"HELP, I'M STONED, WHO SHOULD I VOTE FOR?"

you said something about not listening to "the media"? who were your sources again? a couple of newspapers and wikipedia, what, that doesn't count as "the media" all of a sudden? it has been said already, but you are seeing patterns where none exist and you should reevaluate your sources, and your closing statement of "beware the enemy within" and your follow up of "what will YOU dicover about obama once he's fucked you a couple of times?" clealy shows where you stand, you aren't for education, you're for speculation, if you expect things you say to be "absorbed" without question then maybe you are more like "the media" than even the actual "media" that you think all opposing opinions come from. And by the way, who's mad? that "mr big nuts" down there? He only told you to "eat a dick", because I'm sure he saw through you as well. I/we are not mad, your statements tell more about you than anyone else.

Its the mantra of the Obama-ites . Any facts pertaining to Obama (amen ) must be approved or they won't get it .

Wow. I was simply putting some extra info out there for whoever reads to absorb. Its amazing how much some people will get upset just by learning something new....or maybe someones stash has been empty too long!

Seriously if you don't care about learning anything more than what the media tells you, then don't get mad at me. Maybe you should evaluate the stupidity of your statements and then certainly get mad at yourself.... I would.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive

This is a hoot!!

C'mon, dude, which is a bigger problem, going to prison for having anything to do with weed, or a slight drop in prices for fully legal weed? besides, if it's full legal as opposed to decriminalized lots of people will grow their own for themselves to smoke, and maybe sell some to friends who want some but can't grow it, that alone will reduce the need for "dealers", and flood the market with low cost weed, which means the "for profit only" pot dealers(who usually fill their bags with stems and seeds) will be less necessary, which is good because it will improve the overall quality of casually aquired bud. Also fully legal weed will lead to easier production of seedless, or "sinsemelia" weed and allow the development of better strains and breeds of cannabis. In short, No, legalizing cannabis will not be bad overall, it will be fantastic. There's other reasons why too, but I need to get off the computer.

well from one stoner to another.it would be tight for weed to be legal but if you think about it it wouldnt be realy good if it does happen. cuz then people wouldnt be makin there profit and dealers would create conflict.just think about it

this comment is for dum as dan. eat a dick . ps monkey balls and all!!!

Oh don't get all "gloom and doom" on me now, you know mccain would be much worse. Admit it. You know it's true.

What will we dicover once the novelty has worn off ?
What will we know about Obama once the media treats him like everyone else who ever ran for president ?
What will YOU dicover about Obama once he's fucked you a couple of times ? (probably nothing I'm sure )

Meanwhile , most of us just sit back and smile at you cute little monkeys .

YEAH KEEP FEEDING THESE RIDICULsOULY STONDED MOTHER FUCKERS WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR, THEN EVERYTHING WILL TURN OUT IN YOUR FAVOR AND YOU CAN FURTHER MONOPALIZE THIS INDUSTRY "I USED TO TAKE PART IN NORML BUT NOT SO MUCH ANY MORE" SO ANWAY JUST KEEP MAKING YOUR MONEY FROM OTHERS BA HABITS "just as cindy does" AND QUIT RIDICULING PEOPLE FOR DOING THE SAME THING AS YOU ARE "JUST WITHIN ANOTHER INDUSTRY" BEACAUSE THATS ALL THAT MARIJUANA HAS BECOME " ANOTHER INDUSTRY TO EXPLOIT"

Wikipedia? lol. "small contributions from middle class, or middle east??" strait from republican talking points, do you have any VERIFYABLE sourses or are you just being treated like a mushroon, fed shit and kept in the dark? You have been taken in by the mythology created by republicans to slander obama, you are seeing patterns where none exist. I'd reevaluate your sources, and stop watching faux(fox) news, try msnbc.

i think obama is gonna win

I hope that everyone still has the energy in 2009 :)

If you have a bicycle, a voice, a medical testimony, and still want to fight for your rights and freedoms...

Then get your self, bicycle, tent and gear ready.

Tour for Compassion 2009 May 15

Blaine, Washington as starting point .
Washington - Olympia
Oregon - Salem
California - Sacramento
Nevada - Carson City
Utah - Salt Lake City
Colorado - Denver
Nebraska - Lincoln
Iowa - Des Moines
Missouri - Jefferson City
Illinois - Springfield
Indiana - Indianapolis
Ohio - Columbus
West Virginia - Charleston
Maryland - Washington DC
Virginia - Richmond
North Carolina - Raleigh with Wilmington Beach as finish point. :)

Tour for Compassion 2009
ken_locke2001@yahoo.com

"WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM????

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California . He is
very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was
wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself
to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during
this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from
Pakistan . During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made
a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia ,
next Hyderabad in India , three weeks in Karachi , Pakistan where he stayed with
his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.
My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one
of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in
college. When he came back he start ed school at Columbia University in New
York . It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry.
Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia ? It's not cheap to say the
least! Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After
Columbia , he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a
year. Why Chicago ? Why not New York ? He was already living in New York .

By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo
Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago . Rezko has been convicted of
fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the
Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'.
About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School . Do you have any idea
what tuition is for Harvard Law School ? Where did he get the money for Law
School ? More student loans? After Law school, he went back toChicago . Rezko
offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis,
Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar'
which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial
contributors when he ran for office in Chicago . In 2003, Rezko threw an early
fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was
instrumen tal in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate
race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for
$1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where
did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita,
purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that
Nadhmi Auchi , an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks
before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times
with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele
Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any
major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for
this? Shiraz , Iran ! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was
'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with
'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran . This past
week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that
during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the
war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in
Pakistan ? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign
contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle
class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times
posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Step
hanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim
faith'. When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it
- Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily
Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7,
2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why
haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting
this?
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from
within'!!!"

"the jews are not the only "poor victims" of some ethnic tragedy" .
I agree .
They also didn't promise to do anything regarding marijuana in this country either .

what about the crimes the jews commited to earn themselves a 1-way ticket out of germany?????????????????????????
why is it every time something happens its compared to the supposed holocaust... what about the native american holocaust.. or the crap going on in africa...or even palestine.. the jews are not the only "poor victims" of some ethnic tradgedy

Whenever I'm ????? what ?
LOL yea , thats prerty much babble on top of babble :o) .
Does stupid hurt ? You must be in constant pain .

so whenever you're pwned you call it "babble babble"?

LOL.

"Not all drugs are good, some of them are GREAT. You just have to learn your way around them"
--Bill Hicks


Happy Halloween,Lick this sopt (:

@ Obama Lemming
WHAT IS CRIME?

