Why ask for cannabis legalization?

[littlebigman]

Or "medical cannabis" or "hemp" or anything short of challenging governments authority to outlaw any plant specie?

As a freedom and truth human I must wonder...

I can offer many reasons why this 'make an exception for this category approach' is counterproductive to our in common circumstances of reality, but I would first like to have some feedback from the ''baby steppers''...thanks...:farm: :guitar: :welcome: :48: :peace:

[littlebigman]

WoW its a bit quiet out there...is this thing on...any free thinkers 4 freedom or compromisers to slavery and self distruction on line?

heres a bit i just left at another thread that might help kick start this thread?...

what with everything from war 2 genetic engineering/ownership of life, global warming and the like mostly driven by the manufactured realities of capitalism and the like u and i and those who might come after us no longer have time 2 indulge in the luxury of compromising 2 a false reality...
nothing will "get better" until we come 2the realization that we r 1 with nature and not apart from it...
that realization comes with the understanding that we all exist in a web of life that all works 2gether 2 bring, sustain and evolve life on this particular biosphere...
it is bcuz of these realities that gov has no real authority 2 outlaw any species...it violates the common law/natural law that rules everything that exists and which trumps all man made laws no matter how permanent we might want 2 believe they r...
in this respect we should simply be demanding an acceptance of reality which would thereby result in all plants b'n legal period...
then let the zoning wars bgin...hehehe

[Stoney Bud]

gov has no real authority 2 outlaw any species...it violates the common law/natural law that rules everything that exists and which trumps all man made laws

This sounds all well and good, but it's hard to agree with when thousands of people in just the USA are doing time in prison for using weed.

A prison sentence sure seems to give the gov a lot of authority.....

I look at the human species as being just out of the trees. We all have one foot still planted firmly in the lower branch of a tree. The human species will evolve and marijuana will become legal.

Just ain't gonna happen any time soon. First, we've all got to quit throwing lead pellets at each other, among many thousands of other monkey-like things.

Oooh Oooh Ahhh Ahhhh, gimme that nanner.....:banana:

[littlebigman]

i can dig it SB...
i would ask u 2 chew on this a bit though 4now...
in the usa system there is implied consent if there is no objection...
this applies 2 court, congress and the executive branches...
if u challenge the exception but not the rule, u r then conceding that the rule is valid...thus making any challenge more difficult bcuz the burden falls on u or i 2 prove the exception...
if 1 challenges the rule, then the burden can shift back 2 gov 2 verify and justify how and where they get there authority 2 bgin with...
y not start at the bginning?
i have more 2 say on this, but its gonna have 2 wait till later when i have a bit more time...

[DrGreenThumb]

Here in the UK the government were going to legalise weed. but instead they lowered the drug class to a type C (heroin and cocaine are A). so basically you get a slap on the wrist and your stuff confiscated. The ONLY reason our governemnt will not legalise totally is becuase of a few factors..

1) marijuana cuases psychosis and the deteriation of brain tissue. While this may be the case (and i know a couple of people who went skitzo) it hasnt exactly been proven as a lot of things cause psychosis.

2) the government aren't ready to produce mass fields of yeild as they dont have the resources yet. They want to legalise to obtain massive tax profits which would be fine for me as a lot of street weed is harmful due to crap dealers add to line their pockets with cash

there r more reasons but my laptop battery is dead :(

[Stoney Bud]

in the usa system there is implied consent if there is no objection...this applies 2 court, congress and the executive branches...
All the fancy phrasing in the world will not eliminate the fact that the gov is not listening. The gov will not allow legalization until they do start to listen. Until then, thousands more pot smokers will go to prison.

They identify you when you speak out. I'll be nice and quiet and enjoy my pot like the other 25 million people in the USA. The gov can kiss my butt.

[littlebigman]

All the fancy phrasing in the world will not eliminate the fact that the gov is not listening. The gov will not allow legalization until they do start to listen. Until then, thousands more pot smokers will go to prison.

