The Supremes ruled today that pot can't even be used for medical purposes!And you think this hobby has a chance at legalization - not in our lifetime!!

My 2 cents here.I think this court decision was primarily done to end the confusion between the obvious conflict of state and local laws.The various state laws and propositions that have legalized the medicinal use of pot have been very confusing and contradictory.  I believe the core goal behind many of the state initiatives was not the medicinal use, but rather a foot in the door to complete legalization.  Take CA's prop for example, it was so poorly written and vague that in reality most of the new pot being legally sold for "medicinal" purposes was never for that purpose.If you support the general legalization of drugs, which I do not, then this ruling was a set back.I do support a legitimate federal study of pots medicinal purposes.  Do that, and then regulate it just as we regulate other medicinal narcotics such as morphine.Just my two cents....

Today my heart is heavy

Your two cents is most appreciated, providee, but, if we are talking about drugs in an illegal sense, let's talk alcohol which is one of the biggest misused drugs of all. I mean, "smoking a fatty", as Sully puts it, pales in comparison to drinking patterns which lead to DUI arrests, domestic violence arrests, and the like.  I howl when I read any of the decisions these idiots who call themselves the Supreme Court come up with.  They make the Court under F.D.R.'s terms look like intellectual geniuses. Come to think of it, maybe Scalia should smoke a bit so that he can come to grips with a more common sense approach to reality. No disrespect to you, providee, but these guys really bust my balls. Regards, levendi

--

The problem providee is that this is not about medicinal use or not.. it is politics as usual. They have done studies.. and the studies always show there IS LEGITIMATE value in it..I heard a radio talk show on this subject many years ago after one of these studies.. can't remember exactly which court he was on but a federal judge ordered the DEA to remove Mary Jane from the hardcore  narcotic class it is in.. ( class I or II ?) anyway, the DEA refused!! Refused the order of a federal judge. - polidicks!The government isn't making money on it (thought they could if they legalized and taxed it) then nobody else is going to either!Suggested read.. "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" And God forbid they listen to the peoples' will! Gee aren't they supposed to work for us?Troll..

Levendi... I can't *believe* that our country is still even dealing with pot issues anymore!  You're right: stack up the stats of alcohol related deaths and violence against weed related deaths and violence (especially violence! haha!!  A pot smoker could potentially get fiesty momentarily over someone stealing their candy bar...).  I mean, pullease!  This is the 21st century!  The 21st Century!  And we're still not allowed legally to do with our bodies what we choose to do with 'em.  I mean if you can't choose as an adult, when can ya?  (Isn't it still illegal to commit suicide in some states?!)  Pbbbbbbttttt! xxo Faye Desiree

Ever hear of somebody who smoked a splif and then beat up his wife?   I'm still waiting...

This is not a medical issue, nor a political issue and to some extent not even a legal issue. This is a money issue. By keeping marijuana illegal, it continues to remain a BIG TIME money issue. With ALL the resources available to us(financial, military, hi-tech,etc.,etc.)don't think for a moment that we as a country couldn't stop the importation of ALL drugs within a year's time. That is, if we REALLY wanted to. Drugs are just another commodity, like oil and energy. The fact that one is illegal and the other is not, is irrelevant. They are both big money producers. By keeping pot illegal the big money continues to flow. Everybody gets a piece, from your low level dealers to the HIGHEST echelon of the government and military to the heads of the cartels. It's just that the financial rewards(make that incredible financial rewards)grow as you go further up the ladder. Anyone who is in a position of being able to do something to either stop it totally or make it legal, will benefit GREATLY by doing absolutely nothing. As a side note, did you really think that this same Supreme Court that put Bush in the White House would come to any other decision in the pot case.

Wow.  You just have to love this place.  Okay, now where to start.First, Let me show my bias here.  I am a proponent of legalization and regulation of "illegal drugs" the reasons --for another time but I think the reason stated by levendi, faye, and others plus several unstated reasons.Now that is said.  The Court made a very solid and correct decision.  Too bad it was on the wrong topic but with the present court -- baby steps are better than there regular performance. I am not a big fan of this this particular court.  And one of the two Justices I really like recused himself from the case.Why is this a correct decision?  If you read the Controlled Substance Act the intent of congress is crystal clear.In 21 USCS Section 812 (1996) sub heading B.A Schedule I substance is1)

