The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Marijuana: Legalization, decriminalization or status quo?
We're at it again tonight. Kari Simpson and I will host Episode 4 of Roadkill Radio this evening from 7:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m. Pacific. You can tune in and listen/watch at www.roadkillradio.com.
Another strong line-up for tonight's show. We'll start with a look at drugs and gangs, and ask if legalization of marijuana would solve or worsen the problem. Joining Kari and me in-studio will be John Conroy Q.C. John’s expertise is in criminal law and his clients include Marc Emery and the B.C. Compassion Club Society.
Next, we'll look at child pornography, and ask whether Canada is doing enough to fight this noxious plague. Joining us in person will be Doug Stead, a well-known and outspoken advocate for increasing the protection of children.
And, of course, we'll announce our weekly Roadkill Radio Warrior of the Week, and add another installment to our Tales from Van-Kook-er.
I say the penalties should be tripled, and a three strikes law implemented with a life sentence as the ultimate penalty. Drugs are for losers.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-03-24 12:37:16 PM
"Drugs are for losers." ZP
And prohibition is for statists.
John Conway will be great. I look forward to the show, Terry.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-03-24 12:53:48 PM
Zebulon... how can you say something like that... you arnt thinking about the well being of your fellow human But about How YOU should be able to decide what other people do with THEIR body...It violates your most basic Human Rights... What IF the Government Decided Hamburgers are illegal becaus they make people fat and they die...Hamburger Prohibition...it dosnt make sense dose it...When you tell people they cant ingest something you might be able to scare some people away from it... but there will always be a demand for it... thus creating a Black Market for it... people have been taking mind altering Substances since Ancient times... Prohibition dose not work It never has it never will... its up to People to be resposible.. and not kill themselves with it... but if they do it was their human right to do it. Prohibition has done NOTHING but Create a black market and The Organized crime that come along with it... while innocent people die because the government tries to control what you have a right to do... Everyone has every right to put anything the want in their own body... Includeing a bullet
Posted by: Black Dog | 2009-03-24 1:18:30 PM
Black Dog, his fellow humans aren't thinking about their own well-being if they're doing drugs.
If the government were to outlaw hamburgers, they'd have to outlaw the beef industry. Fat (pardon the pun) chance.
There will also always be a demand for underage prostitutes, professional arsonists, contract murderers...
People have been murdering one another since ancient times, too. Next.
People have no "basic human right" to off themselves unless they take steps to ensure the mess doesn't get on anyone else. They seldom do.
No, users created the black market. Those who'd rather have an idle distraction floated to them across a lake of blood than stay on the straight and narrow.
And what happens if the bullet passes through that person and does further damage downrange? Then what?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The single biggest obstacle to legalizing pot is pot users.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-24 1:39:36 PM
"We'll start with a look at drugs and gangs, and ask if legalization of marijuana would solve or worsen the problem."
What about executions? Will you also be talking about whether summarily executing narcotrafficantes would solve or worsen the problem? Will you note how drug abuse and gang violence is a feature of liberal democracy and how we should probably be moving away from a failed system?
Kill the drug dealers. They're all NDP supporters anyway, illiberal Marxist oppressors. Execute them publicly and the problem will be solved very quickly, just as in other countries that don't allow liberal democracy foolishness to ruin their societies. Put fear into the gangs of Vancouver instead of the other way around.
Posted by: No More Liberalism | 2009-03-24 1:58:25 PM
"his fellow humans aren't thinking about their own well-being if they're doing drugs." So you're going to force them to?
"People have been murdering one another since ancient times, too. Next." Doing harm to oneself and killing someone else is not the same thing. Next.
"No, users created the black market. Those who'd rather have an idle distraction floated to them across a lake of blood than stay on the straight and narrow." Black markets are created when external forces attempt to regulate the normal interaction between supply and demand. No regulation, no black markets and no violence.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-03-24 1:58:54 PM
Many learned people/ committees etc. have been calling for the legalization of Cannabis for many years.
Unfortunately, they encounter much opposition from uninformed, hypocritical rubes ie. Stephen Harper, Shane Matthews and Nancy Reagan types.
Talibanish in their hypocritical ways.