They identify you when you speak out. I'll be nice and quiet and enjoy my pot like the other 25 million people in the USA. The gov can kiss my butt.

the life u live is not just 4 urself SB even if u pretend it is...
we live bcuz of all that came b4 us and bcuz of all that exists now and 4 all the 1s that come after us...that reality is unavoidable...
have u read about this case?
http://www.hemphasis.net/kiczenski.htm
its about the web of life and the constitution and such...it even goes 2 religion...
the freedom and justice that is r responsibility 2 maintain and evolve awaits r appearance either in the courts or in bloody revolution...if 1 does not understand this then i dare say that 1 does not understand the full extent of the consequences of r in common current circumstances...

[littlebigman]

Here in the UK the government were going to legalise weed. but instead they lowered the drug class to a type C (heroin and cocaine are A). so basically you get a slap on the wrist and your stuff confiscated. The ONLY reason our governemnt will not legalise totally is becuase of a few factors..

1) marijuana cuases psychosis and the deteriation of brain tissue. While this may be the case (and i know a couple of people who went skitzo) it hasnt exactly been proven as a lot of things cause psychosis.

2) the government aren't ready to produce mass fields of yeild as they dont have the resources yet. They want to legalise to obtain massive tax profits which would be fine for me as a lot of street weed is harmful due to crap dealers add to line their pockets with cash

there r more reasons but my laptop battery is dead :(
please recharge and come back :)

[cyberquest]

man just reading the stuff you type gives me a headache, it sounds very much like your trying to overplay your words. are you trying to make a point here or you just trying to convince us that your vocabulary is very articulate?

take no offense to what i am saying, but i would imagine your self walking into a court room talking like that and the judge just sitting there with some puzzled look on his face cause he has no idea what you are talking about.

[littlebigman]

man just reading the stuff you type gives me a headache, it sounds very much like your trying to overplay your words. are you trying to make a point here or you just trying to convince us that your vocabulary is very articulate?

take no offense to what i am saying, but i would imagine your self walking into a court room talking like that and the judge just sitting there with some puzzled look on his face cause he has no idea what you are talking about.
well cq as 4 the first part of ur contribution, if i knew a better way 2 say it i would...but its input like urs that helps me know i must keep try'n 2 say it in whatever way i can...
as 2 ur second point that exists partly in ur imagination, i must admit it does also partly exist in reality.
b aware though that i did win the first hearing 4 summary judgment motioned 4 by the gov and the case was set 4 trial...
gov then motioned 2 retry their move 4 summary judgment (a bit unorthodox 2 get the second chance) and that time they prevailed on the semantics 2 which the appeals court is now grappling with...
no offense taken cq...
please indulge me in the same request on ur part...

[pussum]

Look at it like this. We as people do not have to listen to what the gov. says. We have free will and with that free will can do whatever we please. The thing is, when we use our free will to go against mans law we end up being chased down by thousands of people who have used their free will to follow mans law. The odds of conformist vs. anti-conformist are stacked quite high in the favor of conformist.

[theyorker]

I'm with SB. I think this issue is like alot of the issues of the day. People need to live and let live. Stay out of my business and I won't put my business in your face. There are way to many people that want to stand up and scream "I smoke pot" or "I'm a gay or lesbian" or whatever it is that people like to do. I say good for you! Now shut up and sit down and do your thing in private. Oh well...that's my 2 cents.

[littlebigman]

Look at it like this. We as people do not have to listen to what the gov. says. We have free will and with that free will can do whatever we please. The thing is, when we use our free will to go against mans law we end up being chased down by thousands of people who have used their free will to follow mans law. The odds of conformist vs. anti-conformist are stacked quite high in the favor of conformist.

good point, but the good thing about the usa system is that its set up so that when congress passes a manslaw and the executive branch signs it in2 officialdumb, it then can and should go 2 the third branch 4 check & balance...
in this instance the issue of original gov authority 2 outlaw a plant specie has never been checked/challenge in court 4 constitutionality or common law...and in this regard at least it shows the clear and present path 2 how we set out towards redress no matter the odds against a favorable outcome...
the effort alone would reframe the debate and i think nature would take its course from there...

