Marijuana.com

mikey_c_tx

We should file a class-action defamatory law suit against the government. The supper bowl adds crossed the lines and called anyone who used drugs to be in cohoots with terrorism. Drawing a casual link is one thing, but the way they did it has hurt people. I am getting more crap from people now as a result of that commercial.

review the case against the government:
for a defamatory law you must prove:

1. It is untrue.
2. Its aim was to cause harm to the reputation of another
3. It caused damage.

I buy from growers. Local. So all money stays american, and none goes to terrorism. Very little of the drugs in this country come from a terrorism state. Its aim was to make drug users apear to be evil and seditious. It has caused personal damage to any number of casual users.

I think there is a case in that. if only I was a lawyer.

__________________
"-they have taken my right to freechoice. a godgiven right. So i must take it back by force. I am defying a law that I do not believe in, made by a government I do believe in. Peaceful coexistence is what I desire. I fear I shall never see it."--Me

 

Niteshift

I'd explain why the suit idea is flawed, but since you've stated that my word is questionable, I guess it's pointless.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Mamabudz

Sorry you don't have the makings of a class action:

~ no recognized class has been injured directly or by proof indirectly by the action or inaction of another or placed in immediate fear of danger or injury by the action or inaction of another...

~ no evidence of specific damage to that class (as the class remains undefined)

and therefore there exists no basis for a claim...

The government has lots of lawyers.



Mama Budz

Ross

Nightshift: If you have something to add, please do. The rest of us value your input

Conine

The commercials show me that the system is really breaking down. Govt knows people are getting more and more pissed about this insidious war, so they figure, well, clearly people who are thinking are figuring it out... Let's drop a nice BS commercial on the public, and that'll turn the sheep and thinkers against each other. Then, while they're arguing, we'll just pass a few bills to give us a little more power...

I mean... everyone does realize the irony of the damn commercial - even though their message is severely flawed, if we DO assume that buying drugs supports terrorism....if the drugs are legal, there IS NO SUPPORTING TERRORISM. The damn war on drugs supports terrorism more than anything else. So time for a little propaganda before someone figures it out.

But a lawsuit against the govt. for lying? Get in line.

 

Niteshift

Mamabudz hit the main idea...........

What you are essentially looking at here is a libel suit (or slander depending on if you consider the commercials as written or not).

A good case to look at as an illustration is the case shown in the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt. It was based on the actual Supreme Court case involving Flynt.

Jerry Falwell sued Flynt over a parody that appeared in Hustler magazine. One of the key issues in the case was the damage to his reputation issue.

It was pretty much agreed that those who were Falwell supporters didn't believe the claims in the parody (thus no damage) and that the people who didn't like Falwell already didn't like him, so there was no damage.

Same idea would apply here. Those who would believe it and buy into it wholeheartedly probably already have a pretty low opinion of drug users/buyers to begin with. Those who support legalization etc. look at the ad and go "what a bunch of sh*t". So where is the damage? With out damage, there is no libel.

Also, you have a slight problem with being a party to the civil suit. To prove your reputation is damaged, you'd have to prove you were a member of the group being talked about. That group is drug users..........and all records of the civil suit, including your proof that you are a drug user, would be admissable in any following criminal charges (and you can bet the farm that there would be charges).

Those are 2 of the biggest reason why a suit wouldn't be much of a success.

Personally, I think the ad was a waste of perfectly good airtime and it takes a real stretch of the imagination to come up with that sort of a connection.

Buddha

Why are you Americans so quick to sue?

*Man accidentally bumps into old lady at the shops*

"I'm sorry ma'am, I didn't see you there."

"I'm suing!"

"We find in favour of the defendant (the old lady) and we award damages of $4.5 million."

It's sad, and it's a reason why I wouldn't ever, ever, live in the U.S. again.

mikey_c_tx

Your right Buddha. Your always Buddha.


Lawsuit isnt the way to go. but the commercial did make me a bit mad. but in the scope of things its a desperate move from a failed policy.

Nightshift: I do value your position. Your experience stands as a great resourse and I, for one, am glad that an oficer such as yourself, with no prior dug use, chooses to post on these boards.

If anything I have said in the past has led you to think otherwise, then I truely appologise. I try to be a friendly and personable human, and feel awful when others think I do not value thier opionions/statements. Even if I dont agree, I try to flame them. I'm sorry if I did such to you at any point.

I hipe you will accept my heartfelt appology.