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-03-24 2:49:29 PM
"...Next, we'll look at child pornography..."
hey do your own thing man, but maybe don't tell us about your private choices in literature here, OK?..
maybe a better way of phrasing that would have been
"... next we will _discuss or _investigate child pornography.."
take a hint from the worst speller to have ever posted on these WS discussion forums
with this sort of ramp up we can hardly wait to hear Marc Emery's handler go on about drugz "n Gangz - not only is Mr Conroy a lawyer bailing out pot felons like a taxi driver during the Superbowl - but the good Mr Conroy is also- the head of NORML Canada-
Now we don't know if he has secret bookshelves that rotate to change his lawyers office into a pot flag draped activsist cell - like we read in the funny papers----but
His NORML franchaise anti prohibition fanclub that has indeed been in the pot happyface business longer than Emery himself, and hey, ask them how overturning the pot laws is coming along ?
Fourty years of
not exactly happening
--thanks to viewers like you
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-24 3:07:57 PM
"Kill the drug dealers. They're all NDP supporters anyway, illiberal Marxist oppressors." -- No More Liberalism
Actually, drug dealers support prohibition. It's what creates fat profits, without which they would be replaced by mainstream retailers with profit margins similar to those selling sugar or tomatoes.
It's very odd to support executions for drug dealers while criticizing opponents as being illiberal and oppressive. In fact, your online handle “No More Liberalism” would imply that you are not interested in liberalism.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-03-24 3:32:13 PM
I've said it before and it's worth repeated: legalization will not yield any economic benefits. Drug dealers will not all of a sudden start to remit revenue to the government. They will continue to avoid it, as do those who have gardens, make their own alcohol, and the like. Hence, there is no viable economic argument to support legalization. In fact, it would lead to increased enforcement. So, there.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-03-24 3:44:16 PM
"Zebulon Pike", sounds like you're on some religious mission...
Settle down, there are plenty of economic arguments for pot. I'm shocked you actually think there aren't any.
1) Stop enforcing a victimless crime to either save money or shift the allocation of resources to serious crime.
2) Harmless potheads who are in jail (this does not include gangs/grow ops) will no longer be burdening our jails with their visit, but instead working and contributing income tax.
3) Legilization should most definitely take the same route Tobacco and Alcohol did. Tax and regulation. This pulls the rug out from under the black market. You likened it to them making "their own alcohol". Yes, we understand that to be true, there will be some persistent people growing, but that black market will no longer be profitable and it will just be easier to buy the product from a regulated business. That is why the number of people with homemade alcohol stills is not an issue.
So there you have it, 3 solid economical points for a drug which has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to be less harmful that Tobacco and Alcohol.
Posted by: pot | 2009-03-24 4:18:30 PM
"So you're going to force them to?"
No, so I'm not going to think about it either.
"Doing harm to oneself and killing someone else is not the same thing. Next."
Don't be dense; the point is that because a practice used to be common does not mean it should be legal today. Next.
"Black markets are created when external forces attempt to regulate the normal interaction between supply and demand. No regulation, no black markets and no violence."
Not even from the Assassins' Guild and private military companies?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-24 6:10:36 PM
Many learned people/ committees etc. have been calling for the legalization of Cannabis for many years.
And many more have not.
Unfortunately, they encounter much opposition from uninformed, hypocritical rubes ie. Stephen Harper, Shane Matthews and Nancy Reagan types. Talibanish in their hypocritical ways.
No hypocrisy here, Jeff; I don't smoke dope. And do you seriously hope to win a debate based on ad hominem alone? Insults are the tool of the impotent.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-24 6:13:04 PM
1. What criminals support does not matter. Criminals are the enemy. One does not negotiate or compromise with criminals.
2. I see nothing odd about removing from the picture these traffickers in human misery. A lot of kids who get hooked on drugs don't know any better at the time. These lowlifes take full advantage of that, with full support from you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-24 6:15:56 PM
1. "Victimless crime" is a canard in the vein of "Why are you writing me a traffic ticket when there are murderers on the loose?" The pros of marijuana simply do not outweigh the cons. The whole world, except for fringe groups, is convinced of this.
2. People rarely, if ever, receive jail time for simple possession of marijuana. Hell, even growers and dealers can usually avoid jail the first couple of convictions. This is another red herring popular among the marijuana lobby.