[littlebigman]

I'm with SB. I think this issue is like alot of the issues of the day. People need to live and let live. Stay out of my business and I won't put my business in your face. There are way to many people that want to stand up and scream "I smoke pot" or "I'm a gay or lesbian" or whatever it is that people like to do. I say good for you! Now shut up and sit down and do your thing in private. Oh well...that's my 2 cents.

well thats interesting and im glad 2 hear from ya, but im not quite sure thats what SB was say'n?...
maybe SB can chime in on that...
as 4 me i must offer that if so many that came b4 us had taken the position u seem 2 b taking here there would still b only white men voting while all others r subjects 2 their will...
1 day life will bite u hard enough that u will finally understand the screams that now only seem 2 irritate u...life has a way of do'n it in such poetic irony 2 though usually sad and tragic...

[theyorker]

good point, but the good thing about the usa system is that its set up so that when congress passes a manslaw and the executive branch signs it in2 officialdumb, it then can and should go 2 the third branch 4 check & balance...
in this instance the issue of original gov authority 2 outlaw a plant specie has never been checked/challenge in court 4 constitutionality or common law...and in this regard at least it shows the clear and present path 2 how we set out towards redress no matter the odds against a favorable outcome...
the effort alone would reframe the debate and i think nature would take its course from there...

What the Supreme Court has ruled is the US govt has the right to regulate drugs. Under that authority they can set rules on the distribution of controlled substances such as MJ. What they don't have the right to do is interfer in my private life without reasonable cause. So I'll shut my mouth and live my life and make sure I am not involved in the distribution of illegal substances. As for what I do in my garage??? Mind your own business...unless you want a hit..:bong1:

[Stoney Bud]

eyedu c wareyercominfrm, bteyem knotshureeye agree withwhatuve said.

BTW, it's damn hard to read abbreviated English like what you're typing, at my age.

I've lived 74 years. A simple look at the history books will tell you what I've lived through. I understand what you're saying. I really do. However, after seeing as much life as I've seen, I've come to much different conclusions than you have.

To each his own as they say.

I won't tell you that you're wrong to think as you do, but I'd like the same respect. You sound like your preaching a tad man.

Originally said by Albert Einstein:
"If you can't explain something simply, you simply don't understand it"

Good luck to you man, and I'm glad that you're the balance between me and others. Keep your mind alive.

[littlebigman]

eyedu c wareyercominfrm, bteyem knotshureeye agree withwhatuve said.

BTW, it's damn hard to read abbreviated English like what you're typing, at my age.

I've lived 74 years. A simple look at the history books will tell you what I've lived through. I understand what you're saying. I really do. However, after seeing as much life as I've seen, I've come to much different conclusions than you have.

To each his own as they say.

I won't tell you that you're wrong to think as you do, but I'd like the same respect. You sound like your preaching a tad man.

Originally said by Albert Einstein:
"If you can't explain something simply, you simply don't understand it"

Good luck to you man, and I'm glad that you're the balance between me and others. Keep your mind alive.
Cheers SB!
I do respect you and of this you can be sure.
Sory to come across in all the negative SB, I'm actually trying to be posotive:confused2: , maybe its my lack of social skils and formal education:o.
Albert sure was a wildcat.
I like these bits to:

Albert Einstein, Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Albert Einstein
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

:)

[Comatoked]

So What Was The Question? "Why Ask For Cannibis Legallization"? Ok Why Not? But Was That Really What You Where Wanting To Discuss? Or Would You Rather Talk Politic's? I Really Have No Desire To Talk Politic's.