When the Absolute Moralist declares an activity a crime he usually has the force of the government behind him, or soon will. Durring the reign of the Nazis, Jews wetre considered criminals. Before the civil war, escaped slaves were considered outlaws. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, communists exterminated opponents by the thousands. Prohibition turned buyers and sellers of alcohol into crimminals. Now buyers and sellers of drugs are labled as such.
Isin't it strange , activities that were once considered crimes are now legal? Groups of people who were labled crimminals and outcasts of "society" are now respectable citizens. Could it be true they were never crimminals and no crimes took place? Could this be true of the drug business?
First you have to distinguish the difference between voluntary and involuntary exchange. You must realize it is individuals who are involved in exchanges. In any two party exchange, one sells(gives) and one buys(recevives). "Society" can not take part in exchange; only individuals can.
A voluntary exchange takes place when two or more individuals agree to deal with one another, each participates of their own free will. The exchange could involve anything from giving and receviving love to buying and selling real estate. All involved believe they will benifit from the exchange.
An involuntary exchange takes place when at least one party to the transaction is in it against their will(examples of this type of exchange are robbery, rape assult and murder). Only this type of exchange can be considered crimminal.
Any use of goods coming form an involuntary exchange is a crime, provided the consumer knows they were acquired in that way.
The Anti-drug crusader considers marijuana smoking a crime.
The marijuana user commits a henious crime against himself, but worse yet he fails to turn himself in. Now the police, not knowing where this poor victim is, must start searching for him. Soon the mighty vice squad comes to the rescue. The victim is found. Lo and behold,they make another remarkable discovery, the criminal has also been located. Justice is finally served and the viscious criminal is hauled off to jail. But wait a minute! What happened to the victim? He is in jail, victimized again. In this case the "victim" and the so-called criminal are the same. Obviously somethimg is wrong. The answer is evident. This is not an involuntary exchange; no crime has been comitted, a grave injustice is being done to the drug user.
Those who belive government should decide what crime is , could be happy in Russia,China, or any other communist country. They are probably nostalgic for the good old days of Nazi Germany.

(Russia no longer Communist)

Happy Halloween!

@ Obama Lemming
Once again you demonstrate your enemy of freedom tendencies.
Anti-drug crusaders always attempt to reverse cause and effect.
Upon closer examination. All of the negatives that you cite are actually Drug law created problems.
After showing you 400+ years of prohibition failure. You then aks if I think some drugs should be illegal. Hell yes, they should ALL BE LEGAl.

The real question here is -Why do you support a known failed policy? Isn't the definition of crazy, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
My next post will be a lesson on what is crime.

it really bothers me when i see or hear things like "a third party candidate has no chance". this has to do with the medias bias towards two candidates that are practically identical and most voters idea that they want to side with a winner. let me break it down simple like. the pres race is practically 50-50. out of that 50%, i'd say 2/3rds are totally into their candidate; leaving one third open to a third party candidate. 2 one thirds (one from each side) equals one third of the population. but we dont see or hear anything out of any third party candidates because POLITICS IS A POPULARITY CONTEST!!

Obama is an excellent politician, maybe even better than Clinton.There's not much doubt in my mind at least that he will be better on a host of issues than McCain. And, Obama has the potential to be one of our greatest presidents, especially after the farce that was dubya.

But no one should forget that one of Obamas first, biggest decisions as potential President was to name Biden as his running mate.

Change? You betcha! Biden, who created the Drug Czar and gave us the RAVE act. Biden, who never met a surveillance law that he didn't like. Biden who voted for the patriot act. Biden who hates the idea of Med Herb and on and on and on.

Note the eerie silence about these things from all things Media?

I'm afraid Change isn't coming to the drug war via Obama if Biden is any indication. Oh, and Biden wants to help rebuild Georgia. Not our GA. The one next to Russia. Pay real close attention to this blowhard Biden.

Some of us have seen this whole play before. A few times. Like Mr. "I didn't inhale" Bill, who went on to lock up more smokers than Reagan and Bush before him.

I won't repond to "babble babble" and I doubt you are that stupid . Your attempts to change the subject is typical and understandable :o). So back to the topic :

OBAMA HAS NEVER MADE A PROMISE TO DO ANYTHING ON THE SUBJECT OF MARIJUANA .

Your inability to factually claim otherwise is a WIN for reality . Your attempts to spin and hype is annoying if only for the fact that you do it so badly :o) . And to bury your stupid with another load of stupid serves no purpose other than highlighting your folly . BUT , bury away ! I'll be back to dig it up :o) .....

All I have to say about that last post of yours is this, I agree that the "war on pot" is harmful, ill-advised and doesn't help anyone and does more harm than good by a wide margin. I cannot say the same thing about laws against alot of the other drugs out there. I have seen the damage that many other drugs do, I've been ripped off by people who use coke, seen people I know and care about lose all their money to their addiction when they thought they could control themselves, and seen them at their worst when they can't get it, seen people get into incredibly bad situations while using, and afterwards, had relatives go to rehab, and heard stories of people being permanently disabled and living in constant tourture because of simple use of drugs, and to be honest, the fact is that some drugs should stay illegal, it's better if people don't have access to those drugs, you might believe that prohibition doesn't work, or that it does more harm than good or whatever, and I don't entirely disagree, however like I said, some drugs, or more perhaps more accurately, chemical substances, are much better off being illegal. Try to honestly tell me that you can't think of even one chemical substance that should remain illegal, go ahead, try. Would you have all poisons legal? Like I said before, people had all sorts of theories that a "certain president" invented a "certain destructive drug" in order to destroy a "certain kind of people", you know what I'm talking about, would you have that drug and possibly other new drugs completely uncontrolled for anyone to use? Don't you see the harm in it? What I'm getting at is that while "prohibition" isn't perfect,(perhaps intentionally so,) and some things are needlessly prohibited, there are other things that logically should be prohibited for everyone's sake, not trying to say "big brother knows best", we all know how dumb he can be sometimes, I'm saying that the goal of relegalizing cannabis and your goal of legalizing all drugs should be kept seperate, not only because mixing them slows down the progress of both goals, but because there is clearly a difference in motivation, and a difference in the end result of those goals, besides, if cannabis was relegalized and people had a choice between legal, high quality sweet sticky weed, or some addictive dangerous drug bought from a stranger on the street, I'd hope they choose the weed, even if it was a choice between legal weed and legal whatever else, I'd still prefer it if they choose the weed, as anyone will tell you pot is far less destructive than any other "drug". I'll stop here as some people think long posts mean I have something to hide, quite the opposite, I have something meaningful to say, and sometimes it takes alot of words to convey.

wow, that last post of yours was just silly, I mean really, it's rediculously absurd. You call obama a fed,(a very loose term the way you try to use it) and say the feds don't accept the medical value of pot, I tell you that it's the FDA who makes that decision, and that FDA stands for Food and drug administration, not Federal Drug administration, and that obama is a senator, not a "fed", whatever you think that means,(as whenever someone says, "here come the feds", they mean federal agents,) and you come back with, "he's running for president",(which means Commander in Chief BTW) "head of the executive branch of the federal gov't" as if the instant he wins, he'd become a fed and therefor would somehow adopt all the beliefs of "other feds" and reject the science supporting medical marijuana. I'll repeat that, You are saying that becoming the president means becoming a fed And that becoming a fed means he will take up the beliefs you attribute to feds (not accepting science) no matter what he believes himself. Also you are saying that anyone working in gov't is a fed, because it's all in branches of the "federal gov't" that is a very loose definition of a "fed". and by the way, if you want to talk about "burying stupid" look at HU's previous post, not the newest one, haven't read it yet, the one before that. And my post to you wasn't even that big, it probably seemed big because you don't get it, probably didn't read it all either, judging by your patheticly childish repsonse. By the way, your inability to see the obvious meaning of his statements doesn't mean it's "written in code", you're just deadset in your own preconcieved beliefs to the point that you don't let anything get thru to you, and look for any wiggle room possible to dismiss anything that contradicts your beliefs, like exaggeration of the word "if", and obsessing over the absence of the word "promise", or some convoluted theory that working in gov't means instant unconditional acceptence of the steriotypical beliefs of "feds" regardless of their own stated positions. In short, "?", you're fucking crazy. No offence.