3. Drug gangs would still flourish if pot were legalized in Canada because much of the gangs' income comes from export to other countries where it would still be illegal. The Netherlands has had to crack down on pot coffee shops because drug tourists were becoming too much of a problem. It would only stand a chance if most of the world came along for the ride. Good luck with that.
4. So you're saying that if marijuana were consumed to the same extent that tobacco and alcohol now are, we wouldn't notice a difference? But for its illegality, what is stopping people from using it more often?
That's the trouble with potheads; their claims defy logic. Chief among them being that reduced supply leads to increased consumption.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-24 6:22:31 PM
hey let';s debate the merits of ending the drug war..
ATTENTION ALL WIPEHEADS:
: quit marijuana cocaine heroin and all other controlled substances immediately - dry up the demand on your end shut down the global drug black market- taper off the wicked police oppression,- seal up the gangs sweep up the spent cartridges, crack pipes needles and roaches and call it a day..
Its so true only evil criminals support prohibition, so that annoying facet gets flushed at the same time as instant restoration of health, happiness and safety-- billions of dollars fly back into the pockets of the rehab all stars-prisons empty, families re unite- hookers go back to school-
Just say no to drugs ,
and this time-
really mean it
So when the wipeheads give up dope like good people give up asbestos, lawn darts and studded tires- we will have accomplished something beautiful and useful..
Marc Emery will be released from his US prison to serve proudly as the Canadian Federal Justice Minister..Scientology itself will make sence once everybody is clear.. hemp will grow in the streets of Utopia and Bobs yer Uncle..
the drug war is over
if you want it..
do it for Yoko Ono
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-24 6:51:46 PM
But they don't want it, 419; that's the point. They don't want to do their part in ending the violence; they want society to retool itself so what they do won't cause violence.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-24 7:12:45 PM
So Shane, Dude, why wouldn't good people not want to jetison drugs? Is it because anti prohibitionists secretly like being chased down , because its sort of exciting.. and somewhat better being public enemy number 800,000 than being a nobody at all on facebook 420 ?
IF THEY HAVE ALL THIS SO CALLED FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND PERSONAL AUTONOMY, WHY WOULDN'T THEY WANT TO TURN AWAY FROM BEING TOXIC ASSHOLES AND BECOMING THE SWELL PEOPLE OF PEACE WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT?
ya that sentiment demands cap lock, & you know it
answer me that? and don't spare the ad hommins.. and while you're at it-- maybe clarify the burning question that pot is safer than alcohol and tobacco which are _not safe, at all - but pot is still unsafe, but not _as unsafe as these other stupid toxic heavily taxed things-
so when in the chain of social re configuration does making a drug legal make it safe??
how about- ever??
enquiring minds want to know
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-24 8:48:02 PM
Because they're not good people, 419.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-24 10:04:25 PM
Cleared that up , thanks
on to the next outrage
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-24 11:06:05 PM
On a slightly more elevated plane, there's an interview with Chancellor Christopher Patten - Lord Patten of Barnes - in the most recent Oxford Today magazine (Hilary term, 2009). For those of you who don't know, he has had a distinguished and varied political career in the Conservative Party since the 1960s, including being Governor of Hong Kong from 1992-97.
The interview is about his new book, "What's Next? Surviving the Twenty-first Century." He says:
"One subject we haven't debated sufficiently openly is the almost complete failure of a drugs policy... I don't myself favour legalization, though the argument for it at least deserves to be explored without moral approbation simply driving the debate. What I do favour is distinguishing between production, manufacture and distribution, on the one hand, and use on the other. I don't see the point in locking up users. I think drug use is a public health issue and should be dealt with by mandatory registration and treatment, and not by incarceration. We have doubled the number of people in our prisons for drug offenses, and trebled the length of the sentences, but there are now still 280,000 dependent drug users in England and 50,000 in Scotland."
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-03-25 3:06:53 AM
"We have doubled the number of people in our prisons for drug offenses, and trebled the length of the sentences, but there are now still 280,000 dependent drug users in England and 50,000 in Scotland."
That's a flaw of liberal democracy, not of prohibition. Plenty of countries have managed the problem better than we have, primarily through superior fire power than the druglords. Execute the bastards in public like they do in civilized countries.