[littlebigman]

What the Supreme Court has ruled is the US govt has the right to regulate drugs. Under that authority they can set rules on the distribution of controlled substances such as MJ. What they don't have the right to do is interfer in my private life without reasonable cause. So I'll shut my mouth and live my life and make sure I am not involved in the distribution of illegal substances. As for what I do in my garage??? Mind your own business...unless you want a hit..:bong1:
Well actually that's not a very accurate description of the law in regards to what the law allows you to do in your garage.
Manufacturing is also a violation of federal law, so is possession.
Also, controlling "drugs" or "substances" does not necessarily grant authority to outlaw gardening for your own personal food and medicine or whatever.
The Supreme Court has validated the constitutionality of the CSA against
the commerce clause, though the lawyers arguing for freedom did a less than good job in my opinion.
The Supreme Court has never been charged with the task of weighting the constitutionality of the CSA against the common law tie in's to the 9th amendment.
So until it is established as a self evident natural born right to grow whatever plants you so choose in your garden or garage, you will be subject to regulations that would put you in jail for growing a plant.:48:

[littlebigman]

So What Was The Question? "Why Ask For Cannibis Legallization"? Ok Why Not? But Was That Really What You Where Wanting To Discuss? Or Would You Rather Talk Politic's? I Really Have No Desire To Talk Politic's.

Politics?
Not at all.
If you read the thread (while translating and surviving the headache) you will find direct arguments for challenging the rule rather than the exception.
I asked for reasonable justification for continuing to just push for the exception, I cant say I've seen anything that grabs my sense of logic.
Maybe I'm just stupid:o

[Stoney Bud]

maybe its my lack of social skils and formal education.
Albert sure was a wildcat.
I like these bits to:

Albert Einstein, Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Albert Einstein
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
I think every word he spoke was written down.

He was one wise dude.

You seem to have no problem with social relation, and formal education is over rated. I've met several over educated idiots in my life. I've also met many very wise people on the street.

[cyberquest]

well cq as 4 the first part of ur contribution, if i knew a better way 2 say it i would...but its input like urs that helps me know i must keep try'n 2 say it in whatever way i can...
as 2 ur second point that exists partly in ur imagination, i must admit it does also partly exist in reality.
b aware though that i did win the first hearing 4 summary judgment motioned 4 by the gov and the case was set 4 trial...
gov then motioned 2 retry their move 4 summary judgment (a bit unorthodox 2 get the second chance) and that time they prevailed on the semantics 2 which the appeals court is now grappling with...
no offense taken cq...
please indulge me in the same request on ur part...

ok this might be my lack of education but isnt a summary judgment just a decision made on the basis of statements and evidence presented for the record without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the facts of the case, and one party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law.
In Common Law legal systems, issues of law, that is to say, what the law actually is in a particular case are decided by the judge, except when jury nullification of the law acts to contravene or complement the instructions or orders of the judge, or other officers of the court. A factfinder has to decide what the facts are and apply the law. In traditional Common Law the factfinder was a jury, but in many jurisdictions the judge now acts as the factfinder as well. It is the factfinder who decides "what really happened," and it is the judge who applies the law to the facts as determined by the factfinder, whether directly or by giving instructions to the jury. Absent an award of summary judgment (or some other type of pretrial dismissal), a lawsuit will ordinarily proceed to trial, which is an opportunity for each party to present evidence in an attempt to persuade the factfinder that such party is saying "what really happened," and that, under the judge's view of applicable law, such party should prevail. For a case to get to trial, the parties have to take various steps (often known as 'directions'), including disclosing the documents to the opponent by discovery, showing the other side the evidence, often in the form of witness statements and other steps.

so i guess my question is, what exactly do you have a summary judgement for? and what exactly is the reason for it being set for trial, which in almost total condridiction to what a summary judgement is?

since all court records are common public records, is there by any chance a CASE # that you have for whatever it is you are so overwordingly trying to explain to us. since its public record any of us at any giving time are leagally able to look at, read and summerize our own opinions of exactly what it is your trying to say.

from this two page post that you have created i am still not sure to what the heck your point is. more then once through your arguement (cause thats exactly what this is turning into) i found that you condridict yourself in things that your saying.

i am just i guess trying to understand what your trying to say, or what point your trying to make.