Sorry, but I have given up trying to clue in people about the 2 party system that has been pulled over our eyes. The vast majority of ALL Americans will only vote for one of the two. Their logic? "Oh, well....no 3rd party can win." Well no shit Sherlock! Untill Americans decide to vote 3rd party, the other 2 will never listen. They will pretend they do, but there is no difference anymore. If only 1% of votes went to 3rd party this time, maybe next itll be 2, then 5, then 10, who knows.....MAYBE IN MY LIFETIME the 3rd party will have enough following to either take the W.H., or atleast force the other 2 parties to start acting like they work FOR the American people again.

As one person commented, "I was blind and then I heard Ron Paul."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

Vote for RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He stands up for everything our country prides itself in! WHY do we continue to let these RICH PHONIES persuade our minds.....

Don't vote for someone just so Mcain doesn't win. Watch the video and remember ---HE IS 100% for DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARAJUANA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is 400 years of prohibition failure. From Cato Inst. Policy (1989) Synoptic History of Drug Prohibition. There is no excuse for any candidate to support the war on drugs and pot.
But Obama Lemming and his candidate still want drugs illegal. Some change!

The failure of the Reagan administration's war on drugs is simply the latest in a series of prohibition failures going back several centuries:


16th c. Coffee banned in Egypt and supplies of coffee burned--use spreads rapidly.[95]
17th c. The czar of Russia executes tobacco users.[96]
1650 Tobacco prohibited in Bavaria, Saxony, Zurich; the Ottoman sultan zealously executes smokers to no avail.[97]
1736 The Gin Act fails to halt consumption in England.[98]
1792 The penalty for opium selling in China is strangulation.[99]
1845 New York bans the public sale of liquor--repeals law two years later. [100]

1875-1914 27 states and cities ban opium smoking--opium smoking increases sevenfold.[101]
1914 Passage of Harrison Narcotics Act controlling opium and coca derivatives.
1914 The czar bans alcohol--the Bolshevikslift ban in 1924.[102]
1914-1970 Congress passes 55 laws to strengthen Harrison Act.[103]
1918 Special Committee studies Harrison Act effects--widespread smuggling and increased use of narcotics--and calls for stricter enforcement.[104]
1919 Eighteenth Amendment banning alcoholis passed--repealed in 1933.
1919-1933 Use of marijuana, ether, and coffee increases.[105]
1921 Cigarettes are illegal in 14 states.
1924 Congress bans heroin completely--after law passed, heroin replaces morphine in black market.[106]

1937 First federal law against marijuana.
1949 Law enforcement crackdown on non-prescription barbiturates--use increases 800 percent 1942-69.[107]
1955 Shah of Iran bans opium--ban partially repealed in 1969.[108]
1956 U.S. Narcotic Drug Control Act provides for death penalty for selling heroin to minors
1958 Soviet premier Khrushchev raises alcohol prices 21 percent to reduce consumption--he later deems the program a failure.[109]
1959 Campaign against glue-sniffing begins--causes increase in glue-sniffing by1969.[110]
1962 FDA halts legal production of LSD--LSD use skyrockets by 1970.[111]
1965 Amphetamine enforcement intensifies--causes "a boom in cocaine smuggling" by 1969.[112]
1968 Campaign against marijuana use among U.S. troops in Vietnam--soldiers switch to heroin.[113]
1969 New York City increases drug arrests by 9,000--no impact on drug availability noted.[114]
1971 All-out campaign against heroin use inVietnam fails.[115]
1971 900 pounds of heroin seized in NewYork City--no increase in price occurs.[116]
1971 President Nixon declares drugs "America's public enemy No. 1."[117]

1972 The House passes a $1 billion anti-drug bill.[118]
1972 President Nixon declares drugs "America's public enemy No. 1"--again.[119]
1973 Rockefeller's tough drug bill is passed in New York.
1973 President Nixon announces, "We have turned the corner on drug addiction in America."
1975 Malaysia enacts death penalty for drug trafficking.[120]
1975 Singapore enacts death penalty for drug trafficking--a few years later, top drug official says, "Heroin seems to be more widely used than ever."[121]

1977 Bar Association committee concludes that Rockefeller drug law had no effecton heroin use.[122]
1980 300,000 youths in Malaysia are using illegal drugs.[123]
1983 Malaysia toughens death penalty for drug trafficking.
1985 Soviets crack down on alcohol consumption.
1986 Moscow officials lower taxes on alcohol.[124]
1987 Malaysia's 12-foot-high, double-barbed-wire security fence protecting 32 miles of border with Thailand fails to halt drug traffic.[125]
1987 Soviets increase penalties against moonshining.[126]
1987 Legal alcohol production down 50 percent in Soviet Union; hard liquor moonshining up 40 percent; homemade wine production up 300 percent; 200,000 prosecuted for illegal home brewing.[127]
1987 Soviets launch "Operation Black Poppy" to stop opium use--2,000 poppy fields destroyed.[128]
1987 The Russian city of Murmansk bans sale of men's cologne (containing alcohol) until 2:00 p.m., when liquor stores open.[129]
1987 Glue-sniffing doubles among high school students in Soviet Union.[130]
1988 The Senate adds $2.6 billion to federal anti-drug efforts.
1988 Title of Tampa Tribune feature article: "The Joke among Federal Agents: 'We've Turned the Corner on Drugs."'
1989 Secretary of State James A. Baker III reports that the global war on narcotics production "is clearly not being won."[131]


Also read John Gettmans Cannabis Column #48, to see how well the drug war is working today.

Hahah ! Trying to bury your stupidity with lengthy posts again ? No matter , its all still there for anyone interested . LOL now lets get down to your last bit of ignorance .

1) I don't know why you bring up the FDA's position on the matter as it is common knowledge . Oh , I forgot , you're trying to bury your stupid . ( by the way , its a Federal agency )
2)"Obama is a SENATOR not a federal agent ,can't you tell ?"
I said Fed , you said agent . Lets explore that nonsense because it IS possible that you just don't know .
Obama: junior UNITED STATES SENATOR .,, running for the office of President :head of the Executive Branch of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT .
3) Federal : national , especially in reference to the government of the United States .

So now we are back to the main issue . Obama (a Fed) has never PROMISED to do anything on the topic of marijuana . Your contention that he speaks to stoners with a secret code that (apparently) only OBAMA-ites can decipher is just plain silly . He appears to be well educated with a firm grasp of the english language . I'm confident that he KNOWS what he is saying .

Obama " if there is sound science " ... the Feds do not recognize any science favoring the use of cannabis . ( SHIT !! I forgot to inform you of the definiton of IF:a. in the event that , b.on the assumption that , c. on condition that)

Obama :if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicines are prescribed " no wiggly room on that one .It is not controlled and prescribed like other medicine .

Obam : " then its something we should consider " no PROMISE here either .

