clearly know nothing about the issue.

Please DON'T waste another minute on it. The minute you spent on it was clearly a waste of your precious and highly valuable genuinely progressive time.

We only need 55% on election day. You aren't needed.

Harumph your ignorant self.

...and, specifically, the war on pot, and, the war on people who merely (as Doc sez) touch it, is the model, and precedent for, the current descent into fascist corporatocracy. Get a clue, larue.

Has been the war on drugs.

Do you think Bush could have so easily trampled the rights of the people if it wasn't already considered ok to walk over people deemed 'outlaws?'

All he had to do was expand the definition of 'outlaw' to include anyone and everyone of his choosing. The system was in place already for this latest push to fascism. Not addressing that system will ensure that it remains unchanged. After years of the war on drugs the bill of rights have been shredded. To this day is constantly broken again and again under the same banner as 'protecting people from drugs.' This MO is still more used the 'protecting people from terrorists.'

What does it matter if we manage to undo the damage Bush has done if the 'business as usual' is still fascism?
What difference does it make if they ruin your life under the guise of terrorism or the guise of drugs?

Before we can change the big issues we need to dismantle the systems they are using to abuse our rights and our persons. If we don't get rid of that system then it doesn't matter who gets into the 'head spot' or what 'big fish we fry' as the reality will remain unchanged.

PS: I always thought those who would be interested in addressing the big issues would be concerned about people giving hollow lip-service to that change. I have found, time and time again, those who talk about wanting change yet refuse to address the system that brought about the problem rarely want to bring about the change they talk about. No, they want to wield the corrupt system for their own ends and have no qualms about lying to you to get that power.

Congressmen who 'don't have the time' to address the system are part of the problem!

or 'Numb and Number'
The 'evil weed' is probably the easiest to address...let's knock it off 1st and then take it one evil at a time. And you really ought to get a grip on your reality problem, larue or your perception of it. In the real world, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, parents and lifelong neighbors have their lives re-arranged because of the illegalization of something that grows naturally on Earth. Poison Ivy is illegal; let's just legislate it away...fwiw, there are a lot of people who die from poison ivy every year.

I have lung cancer from smoking cigarettes; the ones they advertised on TV. My folks used to buy me candy 'Luckies' back in the early 60's so I could act like an adult...what a friggin hoot. My alcoholic grandparents used to make me and my brother (who died of liver cancer) uh,...Roy Rogers, y'know the pretend cocktails. What are we serving up to our kids today...pretend politics. It's time to stop pretending...MAKE ALL DRUGS LEGAL! Natural selection will take care of the abusers and it will restore some semblance of sanity across the landscape that's littered with the true abusers of the system...those that profit from the obscenity of the War On Drugs...the Prison Industry and all its peripheral, supportive businesses.

On a whole nother note...YTF did they give me Morphine, Oxycontin and Percocets after I had 1/2 a lung removed but now that I'm undergoing radiation and chemo, it's illegal for me to smoke a bone? That bone might lead to devil worship, masturbation, and boogying to the Rolling Stones on my back deck, huh Larue; when I could be working on World Peace and my agenda du jour. FWIW, it's not just for the nausea, it's for the diversion, too. Am I being incorrect in mentioning the diversion? Not! The ones that promote alcohol use saying a little is good for the heart, blah, blah are the real hypocrites...trying to cheat their denial issues.

no congressman is going to gain more votes by advocating legalization. He will lose votes. That's the way they look at it, so good luck getting them to change.

Congressman WILL garner votes.

60% of folks over 45 want americans to have unfettered access to medical marijuana.

The people have moved WAY ahead of the n"leaders" on this issue.

The "leaders" have fought reform tooth and nail since at least Nixon's day.

And Barney Frank introduced the bill - he's a congressman and he's NOT going to be losing votes.

People like you have to get up to speed on this issue.

Cannabis prohibition and the war on drugs is breaking state budgets as we speak and many states are about to release waves of "non-violent, non-sexual offenders" due to the heinous overcrowding caused directly by the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing.

And some people are clearly unable to break away from the generations of lies they have accepted as the truth. It is scary, I suppose to entertain the possiblity that one has been lied to for 2 generations.

And the media assists this by keeping any logical, informed discourse out of the mainstream media.

I could go on and on, but I prefer to stop because if and when we can get the issue on ballots we'll win and backwards people who are afraid of or impervious to documented truth won't be essential anyway. A majority already exists.

support medical use, but not legalization. The ones who support medical use don't really care that much about the issue. It's way down the list of priorities and they won't vote against a candidate based on that issue.

People generally don't want legalization. It doesn't matter what you and I think about it. They don't make the connect between illegality and all of the problems it causes. The media is bought and paid for on this issue. Do you understand that? The big money is on keeping it illegal. It may be immoral, but it's really quite simple.

People don't want legalization because they've been sold a swindle,pure and simple. If the unvarnished truth about cannabis use(the bad and the good)was to be presented to the people,the only ones who'd still be opposed to legalization and sensible regulation would be the Calvinist-Puritan types who don't approve of the enjoyment of anything.

