew the only way they could prohibit anything of the sort and take that choice away from the citizen was to pass an amendment. current drug prohibition requires no such amendment, because the federal government decided they werent going to go that route. citizens dont fight it because they dont realize how bullshit it is. and even when the do, the supreme court refuses to hear cases arguing that drug prohibition by the federal government via unilateral legislation is unconstitutional, just like for decades they refused to hear cases involving personal possession of firearms. (until DC vs Heller 2008)

btw legend, +1 on your post =)

Actually, legend said "prohibit alcohol", implying that it was the alcohol that was made illegal, not the manufacturing, selling and transportation; as prohibits definition is simply "to forbid by authority". As well, attempting to compare prohibition to say, weed and heroine, is just wrong because you can be arrested simply for being high on weed or heroine, not for just being in possession; I know a former buddy from high school who was arrested for being high in public. Where as you could be arrested for drinking in a saloon for buying it, but you could not be arrested at your own home as long as you can prove that you had bought it before prohibition. Where as, if the police come to your door, and you answer it being high, regardless of when you bought it, you can be arrested for using weed/heroine or whatever other drug that you're using that is not for medical purposes.

Again, what seems to have been ignored by both you and Legend is the fact that an amendment has to be approved by the majority of states, and as such, it's approved by the majority of citizens; besides, if you do a little studying, many states already had similar laws already in place and prohibition was pretty popular early on. Also, it was approved by all but two states, which meant that well beyond the majority of the states agreed with what the Eighteenth Amendment was doing. Legend was inaccurate in claiming that the Federal Government forced it on the American people. The states, by the law laid down by the writers of the Constitution, which was written by many Founding Fathers, made this perfectly legal. But both you and Legend are arguing about is semantics, that States should make the decision, only issue is that it was 46 of the 48 states made alcohol illegal.

Citizens can fight, but the fighting is done through a vote. If there's a law that isn't widely popular, then you remove the people who voted yes for it, and put in someone who's going to remove the law. As for the thing that the citizens don't fight back, it's total bs. There were many groups who did fight back for the legalization of alcohol; as well as many groups of people who have been fighting for the legalization of weed. Sadly, the average person is not properly educated about weed.

As for the Supreme Court, it's their decision to decide whether or not to hear cases. It's based upon what they want to do, and for more pressing issues aside from making pot legal.

Finally, I'd like to point out that we are a Federal Republic. We are a nation where laws are voted on by the majority. The majority voted and though we have more people for the legalization, it is still not to the point of a majority.

And FYI, I am for the legalization of pot. I myself cannot stand the smell of it, but I cannot deny that it would easily bring in new income to local, state and federal governments, as well as a remove millions of people from our prison system.

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

You can't be arrested for being high. There's no way for a police officer to prove that you were high unless you fail a field sobriety, which isn't hard to fool if you're high. There's no crime for "being high in public". Public intoxication exists, but that law is designed and intended for alcohol use. A cop can't knock on your door, know that you're high, and arrest you for it without proof that you were smoking weed. I.e. physical evidence (actual quantities of the drug). Even if you have a bong sitting on your couch, a cop cant arrest you for that or give you a ticket for "using marijuana". He can give you a paraphenelia ticket and confiscate it, but no arrests, no trumped up charges of using weed. My god, if thats how the government actually fought their bullshit drug war, i would move out of the country. Arresting a person for abusing a substance in their own home? c'mon man.

I'd argue that citizen support pot legalization is not a majority. A Gallup poll in 2011 found that for the first time the US had a majority of people support legalization of weed. Source

The people don't get to vote on legislation like that though, so a majority doesn't matter. It takes a majority of representatives to make that happen, and that doesn't exist. You're right that we should vote and change the poeple who make the laws, but thats a rather impractical task given that 80% of the time incumbents are elected simply because people know their name and will vote along party lines.