You insist on trying to label me an antidrug crusader and an absolute moralist and claim that I am obscuring the facts or support the prohibition, as well as claiming I don't look at it scientifically. before dealing with that let me ask you a quick question, It seems you would prefer it if all drugs were fully legal, is that correct? It's what you've implied, so for now I'll assume so. Oh and I want to address that hypothetical, that racecar driving is dangerous and asked me if all dangerous things should be illegal, you do know there are speed limits in racecar driving, and that street racing IS illegal, because it's dangerous, and so is parachuting from buildings, jumping from planes is tightly regulated. just pointing that out. I don't know the laws about sCuba diving. Getting back to the point, You want all drugs to be legal, and think there will be no negative consequences from "use" of these drugs, completely ignoring the issues of addiction, overdose, drug funded violence, forced prostitution, tainted drugs, new drugs, and all the violence and accidents that result from out of control drug users, not trying to scare anyone, but your only stated defence of this position is that some greeks got high before thinking of some ideas that were eventually used in western civilization, so, what, you think if all drugs are legal they'd invent some new technology or new form of gov't? and you think that someone getting those ideas is worth all the bad that comes with it? even if no one listens to the newer LSD fueled ideas about gov't? You claim I'm distoring facts and being unobjective, when in reality you are the one ignoring the serious problems that come with completely uncontrolled drugs, you only see the one or two positives of getting to do all the drugs you can handle, well that may sound like fun to you, but it also means hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, who might not have the self control you cliam to have, will be dealing with addiction, overdose, and the consequences of their own actions commited while high, but you don't care about that apparently, you need to understand something, the fact that cannabis should be legal does not mean that all "drugs" should be legal, in fact it is because of the negatives of other illegal drugs that pot is still considered by the uninformed to be dangerous, and that's part of the reason it's still illegal. I do smoke pot, but my support for legalizing cannabis is not a matter of my preference for it as opposed to other drugs, it's the logical conclusion that anyone looking at the facts would come to, but that is being pushed aside by the thought of what would happen if all drugs were legal, look at the arguements that are used against it, calling it a "gateway drug", and more to the point, saying legalized pot would lead to legalization of other drugs, or all drugs, which whether you'll admit it or not, is a bad thing. You are trying to make this scenario a reality, but in doing so you are damaging the entire movement. That, if anything, is what I am opposed to, you tacking the legalize pot movement to the legalize everything movement and bringing the whole thing to a grinding hault.

I speak of "?" and "HU210", you two really need to take another look at the facts, first, to "?", the FDA(Food and Drug Administration) has the power over what is or isn't considered a drug, and set a rule saying "only a drug can cure, treat, or prevent a disease" and has other powers, and the FDA is also more corrupt than you'd believe, they only care about protecting the profits of drug companies, that is why they adamantly reject "natural cures", because they can't be patented, but that's another story, what I'm getting at is they are the ones who refuse to accept the medicinal value of cannabis, even though many scientific studies show that it treats and even cures many ailments, there are stories about such scientific studies on hightimes.com still, those are the scientific studies I'm talking about, but the FDA refuses to do it's own research or accept the facts these studies present, because it is corrupt. You say it's the "feds" who reject the science, however, it's actually the FDA, and by the way, Obama is a SENATOR, not a federal agent, can't you tell the difference? Moving on, you clearly misunderstand what is meant by controlled and perscribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, to simplify, it means if you have an ailment that cannabis can treat or cure, it should be perscribed, but not if you don't, just like if you had an ailment that antibiotics could treat or cure, but not if you don't, even simpler, it means as long as doctors do their jobs and perscribe it appropriately, just like any other drug, it shouldn't be a problem. Obviously. You talking about the clash between current state and federal laws and raids has NOTHING to do with the possibility of it being perscribed appropriately and controlled, the medical cannabis dispensaries have great security in place, insuring people don't rob them or use fake perscriptions, so it's well under control. All in all your entire post is nonsensical. I'll respond to HU in a seperate post.

you guys are taking all this way too serious.... nothing is gonna change so just relax...and enjoy the gift of smoking some cannibis. time is too short to waste on all this political crap unless you are a politician.

@ Obama Lemming
The anti-drug crusader's main argument is that drug use is bad for the individual and "society". His reasoning is flawed. Many things individuals do have undesirable effects. Thousands of people die each year in traffic accidents. Skuba diving, parachuting and hang gliding are all high risk activities that can result in accidential deaths. Race car drivers are constantly exposed to many dangers. Do we outlaw all activites that could be dangerous?

Many people use the same line of reasoning when supporting drug legislation, and none as cunningly as the Absloute Moralist. As Anti-Drug Crusader, he will obscure the facts by appealing to his supporters emotions and feelings, just as he did when successfully forcing prohibition on America.

Value is in the minds of men, we all look at things differently. Even among a group of friends, each individual will have varying tastes and ideas. This is what is meant by "subjective value", that the value of things or ideas are subject to an individual's own preference.

The Anti-Drug Crusader confuses his own subjective values with un-objective facts. What he feels is irrelevent for scientfic investigation. He and his followers have not investigated the drug problem from a scientific point of view and are unwilling to do so.

Yo Obama Lemming
The first thing that gave you away in your reply to my post. Was your common anti-drug crusader attempt to excange the word use for abuse, as if they were one and the same.

Drugs have done great things for us.
It was none other than the Greek people eating ergot rye mold (LSD), that gave us the basic tenants of our westeren civilization.
The idea of represententive government, trial by jury, etc., yup, ideas of people who were real fucking high.

@ Obama Lemming
When I stop laughing at you I will respond.
Calling me a cokehead, I must have really struck a nerve-eh?
Thanks for making my point for me, again, RE: Your Absolute Moralist leanings.
Just keep on eating your words.

LOL ..you're not very good at this are you . Oh well , I got all the time in the world ...

1) You are aware the Feds don't recognize any science favoring the use of weed .. right ? From your post it isn't clear that you do . Send a letter to Washington explaining
the science favorable to weed use is sound . Maybe they have never heard that before :o) . And , you do know Obama is a Fed ...right ? ( FED means Federal not HAS ALREADY EATEN )
" if there is sound science " speaks for itself . Oh ..wait a minute ..."sound science " ..maybe he's talking about some kind of audio science like music ......( i feel I must say that last thing was not meant to be taken seriously so don't hurt yourself)

2)"if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed " .What other medicines require a state permit to even have ? What other medicines do you grow and cultivate at home ? What other medicine do they knock the door down and haul you away for having/cultivating without a state permit ? The quote speaks for itself . It is NOT controlled and prescribed like other medicines .

Do you read between the lines with everything or just this topic ? You must get disappointed a lot .

"If there is sound science...", there is, no doubt about it, thats why the gov't(so far) has restricted scientific research on it, it would undercut their established and paid for positions. "If it can be controlled..." Yes, it can and has been, califonia has been doing a good job of that. These "qualifiers" are used only to express to the uninformed why and how it makes sense to allow medical marijuana. Your misinterpretation of this as some sort of caveat or prequisite to him pulling a 180 on this issue is a misinterpretation of grammar, and inspired by your own deadset political mindset of perpetual disbelief.

Seen it many times . Its from August of 2007 . Its also missing a promise .

May 15th of THIS year
Obama : "The way I want to approach the issue of Medical marijuana is to base it on science. And > IF < there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and > IF < it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then its something we > SHOULD CONSIDER < " : From "Six Minutes With Barack ", Willamette Week May 15, 2008
Of course I added the > < for emphasis . That means pay attention to those words .

1) "if there is sound science " he is a fed , the Feds do not recognize the science
2) "if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed " it isn't controlled or prescribed in that manner .
3) " then its something we should consider " that means should think about it.
This quote is the most recent I could find on that issue . And there is also no promise in that statement either .

VIDEO OF OBAMA NOW ABOVE
Click Youtube video of Obama promising not to let the federal government interfere in states with medical marijuana laws.