Retired politicians love talking about decrim for the same reason the support fighting AGW: because they don't have to implement it. Not a coincidence Chretien went pro-pot after he announced his resignation.
Canada leads the world in marijuana consumption; how does a nation of stoners compete economically against, say, our FILTHy (Failed in London? Try Hong Kong!) friend Patten's old stomping grounds, Hong Kong? Answer: not very well.
Thanks for helping to ruin the Canadian economy, Marc Emery. Encouraging young Canadians to toke at a time when drug testing in the workplace is increasing and when we are having trouble competing, wow, what a pal he is to young impressionable kids and Canadian taxpayers.
Posted by: JOPKE | 2009-03-25 3:32:03 AM
Grant, users are not, virtually without exception, locked up, and they certainly don't do penitentiary time. In fact, it usually takes two or three busts before even a dealer gets locked up in this country.
However, his Lordship is wrong. The users are the engine that drives this underground economy. These are sadistic and despicable people who know about the violence the drug gangs cause, yet buy from them anyway, because what's a few lives lost, when they can get high?
In a way, users are worse than the dealers, because the dealer is just filling a market demand, whereas it is the user's insistence on getting high, even to the cost of the lives of others, that keeps the whole sordid business alive. And thanks to the philosophy of the day--and a generation of judges who probably sympathize because so many of them dabbled in drugs when they were younger--the users get off virtually scot free.
Nor is drug use a disease. The insane drive to pathologize behaviour and character traits seems to know no end; now even obesity is seen as a disease, when the fact of the matter is that if you take in fewer calories than you consume, you will lose weight; it is a mathematical inevitability. Drug addiction is not a disease because there is no underlying pathology. It causes health problems, granted, but labeling it as a disease removes the accountability from where it is most needed: with the addict.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-25 6:32:37 AM
"... I think drug use is a public health issue and should be dealt with by mandatory registration and treatment, and not by incarceration. ..."
Lord Patten seems to suggest wipeheads get captured, tagged and pushed into classrooms with ankle transmitters for re education, tucked into hospital beds for long haul deep tissue ix ups or exiled into logging camps to work and re interface with nature.. His idea is a softly spoken buffalo hunt on drug users wing them with out morality, and either chain them up in a drug lab or kill them so they won;t end up as prisoners in a zoo..
And since when do the wipeheads honour the words of old privligded white Overlords commanding colonial outposts regarding drug policy 15.000 miles away ?
Has Marc Emery invited _him over to the house for a few bong rips and a interview on POT-TV ? Not yet, not yet
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-25 10:21:47 AM
Here's an amusing and informative article from The Times journalist Caitlin Moran on her weed smoking days.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-26 7:53:52 AM
we note more mainstream people are standing up and saying out loud that pot messed them up and that their stoner years were shallow and vague..- the weed itself- not prohibition- did this the chemistry of marijuana interfered with their enjoyment of life-- they do not blame the law for becoming poisoned retards -
- then they quit, defragged their heads and rational life slowly returned to them..and there was just a vague sooty stain in their memory of sustained stonerism years-
- same deal as the Assassins slipped hashish by the old man of three Mountain- they became so much silly putty --and this is basically the main message in the film Reefer Madness- ditto for Cheech & Chong as old fart cannabis slugs--
but of course, there are always some tag ins who state they smoke all day long and are productive uh -- uh-- people,-- better than anybody - thus demonstrating the ego bitch slapping effects of THC..
legalize pot on this planet?
doesn't look like it will ever happen in our lifetime
mainly because most people don't want it legal
especially after all these blowback negative effects
we can see for ourselves
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-26 10:48:47 AM
The levels of fear and ignorance in this thread are alarming.