And on prohibition, just because 46 of 48 states ratified the amendment doesn't mean a majority of the people wanted it. This is not a free democracy like that. States have their own methods of ratifying amendments, and that usually doesn't include a general vote. Ask anyone. read a history book. Prohibition was pushed through by a fierce, minority movement that was given into by the majority. obviously there were enough people to support it to get it go through, but if prohibtion was supported by the majority of the population, why was it such a colossal failure?

[Perrone]

You can't be arrested for being high. There's no way for a police officer to prove that you were high unless you fail a field sobriety, which isn't hard to fool if you're high. There's no crime for "being high in public". Public intoxication exists, but that law is designed and intended for alcohol use. A cop can't knock on your door, know that you're high, and arrest you for it without proof that you were smoking weed. I.e. physical evidence (actual quantities of the drug). Even if you have a bong sitting on your couch, a cop cant arrest you for that or give you a ticket for "using marijuana". He can give you a paraphenelia ticket and confiscate it, but no arrests, no trumped up charges of using weed. My god, if thats how the government actually fought their bullshit drug war, i would move out of the country. Arresting a person for abusing a substance in their own home? c'mon man.

Probable cause man, that and people have been arrested for less of a reason then that in our modern American society. Also, I'm not simply talking about weed, I'm talking about any drug out there that is illegal. If an officer knocks on your door, and you are acting strangely, and if you've been smoking something, that officer has probable cause and can enter your home without a warrant. If he/she finds anything drug related recently used, you can get arrested. But, if you've got a decent lawyer, they can get you off. And yes, the police can come into your home and arrest you for using illegal substances, and even in states were 'medical marijuana' is legal, Federal agents can still arrest said person of carrying or using marijuana. Though since most people who use it are for medical purposes and not recreational, the FBI and the FDA have gotten more cautious.

Also, tell that to my friend who got arrested for being high in public. I wasn't there for the arrest, my information comes from him. But he said he was arrested under for being under suspicion of using drugs or something. But the cops released him because they couldn't find anything on him or in his car that would have lead to drug charges. And he admitted to me that he was high at the time.

I'd argue that citizen support pot legalization is not a majority. A Gallup poll in 2011 found that for the first time the US had a majority of people support legalization of weed. Source

Although you can use polls to support your argument, you'd have to add a lot more evidence aside from a poll to use. I'm not saying you are wrong, but as it stands, not enough people will actually stand up and fight to get marijuana legalized once again.

The people don't get to vote on legislation like that though, so a majority doesn't matter. It takes a majority of representatives to make that happen, and that doesn't exist. You're right that we should vote and change the poeple who make the laws, but thats a rather impractical task given that 80% of the time incumbents are elected simply because people know their name and will vote along party lines.

The fact is that people more often then not vote for someone that doesn't support what they believe. I know Republicans who vote straight Republican, yet they are pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-Education, pro-demilitarization, etc. etc.. They clash ideological on every level with Republican belief yet somehow they think they are Republican... Yeah, that's how most Americans are.

And on prohibition, just because 46 of 48 states ratified the amendment doesn't mean a majority of the people wanted it. This is not a free democracy like that. States have their own methods of ratifying amendments, and that usually doesn't include a general vote. Ask anyone. read a history book. Prohibition was pushed through by a fierce, minority movement that was given into by the majority. obviously there were enough people to support it to get it go through, but if prohibtion was supported by the majority of the population, why was it such a colossal failure?

Back then, politics was taken more seriously, especially state politics, then it is today... in fact, how Americans treat politics today is rather ridiculous. Although there was always gossip, at least from articles I've read, there was never anything as bad as it is today. Especially State politics, as many voters could actually meet their politician at rallies and what not. From what I've read, and from letters I've seen, Prohibition early on was rather popular idea and did have a lot of support from the populace. As all things do, views changed and prohibition lost support towards the end even from some of it's biggest supporters. Mostly due to the growth of organized crime. But at the time of it's voting in, it was a popular idea.

When you look at the past, you cannot look at it from our view, you have to look at it from the view back then.