I think I'll go to the newer articles and draw some attention back here . People are going to get a hoot out of this !

oh by the way .. you didn't grasp the logic did you ......

Websters :
PROMISE : a declaration assuring that one will or will not do something , a vow .

You were saying something about desperation ?

Where's your source for that mccain misquote? by the way, are you the guy from the bottom of the page who said something like, "yes, but the key word there is would, would means it depends on something and it's a wish!" something like that? infact you put a 1 there, as if it was the first definition, it's not. this may be useful, a direct quote from here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/would:"
would1   /wʊd; unstressed wəd/ [wood; unstressed wuhd]
–verb
1. a pt. and pp. of will 1 .
2. (used to express the future in past sentences): He said he would go tomorrow.
3. (used in place of will, to make a statement or form a question less direct or blunt): That would scarcely be fair. Would you be so kind?
4. (used to express repeated or habitual action in the past): We would visit Grandma every morning up at the farm.
5. (used to express an intention or inclination): Nutritionists would have us all eat whole grains."

However you would have us believe that it was used intentionally like this(continued quote):
6. (used to express a wish): Would he were here!
7. (used to express an uncertainty): It would appear that he is guilty.
8. (used in conditional sentences to express choice or possibility): They would come if they had the fare. If the temperature were higher, the water would evaporate.
Do you see the problem with that logic yet? Is that why you've been so adamant in saying he didn't mean it, because of other definitions of the word "would" that don't even apply in the context of what he said? Is that why you've been refusing to accept that he said it, because you think that he meant "would" in the 6th, 8th, or maybe 7th definition instead of "would" in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th definition? That is a really weak and fragile thing to base an arguement on, I don't even have to debate it any further, all I need to say now is this: Do you know what would really means? actually thats a silly question, I just told you, so the only real question now is, will you listen to reason, or continue this ill-inspired tangent of fallacy?

mcCain has promised nothing . Reading between the lines doesn't count . Wishful thinking doesn't count . He just didn't promise anything ......

I'm willing to bet you still can't grasp the logic .......

McCain said "I think that there are more effective ways of relieving pain and suffering than the use of marijuana. Thats just my considered opinion . I'D BE GLAD TO RECIEVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION " ?????

Yaayyyyyyyyyyy , Lets hold him to that PROMISE !!!!!
McCain will de-criminalize weed . Yayyyyyyyyyyy !!!!
His mind is open to it !!!!
Dosn't matter everybody else knows different . !
Yayyyy where are all the McCain-ites ?
McCain will save the day regardless of his position on everything . He made a promise !!!!!

Let me guess .... you don't get it ? ......

lets work on the laws !!! make all in D.C. take a drug test. I think sick people would get what they need even KIFF . ONE SUCKS ONE BLOWS

Hey clown
Not you or anyone else has come up with antyhing that resembles a promise from Obama about stopping weed raids or legalization/de-criminalization . NOT ONE .
Let me examine your latest blurp
1) "Just trying to dis Obama ".. nope , as a matter of fact its the exact opposite with.." I don't blame Obama for this rumor" .. see how your inability to comprehend what you have read has left you looking stupid again ?

2) "calling facts rumors " .. you are mistaken again . In reality , its the other way around . Do you know the defenition of the word fact ? Seeing the pattern yet ?

3)" You want others to believe your lies" you are mistaken again . Its the other way around . I don't want people to believe your ignorance . See the pattern ?

4) "spouting the same tired disproven attack lines " get a dictionary and learn the meanings of the words you use .

5)"you think he never said what he said, we showed you he did " ..Really ? When did you do that ? I am aware of what he said , thats no problem . Its what he didn't say that is at issue and you have NOT "showed" anything of the kind .

6) "I'm not the one who called it a promise , the sources did " . Thats been my claim from the start Now you are attempting to distance yourself a little . I see you are starting to distinquish fact from fiction . Very good .

You don't know what you're talking about, you obviously are just trying to dis obama, as shown with your sarcastic use of "amen" and use of the term "Obama-ites" and calling facts rumors. You're just some "Bill-O" type of spinner who's either delusional or getting paid to be an idiot and spread disinformation all over these comment boards, why else would you repeat the same exact lines over and over again when your "opinion" has already been made clear the first time you posted? simple, you want others to believe your lies, well in case you didn't know, repetition doesn't make something true, neither does being the last one to speak, so coming here after every post and spouting the same tired disproven attack line over and over again is doing nothing more than spamming the boards, we heard you the first time, you think he never said what he said, we showed you that he did, and you don't believe it, and you refuse to believe it no matter what, you've made that perfectly clear, now go away. P.S. I'm not the one who called it a promise, the sources did, which you would have noticed had you actually seen the many sources of this verifiable information, you claim you have, and yet somehow you missed that.

Headlines don't count .
Reading between the lines doessn't count.
Wishful thinking doesn't count .
You and your ilke erroneously apply the word "promise" to something that contains nothing of the sort .
And yes , I have looked at EVERYTHING thats supposed to contain this promise , Just isn't there .
I also don't blame Obama for this rumor . Its coming from the Obama-ites (amen )

It is said when someone uses the NATIONAL ENQUIRER as their source for an article. Not one original thought almost word for word. Sad, ignorant, and uninspiring. Get some original thoughts and actual proof then get back to us.

John Mccain will do nothing more than finish the horrible job that George Bush has begun and in turn render this country third world and destitute.Barack Obama IS the answer,and he will loosen the grip on medical weed.McCain will just change his mind over and over like always and nothing will get done.And rest assured,if something does get done it will be anti weed and not pro.

Maybe Obama will bring back McCaffrey. Things were so much better when the Democrats ran drug policy. (Yes, I am being sarcastic.)

you are either a liar, a stubborn fool, a political tool, or just a troll. It has been proven several times, in several different places, links, quotes, and situations, you either didn't look at them, refuse to look at them, refuse to believe what is right in front of you, or are intentionally lying about what you've been shown. Not to mention your allegation that he had "just as many times implied the opposite" has nothing behind it, what's the closest thing to that, the hand raiseing incident at the debate? already been cleared up, but I bet you'll cling to that to reinforce your false beliefs and convince yourself that you're right, even though you're wrong. Talk about only hearing what you want, you can't hear anything that you haven't said yourself.

You are either just mistaken/gullible , taken in by the hype or plain stupid "Bub " . He has never promised anything on that subject . I'd ask for the proof , as I have many times , but NOBODY can come up with it .
He has only implied that he would look into it , and just as many times implied the opposite . Are you one of those people that only hear what you want to hear ? Headlines don't count and just as important , reading between the lines doesn't count either .
Punk ? lol .. good thing you don't have to back that up either .

Yeah, he did, he promised several times to end raids on medical marijuana patients, and not "in headlines", in person, and in interviews. What is your deal with constantly denying the truth that he did? You got an axe to grind or something? go stick that axe up your ass, bub. There's enough disinformation about him out there without punks like you adding to it.

Obama has never made any promise about ending weed raids OR legislation/De-criminalization . Its just a fact . Headline don't count .