[littlebigman]

Sheesh!
Thanks for all that you just went through to ask two simple questions in so far as i can tell.;)
Anywho, yes you can see most of the filings in this case at:
http://www.hemphasis.net/kiczenski.htm
(its not my site, but the folks who run it have been following and posting their own opinions and updates on the case)
Basically I sued the government and as lawyers are trained to do, the US attorney motioned for a summary judgment based on standing issues.
The Magistrate found that I did have standing for trial and denied the US attorney's summary judgment.
The matter was set for trial, but before we could get there the US attorney motioned for another shot at summary judgment only this time they actually partially addressed one of the substantive issues of the case.
It all came down to a matter of semantics and the court hung its hat on it.
Now the matter is in the US appeals court.
This thread had a question and a point backed by the simple logic of how the USA system works and the in common facts of reality we all share(the birds and the bees).
Why beg congress to make an exception to the rule by asking for cannabis to be legal when we have every opportunity to go to court as plaintiffs and challenge the constitutionality of the overreaching rule?

[littlebigman]

...formal education is over rated. I've met several over educated idiots in my life. I've also met many very wise people on the street.

yup:heart:

[cyberquest]

so as of june of 2006 has there been any progression with this case at all?

[cyberquest]

so basically, from my very brief reading of some of the motions that were filled. your bascially trying to fight politics with religion? i think thats where i totally loose all interest in this converstaion just based on my person views of religion. in my opinion, based on what i read, your trying to beat a dead horse with a limp noodle. but if by some stroke of luck you succeed in your quest, good for you and i will be the first to congradulate you.

[littlebigman]

so as of june of 2006 has there been any progression with this case at all?
Outside of the appeals court being fully and officially briefed to their apparent satisfaction, no.
We are still awaiting the appeals court ruling.
No news yet might be good news in this case.
In regards to your mistaken interpretation of the issues at play in the case, you aren't even half accurate, but considering your post describing the path to trial, I think if you put out a bit of that same effort you could easily grasp the two central causes of action and the circumstances that the appeal deals with.
If your not interested that's fine, but its a bit rude and presumptuous to pretend to know what somethings about and then completely misrepresenting it in public in effort to justify your lack of interest...
yikes!...thanks...

[cyberquest]

i think your right, my lack of interest might have made it sound a tad rude and for that i extend my appoligies to you and the forum members. thus i will refrain myself from making any further comments within your posts. sorry again.

[cyberquest]

also i only briefly read a portion of the summary, if i would have taken the time to read all the pages described then i might have a better understanding, but the small portion i read was talking about using religion as the base of arguement and that mental blocked me from reading any further due to my personal opinions about religion.

this would be the part i read:
I am bound by my "religious" mandate and knowledge of the great spirit/creator/god/the life energy etc… to act and live in ways that are apparently in direct conflict with the intended enforcement of the CSA.

Because the CSA in effect seeks to overpower and deny the natural laws of the creator it has not now nor did it ever have any realistic hope of ever being fully enforceable and as such the CSA can only be selectively enforced on people like me who have no choice but to stand and decry it or on people who are easily prey to its counterfeit reality in its effort to feed and maintain whatever the real and as yet undisclosed purposes for this laws creation are.

[littlebigman]

i think your right, my lack of interest might have made it sound a tad rude and for that i extend my appoligies to you and the forum members. thus i will refrain myself from making any further comments within your posts. sorry again.
Thanks...no worries...I must say though that I regret your lack of interest enough for the both of us...