While I won't disagree that many people think other things are more important, such as ending the war in Iraq, I find this line a bit troublesome:

People generally don't want legalization.

From what I have seen a good chunk have come out and admitted to regularly breaking the law when asked. A even larger chunk admit to breaking it at least once in their lives. Add to that the number of people who don't feel comfortable telling a complete stranger they 'abuse' drugs. Then add to that the people who might not of tried cannabis but don't believe the government propaganda.

I bet that is a MASSIVE chunk of people, way more then enough to say they are the majority. To think that these people wouldn't have legalization on their minds is ridiculous. They would, for sure, out weigh the people who still believe the propaganda or profit from keeping drugs illegal. Seeking their vote on this issue wouldn't be a bad thing for a candidate.

More so if he/she already has the progressives by talking about the big issues to.

I also wonder:
How many do not vote?
How many don't see the candidates as nothing more then puppets who keep the status quo?
A candidate who speaks even on a 'little issue' would be able to rally these disheartened into voting for them?
Wouldn't a candidate who wants to end war abroad as well as domestic wars (such as the war on drugs and terrorism) have these people turning out in droves???

Of course the real issue isn't cannabis it self or else politicians would of tapped these voters long ago. It is because candidates who don't agree with prohibition are also the sort to have morals. Morals that prevent them, for example, from bribing the MSM to get themselves heard.

We true progressives know where that leaves a candidates campaign.

Those who do back the status quo, and it's system of 'scratch my back and I scratch yours,' are the only ones who get heard. They are the least likely to change the law on drugs as it is scratching the back of certain big businesses *cough* oil *cough* pharmaceuticals *cough* who then donate lots of money to their campaigns.

is examine the record to see how well pro-legalization candidates have done, and I mean those who make it a significant part of their campaign. They don't do well. You can take that however you like, but opinions do not translate to votes by the masses.

Comes into play. It doesn't matter at all that these candidates where pro-legal or not. What matters is how well they suck up to big business and the MSM. Progressives... well we don't. It is that simple, we don't suck up to the MSM and the tiny cartel that owns it.

Hence we are thrown in the bin of obscurity, given no airtime and cut out of important debates.

Democratic candidates more willing to consider marijuana issue

According to CBS News, politicians today no longer dodge questions about marijuana and are increasingly willing to consider the benefits of medical marijuana.

Bill Clinton aroused a storm of controversy when he claimed in 1992 that ‘I experimented with marijuana a time or two and I didn’t like it and didn’t inhale and never tried it again.”

In contrast, Barack Obama has freely admitted, “I inhaled — frequently. That was the point.” Senators Kerry and Edwards both said “yes” when asked in 2003 if they had ever tried marijuana.

which one of those guys was running for office with a pro-legalization plank as part of their platform? I missed that altogether when they ran.

and that point is that what you are talking about/defending IS changing as we speak.

Sure you are right... about the old days. And the old days are still with us - but they are changing.

And they are changing exactly because the Barack Obamas (progressive democratic leaders, by any other name) can say "yeah I smoked pot - so what?!" versus the bullshit ballet of Bill Clinton.

So the more they talk about it, the better. The more they demonstrate genuine leadership.

Silly issue? In a way, a resounding yes - because the whole thing is stupid from the get-go. It's too stupid for words. It's waste of time. We might as well fix it and move on to important things.

To the extent cannabis use is not harmful is the extent to which it is unimportant. As in not warranting all the effort that goes into keeping it stupid. Or justifying the massive waste of money it truly is.

When DEMOCRATIC leaders can talk about it like Obama, like Barney Franks.. hell - like Ron Paul or Dana Rohrbacher who are repubs (dyed in the wool repubs) can talk about this like you and I and the common person - without getting all bent out of shape like "micman" demonstrates below somewhere on this thread, then we'll be able to talk about legislation.

And Dems SHOULD talk about it if for no other reason than to make the GOP have micman-style tantrums - in public. This is a sure way to help them alienate themselves just that much further from mainstream America.

Dems talk sense, like the common person, repub spout embarrassing, reefer-mad tirades. It would be a beautiful thing to see.

Talk first, legislate later when people aren't operating on delusions.

That's the plan.

refuting this statement:

"Obama inhaled frequently.... he's relatively popular"

Is Obama in favor of legalization? Is any other viable candidate of national status? I think it would be great if they were, but I don't think there are any. You may be right that when enough time passes that we will have a shift in the laws. Right now, it isn't doable.

Hi Doc, how aoubt we ask for full disclosure on just what legal drugs our government officials are on? Alcohol for many, I'm sure. Efexor, Wellbutrin, etc... are mind altering, no? I wonder if David takes anything.
Just a thought. JC

be subjected to repeated drug screening.

They are running for very very very important offices and have a duty to be drug-free, right?

Drug test every last one of them.

That would be enlightening.

And since it's not a constitutional violation of any kind the only reason they would have to object is that they have something illegal to hide.