Drug abuse as a growing experience? oh yeah, that'll fly, let cokeheads and methheads beat their wives and rob and kill and steal and suck dick for coke money but don't punish them for trying to open their minds, that's what you're saying, right? it's all good because it's for personal freedom, and we have no right to interfere with the massive harm he does to himself and especially others because of his uncontrolable need to feed his addiction to dangerous drugs, they just want to grow as people, that's all, right? ODing is his personal choice, right? who cares if someone wants to cook meth and poison his neighbors by doing so, the gov't has no buisness interfering with that, it's his right to accidentally blow up his apartment building. It's not like there's laws against suicide, right? Look, I get what you're doing, trying to tie the personal choice angle to every drug, even the worst ones, just because I pointed out that pot is different than "other drugs" and that some drugs should be illegal, you assume I'm some sort of "moralist", however I think you're delusional to think that all drugs should be legal, people talk about how the CIA invented drugs to destroy certain people, and you're advocating that all drugs should be legal, ignoring the fact that many drugs are very harmful and the world is much better off with them illegal, pot is not one of those drugs, obviously, in fact I don't even consider it a drug, as I said before. However you trying to pass off the arguement that all drugs should be legal under the guise of personal growth is beyond rediculous. People who understand the danger that complete legalization of all drugs poses end up seeing pot legalization as a stepping stone for legalization of all drugs, which it shouldn't be. I support pot being completely legal, even if it's one step at a time, but I don't support every drug being legal. your artfully written post is part of the reason pot is still illegal. they fear even a fully justified legaliztion of pot would lead people to say "pot is legal, why not This?" you say exposeure to harmful drugs will let people know of it's harmful effects faster, and that antidrug laws prevent that from happening, well in case you haven't noticed, PEOPLE ARE USING ANYWAY, and they are suffering first hand, people already know how bad it is, but they can't stop now. you'd prefer it if everyone who want's to try a dangerous and addictive drug is free to do so, provided they "learn a lesson", however I'd prefer it if they learned it from those who came before them, and did not have access to those drugs, thereby not ruining their lives just to understand, would you have poisons out in the open to let whoever wants to know how deadly it is try them to find out? It's like putting a fence in front of a cliff, people should know not to stand on the edge, that the wind could knock them off or they could slip, but sometimes safety comes first, and it's better to prevent someone from falling than to let them fall, as they might not know of the people who fell before them.

As in using standard medical judgement and not just handing out pot Rx's to anyone who asks, obviously. what did you think it meant? I think you're reaching. oh and as for the part of the quote you skipped, after "I will tell you.." is "I want to be honest with you whether I want to use a whole lot of political capital on that issue when we’re trying to get health care passed or end the war in iraq is ... the likelihood of that being real high on my list is not likely." In other words, he's already got alot of shit to deal with first, cleaning up after bush's mess. But that doesn't mean he won't do anything about it. and where's the quote supporting your claim that he "reversed course" on decrim? I don't see one... you put to much faith in newspapers and speculation. and by the way, even biden said "yes!" when asked if he supported ending the raids on medical marijuana patients.

Here is a great read!!
Why the drug war is a crime against humanity,explained in plain english.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3608.shtml

Maybe Obama can understand this

"Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote"-- Ben Franklin, 1759"

Come on punk. I cant wait to bitch slap you yet again!!

The Absolute Moralist, in his role as Anti-Drug Crusader determines which substances are bad for you. He, along with other crusaders, pushes to get laws passed restricting these "noxious" substances. The drug user, with the threat of jail staring him in the face, is told that he can no longer use them. Obviously there is something wrong. The actions of the Anti-Drug crusader are illogical. The individual owns himself, how can these people tell him what he can and cannot consume? The truth is evident, the Anti-Drug Crusader dosen't accept the fact the individual owns himself. He believes the state or "society" owns the individual, and any rights granted to him are special privileges.

Drug use is one of the many steps some individuals go through. Some people use them to learn new ways to tap the powers of the subconcious,after the techniques are learned, they discontinue the use of drugs and move on to more natural ways of expanding awareness. Others moderately use drugs in certian social settings or when listening to music or watching TV. Although some people wreck their lives through drug abuse, must we also destroy the lives of individuals who are going through a necessary step in their development? It is a crime to interfere with someones personal development. It is even a greater crime to wreck his life by imprisoning him, and practically ruining his chances for a successful career.

It has been proven through history that individuals learn from their own experiences, than they learn from government edicts. If a drug has harmful effects, allowing unrestricted use will expose them faster, thereby discouraging people from using it. Anti-Drug legislation prevents this from happening.

@Obama lemming
Thanks for showing us, Your and Obama's true colors, The Color of the Absolute moralist!

To Obama Bots:

Obama *does not* support marijuana decrim.

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama said during a debate at Northwestern University. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."

When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama's campaign offered two explanations to the Times in less than 24 hours. At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting his 2004 statement was correct. Then after the Times posted copies of the video on its Web site today, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use.

"If you're convicted of a crime, you should be punished, but that we are sending far too many first-time, non-violent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws," Vietor said. The spokesman blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the conflicting answers.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/31/obama-flip-flops-on-pot/

"...I would not punish doctors if it's prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law. I will tell you that...the likelihood of that being real high on my list is not likely..."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/15/1641/60593

Now what does "in a way that is appropriate" mean? lol

The serfs can only guess...and trusting a politician is a bit ridiculous don't ya think? Maybe ask Joey "drug czar" Biden, he ought to know!

I believe you .

I resent your implication.

Everybody but you .

Who's "us"?

you sure do feel you have to explain a lot ....very often .
Ever wondered why ?
Clue: no , it ain't us .............

Sadly, you show up to spin some more, HU, now try hard to grasp the following, lets start with "you must be arrested to get to a drug court", yes, and with marijuana decriminalized like it is in many states, and with obama's support for decriminalization,(Yes, he does support marijuana decrim, look it up if you think I'm lying, but I'm not lying.) you would only recieve a fine if caught with pot, and would not be arrested. To answer your question about drug courts, you said it yourself, "drug courts only serve to manifest the idea that drug usage is wrong", use of drugs like meth, coke, angeldust, and the others is wrong, it's harmful and bad for society, but cannabis is not a drug, not in the conventional or unconventional sense, and it should not be treated like the other drugs, thus the decriminalization, besides, even if you're growing or whatever, you'll end up with community service or a fine instead of jail, at least until those laws are eventually repealed as well, then you'll have nothing to worry about, and with a reasonable person like obama in the chair we probably could get the whole law changed and end the prohibition completely within 8 years. no chance of that with mccain. which brings me to this, you said this election is "a choice of how fast I want to see our nation destroyed. I don't want to see our nation destroyed... that is why I will be voting for a third party candidate" so, you believe that if obama is elected that "the nation will be destroyed", and you call ME a simpleton, lol... you somehow believe the myth mccain created that obama is a danger to this country? or is it some other paranoid delusion of your own? whatever it is, you know it's not based in reality, or maybe you don't, I hear most crazy people don't know they're crazy, thanks for demonstrating it. Also thinking that convincing people into voting third will do anything BUT shift the percentages for mccain, sad. and BTW thank YOU for giving me the opportunity do disprove the spin against obama, you set it up I knock it down, although it's been 10 frames, you can stop anytime, or maybe you can't, because it's what you are programmed to do, and you always set something up for the next guy. and looks like you're the one puking up the bullshit you've been fed all over the keyboard, but you still gobble it up and keep puking out the same shit all over the internet, thats some eating disorder. you should mention that to your therapist. also mention the fact that you think you're winning this arguement, that's a big one.