There are many, MANY, highly successful people who partake of the Holy Herb - People such as Barack Obama (got to be US Prez), Michael Phelps (won more Olympic gold medals than anyone, EVER), Carl Sagan (World-renown scientist), Rodney Dangerfield (famous comedian), Bill Maher (comedian and talk show host), Sarah Silverman (comedienne), Lester Grinspoon (Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School), Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, Conan O'Brien, Ernest Hemmingway, George Washington, various Chinese Emperors, Jack Nicholson, Jane Fonda, Joan Rivers, Lord Byron the Poet, John Kennedy, John Wayne, various Egyptian Pharaohs, Thomas Jefferson, Walt Disney, William Shakespeare, the list goes on and on and on. . . so all these world-famous, highly-successful people are "wipeheads?" (whatever the hell that means; maybe if you got an education you'd use real words instead of making stuff up)
So, you just sit there, frightened out of what little wits you have and suck on your beer bottle. . . leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by: Reverend Draco | 2009-03-26 12:15:19 PM
a wipehead doesn't know what a "wipehead" is?
come on clean our your screen and try again-- you do _so know what a Wipehead is, all mystic druggies do
various Egyptian Pharohs were wipeheads? did you read this on their personal facebook sites or is this a rumour
***BTW your shopping list missed Super Stoner Freedom skydiver # 003 The prince of Pot -- ladies & gentleman-- Marc Emery
and of course,
the esteemed, wise, and time machine name dropper
bong bustin' superstar: Rev Draino---- him/herself
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-26 12:50:30 PM
Some of you guys must be the proverbial "life of the party" whenever you pry yourselves away from your PC.
Posted by: Buddha Chan | 2009-03-26 4:23:16 PM
Here we go again, Reverend; "Many, many." "Many, many." In a country of 300 million, or even 30 million, that word means absolutely nothing. It could mean ten or twenty-five million. Lots of "highly successful people" have cheated on their wives, stolen other people's property, or even committed murder (or more likely hired it done). It's not a justification for anything.
"Holy herb," indeed. Like I said, pot's biggest obstacle on the road to respectability is the flaky, deluded, self-indulgent mental midgets who use it. If more than a handful of those people did use pot, there aren't many here today pushing for legalization. "Many" of them are ashamed to admit they've ever smoked it.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-26 5:16:52 PM
Well, Mr.Matthews, at least you recognized Pot was on the road to respectability. Maybe you will be the life of the party some day.
Posted by: buddha chan | 2009-03-27 7:25:33 AM
At the moment it's more like a dirt track, Buddha. A dirt track through a tangled jungle ending at a bottomless chasm with pot users busily dismantling the only bridge. Politically speaking, they're their own worst enemy. Case in point: "Pot" is not a proper noun; therefore "pot" should not be capitalized, save at the beginning of a sentence, quote, or independent clause preceded by a colon. (Bonus points if you can find more grammatical loopholes.)
As for me, I don't party. I don't need other people, or their approval, or mind-altering substances, to have a good time. My idea of unwinding is to rise before dawn and go on a twenty-five kilometre hike.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-27 7:48:07 AM
Posted by: buddha chan | 2009-03-27 7:29:55 PM
pot is so respectable that US President Obama won;t legalise it, flatly said no- and he has smoked it, so nobody can say he's ignorant of pots' effects ..
legalizing cannabis will not make it " respectable" - what will make cannabis "respectable" if that is possible is for wipeheads to actually start dealing with the fact that this substance is not a harmless magic thing -- its a potent drug that adversely affects the human brain..
__that would be some party
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-27 10:03:29 PM
Never heard the term wipehead before this - but then, I generally hang out with educated people, and leave the ignorant and illiterate to themselves.
And yes - MANY! Or were none of you able to comprehend what "the list goes on and on and on" means? If I were to give the entire list, I would not only run our of space, my fingers would cramp and it would wear out my keyboard. You ignorant freaks just love to claim how bad pot is for you (it isn't), yet when presented with any, ANY facts which are contrary to your narrow-minded, parochial world views, you have nothing to back it up with. For any instance you can show (if any) a negative or harmful effect, there are dozens(if not more) studies, research papers, end evidence of an empirical nature that says otherwise. Just for example - what are the exact numbers of deaths caused by marijuana in the approximately 1,826,250 days of recorded history? I'll give you a hint: Ancient Romans could not give this number because they did not have the concept of said number - it was invented by the Arabs. IF any of you were to spend the amount of time researching your "facts" as you do mindlessly spewing them, we wouldn't even be having this discussion - because you would know better. . . sometimes, you uneducated lemmings make me laugh. . . when I'm not feeling sorry for you.