Right?

That's how it works..right?

a certain libertarian congressman FROM georgia filed a bill to prevent this very thing some years ago.

I think that would be Bob Barr.

Like I keep saying - the war on weed/drugs is surreal. Barr is a notorious opponent of medical marijuana but a bulldog on constitutional protections. Surreal.

Of course that bill didn't guarantee that no employer can demand the piss of their workers. Just protects congressmen and no one else... yeah....

Still disgusts me that the colour of your piss will mean more then the quality of your work. Oh it is alright to slack off, do crap work or else wise be a drain on the company as long as your piss stays the right colour when dipped on a stick. Of course you can be the best worker they have but soon as your piss shows the wrong colour....

This is likely a letter put together by staffers, and not his actual personal work.

Maybe it is, but these style of reefer mad form letters seem to come from most Congresscritters. It's the "official line" and they have simply followed for decades for the same reasons we have seen emerge with their insistence on not impeaching Bush, giving himall the unconstitutional shit he wants and so forth. They have been suck-up lapdogs for generations on this particular topic.

It's just their "business as usual" and it's time to close it out.

Facts require unemotional review and marijuana propaganda is so emotionalized and the framing so controlled, "facts" mean nothing.

If facts meant ANYTHING we'd not be having this discussion.

My point is to challenge and provoke the true believers.

Those folks either totally devoid of real knowledge or those who have an agenda need to be able to "rationally" support their beliefs...if they can and I don't think for a moment they can.

This issue won't be resolved with a tidy arrangement of pretty facts. Change won't come til people get mad.

Please and thank you won't get the job done. It's simply too emotional.

It will be a bitter emotional fight and folks like Barney Frank are going to have to keep the pressure on for legal changes. Law makes no sense either - it's entirely about what you can get away with and Mr. Frank thinks he can get away with this now.

So I summarily dismiss the Federal Government's (SAMHSA) "credibility" as they clearly have a vicious agenda to lie about the plant at every single opportunity. Their investment is huge and it is mean-spirited.

Their agents are highly-paid professional liars. They only have the facade of office and nothing else.

How can they possibly have any credibility?

There isn't much need to debunk lie by lie, either - that's a trick to keep people off topic and keep the rational discourse from congealing.

You are right, facts mean nothing. That is if you simply meant to demean and insult Congressman Scott for his ignorance. Otherwise, why go to the trouble writing the man without a well thought out thesis?

Little zombie got smacked down by an ignorant public servant. So, like a person cut off in traffic you had to catch up just to flip him the bird. This may give you some personal gratification. But, to share your vent seems to be a waste of time for those who took the time to read your half assed post looking for something worth reading.

Next time you want to mentally masturbate I suggest you curl up with a copy of High Times behind closed doors. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. I question how important the medical marijuana cause is to you or whether you're just trying to protect your stash.

...such as it is.

...half assed;

...mentally masturbatory;

...cynical, in denial, ignorant of the militaryindustrialprisoncomplex, built upon the "war on drugs";

...whether anybody is "trying to protect (their) stash," or not;

Lightweight DLC type "progressive" liberal Democrats can bite my ass.

Cuz they ain't really PROGRESSIVE or LIBERAL.

You obviously don't know Dr Zombie very well, or that he has come against this congressman before. In the past he gave the congressman all the facts, pointed him to very good sites which laid out all the independent research that blows the propaganda away or tried to get the congressman to at least stop sprouting the propaganda. Yet the congressman either refuses to read it, ignores the real facts or doesn't care that he is spreading lies.

At that point anyone would feel like calling him out too.

Zombie is right, this is now an emotional issue and not a factual one. I have spent years researching cannabis, the war on drugs and the effects of prohibition but even I can not get people to listen to those facts. It isn't because the people are stupid it is because they are easily swayed by the fearful essence that is the core of all propaganda.

That black men are going to rape white woman while being unstoppable by the police once they smoke a joint.... Yes they tried that one, for all of the drugs that are illegal in fact. Yet it is a image that is still very powerful even outside of the 1960's. In todays society the core message is still there: Drugs make people do illegal things.

You try to point out the fact that a lie is pure BS and see how far you get when people are scared that drugs will increase the crime rate.

Facts mean squat when people are ruled by fear.

For so quickly and so beautifully evidencing what I have said about this being a highly emotional issue.

Your bitterly emotional outburst is EXACTLY what we will see as this issue gets the traction is deserves and makes the progress it FINALLY should.

LOTS of people will react just like you: Bitter, hateful, condescending, outraged, and just plain foul.

And, BTW, I have zero respect or use for "High Times".

I AM part of the solution and you are sort of part of the problem and sort of just a bystander. You obviously cannot grasp the simple realities of this yet, blinded by your acceptance of the propaganda view of this topic. Lots and lots of people are just like this.

But, like it or not, you have helped with your little tantrum, which I will likely be adding as an example in my future writings on this very subject...

And I thank you for it!

Nice work, dude.

Cheers!