@ Obama Lemming
Lets review. You must be arrested (busted) to get to a Court or Drug court. Court is where cases are adjudicated and aquitals or convictions are rendered. Understand yet, Simpleton?
In a drug court plea bargins are used to render a conviction. Drug courts only serve to manifest the idea that drug usage is wrong. Do you understand my aversion to drug courts yet, Simpleton?


I enjoy watching you destroy your Obama's support here at the HT site. With your boorish, fact-less, ad nauseam postings. You are doing more to rally 3rd party support than all of my posts have. Keep up the good work!

As to your request that I make a choice between the Dem-publican or the Republi-crat. Is like asking me to choose between Hitler or Mussolini. A choice of how fast that I want to see our nation destroyed. I dont want to see our nation destroyed. Understand yet,Simpleton?
That is why I will be voting for a 3rd party candidate. Understand yet, Simpleton?
I can understand you having to puke . Why with all of the words that you have had to eat lately. Understand yet,Simpleton?
How does it feel to be bitch slapped again,Simpleton?
Isn't it time that you got a job and a life and moved out of your mama's basement, Simpleton? You have way to much time on your hands.
Good Day.

@ Obama lemming
Lets review. One must be arrested(busted)to get to a Court or drug court. Understand yet, Simpleton? The court system is where cases are adjudicated and aquital's or convictions are rendered. Understand yet, Simpleton?
In a drug court plea bargin conviction's are rendered. Drug courts only manifest the idea that drug usage is wrong. Do you understand my aversion to drug courts yet, Simpleton?
I enjoy watching you single handedly destroy your Obama's support here at the HT site. With your boorish, factless, ad nauseam postings. Your posts do far more to rally 3rd party support,than all of my posts.

As to your request that I answer your hypothetical question of a choice between the Dem-publican or the Republi-crat. That is like asking me to choose between Hitler or Mussolni. A choice of how fast I want to see our nation destroyed.
I dont want to see our nation destroyed. That is why I will be voting for a 3rd party candidate. Understand yet,Simpleton?
How does it feel to be bitch slapped yet again? Simpleton.
Good Day!

Never said you made the claim , but you have helped spread the myth . Same thing .Your judgement is badly flawed on that issue which doesn't inspire any faith that you know what you're talking about at all .

because I'm not the one who called it a promise, the articles did, and stop lumping the raids issue with the complete legalization issue, one thing at a time, he has stated several times on record that he would end the raids on medical marijuana patients, and that doing so may require a change in federal law, which is what we need to do to make any progress at all when it comes to effectively changing pot laws or ending the prohibition. Now he may not have used the words "I promise", but statements on policy rarely do.

# 8 .. Obama has never promised to end any raids and promised nothing on legalization/de-criminalization . You don't know what constitutes a promise .

no, he isn't "communist" or whatever just for wanting to undo the bush tax plan, it's the smart thing to do. It is not a "redistribution of wealth", that's just what mccain is calling it. you really want to take advice and get your facts on obama's plan from mccain? thats like going to an ice cream truck to buy a mattress, it just won't happen.

dude, you've said that like 7 times now, and for the seventh time, You are wrong. You know that you are wrong, it's been proven several times now, but everytime I say something significant, you come back with that same tired lie right after it, YOU are the one who is repeating it over and over hoping that someone thinks it's true, IT'S NOT. Stop lying to yourself and everyone here, you're full of shit.

Oh god, if Obama gets elected he'll want me to spread my weed around just like my wealth.

It'll grow from income redistribution to smoke redistribution. (sarcasm, but still... to hell with the marxist/communist/socialist bullshit!)

I say people should get a damn job and buy their own damn weed!

has never promised anything about ending raids legalization
or de-criminalization . Wishful thinking doesn't count . You think if you say it enough times it becomes reality ? I can provide links to places that will tell you the easter bunny is real , but that doesn't make it so either .

Drug courts still meaning busted, you say? so having a judge tell you to go do communtiy service or spend a couple weeks in rehab meetings is the same as mandatory minimum sentences in prison? I think not!
You claim to have examined obama's voting recond, and you claim he's "bush lite", hang on, that's so much spin I want to throw up, here I go.... ok, now, I've done some reading and I think this link here will simplify and show at least some of the ways in which that is bullcrap, I've also looked at lists of exact votes, but listing every "yea, nay and not voting" would be pointless, so here's a link for you to check out, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23276453/ , it's two pages, just click 2 at the bottom when finished with the first page, obviously. now, If you want to compare anyone to bush, mccain is bush cubed, you know, exponentially worse, bush vodka, a whole gallon of it, you know that. oh and about congressman braLey, so what if one congressman from iowa didn't kiss your ass, you gonna bitch about that for the rest of your life? you assume it represents an overwhelming steriotype of all democrats, how childish. stop stretching the truth, you're ripping it. and about ron paul, he IS stabbing you in the back. he knows he has zero chance at being the president in '09, yet he intentionally stuck around telling fairy tales about him wanting to legalize pot and end all gov't programs like the IRS and SS and medicaid, putting a worm on a hook, a hook you bit into hard, and now you're being reeled in while you think you're just swimming, and what happens next? you vote for him, math gets fuzzy, mccain gets elected. why else don't republican leaders put him in check? because it's the same trick they pull every time, and suckers like you keep falling for it. and this "lesser of two evils" line your type keeps using, heard the same thing in 2000, you thought gore was just as evil as bush and it didn't matter, who's laughing now? I'll tell you, NOBODY, because bush has seriously fucked things up thanks to you people and it's not funny anymore. when you say lesser of two evils, have you ever considered that the "lesser" one might not be evil? maybe that evil was exagerated? or at the very least, that one might be WAY less evil than the other, like how pot is much less evil than murder? is pot still evil? according to your math it is. but I have to say, your math is wrong, and you need to consider the fact that obama is much less evil than mccain, by a wide margin. they are not at all the same. and there are significant differences in how they would handle the white house, if you can't see that, and still think it doesn't matter who wins, then you are in no position to give anyone advice on politics, you are blind, stop trying to direct traffic.

Medical marijuana is nothing to be afraid of, while keeping the names of legal marijuana patients safe is important, currently federal laws are the only reason that raids keep happening in california to medical MJ patients, and federal law is exactly what obama will change. Once that federal law is changed, there's absolutly no reason for police to want those names, not to mention that once that federal law is gone states are free to choose their own laws regarding cannabis, of course that depends on if the law is changed completely or if just an exeption is made for medical pot, both will protect sick people who need marijuana's medical benifits, but a complete and simple change in the federal laws will open up a world of good possibilities like industrial hemp, and all out legalization. In short, federal law is the real reason police even try to catch pot smokers, and once it's changed, and the states change their laws(which is already starting) then the prohibition will be at an end, if it's done right, and if not, it will be headed twards the end. In closing, Don't fear the medical Reefer!

you people with your crazy mixed up nonsense theories about police state controls and "It's all the same" attitude, don't be rediculous.

Obama (amen )has never made any promise to stop weed raids .
Obama ( amen ) has never promised to do anything concerning mmj .
Obama ( amen ) has in fact made it known that he feels the exact opposite on the subject .

Obama -ites 13:45
And Obama (amen ) said -ith to himselves "thou art surely somebody now . See how the peasants flock to hear the words that have-ith not come from my orafice ?" to which the smart-ith people replied in unison "Thou doth speak sideways and backwards and have much to account for once the 'tards
have -ith awaken from their stupor " . As this was so , Obama said " got it covered homey , I never-ith said what has-ith been implied " .