While i agree with you 100% regarding Bush's status as President "by judicial review" as oppose to "elected,” I find your opinion on the economy of drugs full of paranoia.  What proof do you have that the government profits from the illegal trade of drugs?  There's no question that dealers and Cartels profit from drug sales because that's what cartels and dealers do, make money illegally.  If the gov and military profit from commodities such as oil, energy, "drugs" then they are doing a piss poor job.  As far as i know, the only branch that is profitable is the IRS.  Now, if you're talking about individuals in those groups who have gone astray and pocket $ from transactions of commodities then, sure that can happen, not enough to affect the economy. So to get back to the lesson of the IRS.  The best way to increase gov revenues is to tax then more tax... (selling arms to other countries, is another)   Think of the revenues that would be created if the law the land allows for non-intrusive crimes- drugs and prostitution.  Every ounce of drug gets taxed a certain amount of dollars, and every prostitute has to pay for fees and licenses.  We're talking about billions in revenues.  The courts won't go for this because this country isn't mature enough to handle freedom.  I say let us be free to "hurt" ourselves and if we screw up and become a public nuisances, then throw our asses in jail and fine us severely.  Sort of like what is done DUI.  As far as this nation's inability to battle the illegal trades, there's a simple explanation- freedom and rights.  Sure it's easier to stop illegal transactions everywhere in this country by putting a camera in every square mile of the country. But there would be HELL raised to a point where every one of us will be a devil.  Some wise man once said that if a "presence" stops us from what we normally do then our freedom has already been violated.  In this context, "normally do" refer to acting carefree or being yourself.  We wouldn't make jokes, laugh at each other, pick our noses, and so forth if we knew there was a camera watching.So ends this take on freedom.  It's just a valid as justaplayer's opinion on economy. Please comment and put your $ 2/100 in.

Wake up  and smell the bong hits buddy!Of course people in govt profit by drugs' illegality!   It's called the budget process- ask, make your case and ye shall recieve.We'd all probably be better off with no DEA, but there they are, gulping down several billion .   Perhaps you were unaware of our "Vietnamization" of Columbia?   Now there is money we ought to spend here, going for Helos, guns, and training of our semi-fascist government soldiery.   And if you don't think there is a quid pro quo surrounding the goverment contracts for same-- well then the switch to long pants was premature for you, my friendNot a flame-   I just thuoght you need to look around and see....   ... aw fuck it-  who wants pie?

The Cynic your opinion on the economics of the drug issue is valid and possibly correct...and Just a Player, well he worries me!I think I read Just A Players views in the same story where Elvis's brain controlled by Aliens, who work for the CIA and who also run the trilateral commission, shot John F. Kennedy to cover up the fact that Marilyn Monroe was a communist robot.No the economics of drug legalization are only too clear and the best model for the same debate took place with the issues around prohibition. Now as to making money off the issue, well that is a little more uncertain as the Government is spending money on the "war on drugs" and people are getting that money.  But I do not think that was Just-a-players intention and if it was then I am wrong and will apologize for the misread.If you look at the budgeting process and how those funds get allocated that is a very different issue and a bit more complicated as the DEA for example has very strong congressional support to allocated contracts in politically popular ways for example.---jmo--JP--modified by JP at Tue, May 15, 2001, 13:55:22--modified by JP at Tue, May 15, 2001, 14:19:58--modified by JP at Tue, May 15, 2001, 20:05:38

Well, now that's really the point, justaplayer, because had the Supreme Court passed a spliff around back in December, Bush wouldn't be our President.  Common sense would have prevailed albeit under the influence of some fine Thai stick. By the way, Bush's drug of choice is cocaine, n'est ce pas? Regards, levendi

for three years during his father's presidencyGW was in Camp Betty (Betty Ford Clinic) His drugs of choice were alcohol and cocaine.I did not say this.I was not here.LM

Well, he's a frisky lad who likes roller coaster rides. Let's all mix depressants with stimulants and see what happens. I just wish that his nurse had been Mimi from the Drew Carey Show. Regards, levendi

--

A cult classic from a group in the South Bay (if I remember correctly).  I'm proud to say I have the CD but can't find it, so if I'm wrong somebody correct me.Anyway, you guys gotta cut G.W. a little slack- it's obvious those of you who partake are just jealous as hell!  Frankly, there's a few years I wish I had no memory of too.  There's enough real problems to worry about than whether Monica swallowed or Dubbya snorted.  Besides, I like the fact that he's the first Pres. to grab his wife's ass in public!  My take at least.--modified by G2 at Thu, May 17, 2001, 13:44:45

Hey G2, I wonder if he'd be willing to post a review..Regards,levendi

we never see G2 and GW in the same room at the same time?G2 is a lot like G Jr ... Geo. Jr....OK!  We know you you are!  Here is my pardon list...LM

If I had his money you'd never see me anywhere- but the ladies would all know the top of my head on sight (as opposed to just my writing style, like now).   But I pardon you anyway...

Ah, brings back the skate-punk days of my youth.Have fun, stay safe, and leave the lights ON!!Iceman

It is my understanding that they made it illegal to buy or sell pot.  In California if you are medically qualified you can possess it, you just can't get caught buying it.  That is why the centers that used to sell it legally for medical reasons are still operating.  They know they are probably in trouble, but they hope the LE will turn the other way and allow them to sell it for those who legally qualify.  I also understand that the pill version of pot that they prescribe for those who have cancer etc, is not as effective as the real thing.  Sort of interesting huh?  I do think the stuff is bad, personally.  But if you are dying anyway, I don't see why you should not be allowed to smoke it.  It is no differnt than morphine for pain when people are about to die, or cocaine for surgery.  You have to weigh the benefits against the harm.