Posted by: Reverend Draco | 2009-03-31 12:24:19 AM
More relaxing than hanging out with a room full of loud, obnoxious, and potentially stoned dopers, Buddha. If you want an experience like that, there's always bed.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-31 6:34:14 AM
"Educated" people, eh, Reverend? You mean college types, where marijuana use is common indeed. News flash: Having gone to college doesn't necessarily make you any more educated than the average schmo. Most graduates can't remember five years down the road most of what they studied. Dope might have something to do with that. :-)
As for your studies, cut the crap. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if smoking filtered tobacco can fry your lungs, than smoking unfiltered a substance containing far more tar than tobacco will also. And if you don't consider loss of short-term memory, loss of cognitive function, and an unbalanced endocrine system to be harmful (it shows!), good for you. Most of us respect our faculties more than that.
All you have on your side is your outrage. But then, that's typical of pot activists; they're mad at the world and smoke dope more to register their protest at they know not what than anything else.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-31 6:42:31 AM
By "educated," I mean people who have a clue, and the capacity for independent thought. . . unlike undereducated lemmings such as yourself who wouldn't recognize critical thinking if it hit them with a truck. By "educated," I mean people who have the intellectual capacity to learn a fact for themselves rather than accepting whatever propaganda they're fed.
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if smoking filtered tobacco can fry your lungs, than smoking unfiltered a substance containing far more tar than tobacco will also."
A familiar fallacy. . . if most people smoked cigarettes the way most people smoke pot, cigarettes would not cause lung damage either. . . it is the addiction and the chain smoking of cigarettes that cause the problems. Smoking a half-dozen cigarettes a day causes minimal damage, smoking a half-dozen joints a day even less.
"And if you don't consider loss of short-term memory, loss of cognitive function, and an unbalanced endocrine system to be harmful (it shows!), good for you. Most of us respect our faculties more than that."
What loss of cognitive function? You mean the loss of cognitive function that made Carl Sagan a famous scientist? Or the loss of cognitive function that allowed Michael Phelps to win more Olympic gold medals than anyone, ever? Or, do you mean the loss of cognitive function that propelled Barack Obama to the Presidency?
Unbalanced endocrine system? This is a new one to me. . . did you make this up recently? Or do you mean that not having THC in your system causes a chemical imbalance (since all vertebrates have Cannabinoid receptors, much like Dopamine and Serotonin receptors)?
Face it, you're just clueless, and trying way too hard to make people think you do. . . give it up, you're not fooling anyone.
Posted by: Reverend Draco | 2009-04-05 1:06:24 PM
let's nominate Rev Draco for a Nobel Prize for awesomeness.. by then he can finish typoing out the phonebooks of major world cities of Wipeheads who didn't die yet from cannabis..
Then he can co-star in the next Batman movie as the
" Bubbler "- Wipehead master intellect ( TM ) criminal apologist .demanding drug reality be rewritten to reflect his transient drugged up POV-- Then _Batman coms along, takes one sniff under the Revs' ": Secret Drug Research Room " door, detects the acrid stink of pot and then busts him .. drives him to detox where the Revs' super educated friends are playing cards, waiting to appear in court ---roll credits..
"...give it up, you're not fooling anyone.."... mwah huh ha !
Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-05 3:05:23 PM
You guys would be funny if you weren't so pathetic. Get an education.
Posted by: Reverend Draco | 2009-04-07 5:41:59 PM
That's a universal prejudice among "progressive" types, Reverend; if someone doesn't agree with you, it's because he didn't have the right teachers, didn't study the right things, didn't have the benefit of enlightened company. And yet they manage to get along happily without getting stoned.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-07 5:57:17 PM
P.S. Carl Sagan was more famous as a fraud than anything else. David Suzuki will leave a similar legacy if he's not careful. As for the other people you mention, the difference between them and many of the people on this board is that they actually outgrew smoking pot.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-07 5:59:59 PM
"...You guys would be funny if you weren't so pathetic. Get an education..."
cutting edge wit, yet again Rev Draino-
touche upon touche
- you are just so awesome
awesome upon awesome and then some
we are blinded by your light once again,
Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-07 6:46:36 PM
The drug problem is more with legal pharmaceuticals than with a simple garden herb. Use the essential oils from the crystal on the bud to make medicine and start curing disease. Don't waste good medicine by burning it.
Rick Simpson - in "Run From The Cure".
Posted by: Rick | 2009-04-09 10:51:15 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.