.gov

Yo, heres how to solve everyones problems. The US government should finally legalize weed, but set up a system the same as alcohol.
1. Charge for a liscense to grow, and or sell..
2. Tax to buy the same way that we do for tobaco or liquar.
The only problem is that anyone can grow it anywhere, so it will be harder for the government to control it, but those are the people who should be fined or imprisoned. In about 10 years no one will remember the days of feeling guilty for hittin a bowl or smoking a blunt. Other countries have done it and everyone knows that AMERICA is so fucked that we dont even realize that our laws is what makes us look so bad. This plant is the most used of all the illegal drugs but is safer than tobaco, or alcahol. no one gets weed poisening like alcahol. and real bud doesnt have all the added shit wich an everyday ciggaret has. the government is talkin all this shit about being broke and owing money. than take a page from a broke student and flip what little money you have to pay rent re-up and bank the rest. DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH MONEY THE GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE OFF THIS IN JUST 5 YEARS. THINK ABOUT IT.

IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS HIT ME UP AT TIBURON_NOIR_BLACK@MSN.COM

Say what you will. At least I can comprehend what I read.
Drug courts means that you still are BUSTED-dum ass!
I have examined Obamas voting record in the US Senate. Execpt for his vote against the war in Iraq. Obama is just Bush lite, no change just more of the same BS.
As for democraps in general. My congressman-Braely,Democrap- wont even entertain the idea of Barney Franks pot bill. So as I told him. No vote for you or anyone in your party.


Even Republican Ron Paul has supported Barney Franks bill.
I will write in Ron Paul. I wont be fooled by a candidate that smiles in your face and then stabs me in the back.

On another note. How do you cut taxes and still pay down a national debt that just climbed past 10 trillion dollars?
Talk about bold faced lies. That Obama sounds more like Bush everyday.
Oh I get it, the more that things stay the same the more they change.Double speak,anyone? Obama/Mc cain, same shit different piles

A choice between the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Good day

to be perfectly honest i dont kno y everybody wants marijuana to be excepted as a medical drug even tho its a drug you still cant legally posses it unless yor sick and your just paying the govt more of your well hard earn american dollars think about it now your helping the big business medical compananies and your helping the law enforcement keeping those lawyers,police and judges walk into a cort room and look at the names on the wall and see what people are there for mari j at least half the judical and police will loose way to much money thats y they are trying to make us beleive that medicine is the way to go thats how they are shutting the people up trying to reason with us but its all b.s. now for barack obama he said he was down for decrimminalation not legalization wake up america we are in a police state its all capitalism its no longer for the people its for the rich and dont get me going on the police state cause it is sorry to say that thats how they control the people yes they do come in hand but they just there to feed the money machines think about the fines and all the non sense laws out there like noise violation or no seat beat just another reason to pull you over to make more money off the people its like the gestopo of the 21st century

but no, you munch yourself, he did say what I said he said, he and several others promised to end raids on medical marijuana patients no matter how many times you say he didn't. he does encourage the use of the drug courts as opposed to prison, and no, I'm not an anti drug crusader, you fucking spinning trash talking punk ass dumbass mccain dick suckers! you'r just mad at me because I pointed out how STUPID YOUR PLAN TO MAKE EVERYONE VOTE THIRD IS. You haven't stopped attacking me and everything I said since. and to clarify the only thing that I said that was even slightly wrong was the notion that his drug use was a mistake, I've heard it said elsewhere that he said "his drug use was a mistake" and of course his use of coke was a mistake, later on I found the WHOLE quote, the one I posted that says "I did"(inhale) and it was "a mistake as a young man", not a huge mistake, as if he has nightmares about it, there are other quotes like he smoked pot "to push questions of who I was out of my mind", but that's besides the point, You think I'm full of it, but really, you have nothing but bullshit coming out of your mouth, you still can't answer the one question I've asked you, and BTW, calling me an anti drug crusader when you're the one who wants to trash and smear and rally people to vote against the only major (as in "has half a chance") candidate who will do a damn thing to change pot laws is far beyond hypocracy, it's lunacy.

Here is the beginning your post under "short version"


Oct 15 2008, 10:21 pm
encourages use of drug courts INSTEAD OF PRISON TERMS. His use of COKE was a mistake, never said pot by name was a mistake. ME as an anti drug crusader? A desperate attack on me by you,. NOT!

Munch munch those words.

It has become evident to everyone reading here that you are full of crap

Obama has not promised to do anything about ending raids or decriminalization . The links you speak of do not reveal any promises . They are headlines meant to grab your attention .
Nowhere in any of them does Obama make any promises and thats the clincher . He has never made the statemnent attributed to him . And THATS my point . Whether you believe it or not doesn't change anything . Spinning , hyping and wishful thinking doesn't count in the real world . You're just hearing what you want to hear regardless of what was said .

he's taking a more centerist stance to back the valid arguements behind reform, I had a better post written a few minutes ago, but somehow when I clicked "preview" it said "internet explorer cannot display this webpage" and it was lost, so I'll have to make this quicker, although theres more to say now. his comparison of pot to morphine was clearly only on the basis that they both have medicinal use, though pot is much more useful than simple painkillers, as anyone who's looked at medical marijuana's benifits can tell you, however morphine is clearly worse and more addictive than pot, no comparison on that level and I don't think he was saying they were the same in that sense, or that there's "little difference between the two", as for the quote to the question "did you inhale?" "I did, it's not something I'm proud of. It was a mistake as a young man" again, being centerist and being careful, that doesn't mean he's the "anti drug crusader" you claim he is, especially considering the other quotes and positions and actions he's taken. this really makes me wish my other post had not gotten erased by that stupid error, I spent so much time writing it and it was a great post with lots of good points, but in any case, to wrap this up (because someone else needs the computer) you're overreacting, and I know that sounds shallow but you are. you need to take other things into consideration. Besides, mccain will not do anything AT ALL for the cause, Obama will at least make some progress on it, like stopping raids on medical marijuana patients by changing federal law, and I read something about him "letting states decide", how much progress he will make is debatable I guess, But we both KNOW that mccain is against medical marijuana, PERIOD. Obama will make at least some progress twards common sense and clear a path twards our goal, like he said, "if the science suopports it" and IT DOES, so there's nothing to worry about, we both know that the facts and science support legalizing it, why else would we all support it, we understand that the facts demand the laws be changed, all that needs to happen now is to have a president who will listen to the facts, and the only one of the two who will do that is Obama, period.

November 25th, 2007 by Ron Chusid

Barack Obama supports, with some reservations, legalization of medical marijuana. He not only admits that when he tried marijuana he inhaled, he mocks Bill Clinton’s denial:

When a voter asked Obama if he was for the legalization of medical marijuana, Obama said that he wasn’t in favor of legalization without scientific evidence and tight controls. Citing his mother who died from cancer young, Obama compared marijuana to morphine saying there was little difference between the two.

“My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain,” Obama said. “But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.”

But he added that he was concerned that the reasons for the use of marijuana would grow and create a “slippery slope.”

“I was feeling really tense, so I needed a joint,” Obama joked with the crowd of those who might try and undermine that type of system.

The question was followed up by another voter asking him, “Unlike other presidents, did you inhale?”

“I did,” Obama said to loud applause and laughter. “It’s not something that I’m proud of. It was a mistake … But you know, I’m not going to. I never understood that line. The point was to inhale. That was the point.”

Hey Obama lem