[cyberquest]

Outside of the appeals court being fully and officially briefed to their apparent satisfaction, no.
We are still awaiting the appeals court ruling.
No news yet might be good news in this case.
In regards to your mistaken interpretation of the issues at play in the case, you aren't even half accurate, but considering your post describing the path to trial, I think if you put out a bit of that same effort you could easily grasp the two central causes of action and the circumstances that the appeal deals with.
If your not interested that's fine, but its a bit rude and presumptuous to pretend to know what somethings about and then completely misrepresenting it in public in effort to justify your lack of interest...
yikes!...thanks...

ok correct me if i am wrong here, but going back and being more open minded about things i went back to the very FIRST summary motion that was filed. and your very FIRST opening arguement as found on this page.
http://www.hemphasis.net/031104complainta.htm

reads mostly of your religious backgrounds , and your relationship with god.

i was taught that god gives us all the plants, trees, and creatures to provide for our survival. GENESIS 1:29

to me, in my interpritation of reading this statement and the rest of your very first opening argeement, religion is the basis for your arguement.

like i stated, i was not trying to offend anyone, nor am i still, but you are contradicting what your are saying more then once, and i was just trying to bring this to your attention.

i applaud you for your valuant efforts for taking steps that many people have not taken. i wish you the best of luck with your case and your appeals and i do truley hope that in the end you are the triumphent one.

ok now i am done, i think :rofl:

[littlebigman]

cq the 1st amendment part of the case is unlike any ever filed in that it seeks to secure equal 1st amendment right for people like you, the ones that have no use for religion.
Don't you deserve the same equal rights and protections in your religious refusal of religion as someone who claims some special right by "religion" as per the 1st amendment?
You now enjoy reach for only the secondary protections of the 1st amendment such as free speech and so forth, yet the freedom to live/act how you choose based on your beliefs is forsaken to an idea that somehow "religion" is not your bag.
What if whatever your bag is happens to fill the void where otherwise a so called "religion" would be?
Suddenly your 14th amendment check and balance would have you on a level playing field with the "religious" zealots who help to create what we are now suffering from.
There's also a 9th amendment cause of action though which seeks to establish that the right of humans to grow plants is self evident and beyond the reach of congress.

[cyberquest]

well tonight i am going to bed cause i am tired, tomorrow i might have more disscusion. but for now goodnight and good luck. :peace:

[littlebigman]

well tonight i am going to bed cause i am tired, tomorrow i might have more disscusion. but for now goodnight and good luck. :peace:
cool, thanks cq and back atya:)

[the_riz]

wow... err, heavy thread..

I used to be able to understand why it was illegal, i mean it gets you pretty mashed and a lot of people will do stupid things..

Then i realized this was a load of nonsence, I cant help but nearly wet myself laughing at 'anti-cannabis' campaign adverts lol.. especially the one depicted on "harold and kumar get the munchies" lol.. Around this time i realized it was illegal because no matter how much we've moved on and up in time, the world leaders still feel it appropriate to controll, and what better way than to continue an age old prohibition in order to retreive the odd fine.

What annoys me is drugs like Salvia.. For anyone who doesn't know or hasnt tried salvia divinorum, it is quite a powerful psychoactive plant, and some have said that even though the effects last 5 to 10 minutes tops, the trip you get from taking a massive bong hit of salvia can be up to 10 times stronger and more halucanagenic than LSD...

I've tried Salvia, it freaked me out, im not one for out of body drug trips, im not one for halucanations, however the "toking advice" for salvia all over the internet suggests its best to do it with someone who isnt high, as you really do some wacky things. one of my friends took a hit, stood up, walked out of his house, into the middle of the road and had to be retreived by his toke mates...after the incident he claimed he didnt feel like he was moving, and the whole trip took part around the table he was sat at...

So yeah, pretty trippy drug, pretty dangerous if you need someone sat nexto you who's straight when you do it for fear of killing yourself while under the influence..

Salvia's Legal... 100% legal.. **** off government, are you taking the piss?