Marijuana.com

awalkinthegrass

This is what I think is the general mentality of Americans:

"I hear these rumors more and more that marijuana is not bad for you. That's interesting. I used to smoke it when I was a kid, but I stopped.

But more and more kids are smoking it, younger and younger. That's a bad thing.

You've also got these crackpots who want to see it legalized. And medical marijuana? That's a fishy idea. But what if it's true?

At the same time, the US government is looking like a bunch of fools.

And I keep hearing all these rumors that marijuana is not bad for you.

I don't know. I'm just going to keep my eyes and ears open and see what happens."


This is where I think we're at. We're going to win this war at the polls. Keep talking about it, putting people out there gathering signatures, look sharp, know your facts, and when it comes time to vote, people are going to say 'Yes.'

-Paul

 

Abomonog

And the voting will then be struck down by a government that really doesn't care about what the people say. Remember that drug schedualling supercedes everything else. That was the real message of the court ruling.

awalkinthegrass

You are pessimistic to the point of hopelessness. Even I do not have much faith in the system but it does work when the people get loud enough. We haven't gotten loud enough, and the media is not carrying this in enough positive light. I am not trying to be a Pollyanna cheerleader. All I am saying is that policies do change when the protests become loud enough. Politicians are cowards; they will do what their constituency says, *as long as everyone knows what the constituency is saying.* This is where the media becomes critical for winning this war.

I think we are moving forward, not backward. Civilized parts of the world are changing, holding up a mirror to our drug policy. Our situation is becoming embarrassing and more difficult to defend. For God's sake, the American Medical Association and the Institute of Medicine have both stated PUBLICALLY that this is something that should happen. A poll in South Dakota revealed that 95% of people do not think that a person should be arrested for using medical marijuana that has been prescribed by a physician. Common sense, of course. What the majority of those 95% probably don't know is that people like this ARE arrested... a lot. But when they find out because people like you and me distribute flyers under windshields at Wal-Mart, that's when eyes start to open and you have an outraged mom and pop holding up a banner in front of town hall.

Canada is moving convincingly towards legalization and it looks as though decriminalization is right around the corner. It has already approved medical marijuana outright.

You can't stop the evolution of human consciousness. A certain German acquaintance of ours tried to do that in the forties. We killed him.

-Paul

rbded

Abomonog;
We might not win at the polls if the government has a say.Remember that the citizens of Washington D.C. voted to allow Medical Marijuana and the "government"said no way.It doesn't matter what the people in this country think or vote for.All that matters is whether you have made a huge campaign contribution or not.Vis- a- vis the big oil companys and our future ex- president, Dubya.Seems like he didn't get the most votes either,but thats a different argument,huh?Helps if your brother is the gov.,I guess.

awalkinthegrass

>> Remember that the citizens of Washington D.C. voted to allow Medical Marijuana and the "government"said no way

Let's stop making the big evil government anonymous so that we can't take a stab at it and put it on the short bus where it belongs. The "government" did not say no way. Republican Bob Barr, from Georgia, a vehement conservative, said 'no way.' He introduced a tiny amendment to the budget appropriations bill that passed. His desperate effort was unconstitutional, was attacked by the ACLU, and was overturned a year later. Three times afterwards he attacked with a similar bill, and twice Clinton vetoed it and then finally signed it. Barr had to fight tooth and nail for that ruling and the stupid ass should be well publicized for it because he is on the tail end of public support.

This is exactly what I am talking about. By not identifying the generals of this war and making sure that they are not reelected to government, we sit idly back and say that it's this government conspiracy. I am sick of hearing it. Sure, it's a government conspiracy. But it is a conspiracy made up of sick and twisted men and women whose actions are visible and the majority of whom need public support in order to stay in office. So start paying attention to the losers like Mark Souder (thanks for taking away our financial aid), Bob Barr (thanks for muzzling the majority vote), and the numerous others who call these shots in high places and undermine their public support in 2002.

-Paul

 

awalkinthegrass

Sorry to go this low, but you should both start acting like men, grab your f*cking balls and start fighting these losers instead of b*tching and whining about how we're all helpless and doomed at the hands of Big Brother.

We might be damned for sure, but they'll have to put a bullet in my head to shut me up, and if this country came to that, that's just the way I'd want it anyway.

-Paul

rbded

Walk--
Quote"He introduced a tiny amendment to the budget appropriations bill that passed."

Who passed it?

"and twice Clinton vetoed it and then finally signed it."

Who signed it?

As a collective body,the government should accept responsibility for its actions.Yes,I agree with you,individuals should be identified,but the others should not be excused.My opinion.

Abomonog

First off. Did I miss something. There seems to be part of Walk's post missing. But at least enough is there so I know what he is talking about.


Er... What have I been saying? It's time to take a stand and let the bullets fly if that's what is in the cards. I can't speak for anyone else here but I would rather die on the steps of Capitol Hill fighting for my rights instead of sitting in my room writing whiny letters to Congressmen in hopes that they're braver than I. Letters do next to nothing simply because the congressman never sees them. His secretary reads them and makes a tally. 1 for blahblahblah. 1 against blahblahblah. 2 for blahblahblah etc...

The only way to win is to say, "No more arrests" and enforce that, even if it means breaking the law (like that's a new concept) and putting yourself at risk.

awalkinthegrass

I understand your upset, and the frustration and rage you feel I am sure others feel at times also. But violence, although it solves some problems effectively, will not solve this one. In fact, it would only make it worse. What fragile credibility we have carefully nurtured in the eyes of the general public would be dashed to pieces overnight, federal crackdowns would go into full effect with an intensity we have never seen before, and it would set our movement back to the 30's.

They threaten us with jail and public humiliation and bankruptcy and arrest. They don't (usually) threaten us with death sentences.

In the sixties, when we refused to go to war, we were arrested. In the 1770's, when we refused to honor the King of England, we were executed.

There is, in my eyes, a big difference. This war is a social-political-ideological-economic war, it's not a war to the death. It needs to be fought and won in the minds of the people, not on the fields of Bunker Hill. Violence is everything we stand against. Attacking an officer because he arrests us would be akin to the hypocrisy of a pro-life fanatic who shoots a doctor with a shotgun. This war is only going to be won Martin Luther King/Ghandi style.

-Paul

Abomonog

Go on and tell that to Mr. Mc. Williams, (we all know his fate) or Ms. Bowers(Shot down over Peru), or my Fiancee who died with a multitude of police bullets in her back. She was nothing more than collateral damage, and was disposed of by the police as such. "Unfortunate", they said. "Poor lady should not have been where she was.", they said. SHE DIED ON HER FRONT DOORSTEP!!! And how about that poor fellow in New York? They shot him 41 times and Guilliani said he DESERVED IT!!!
For them it was a war to the death. As it has been for thousands of others. Most of who die have never harmed anyone. How many more have to die before we take a stand?

Besides, who said anything about initiating violence? My idea is nonviolent. The only way we could possibly lose would be if there was violence, and we would all be dead anyways because that violence would be Police firing on an unarmed crowd. Of course then we would win as such a display of force would result in a populace that would no longer tolerate its governments presence. It would be a half-victory, true, but it would show the people what beast they have unleashed. Peacefull, but forcefull marches have proven to be very effective in the past. If you want to take an example from DR. King it should be this. HE NEVER BACKED DOWN!!! When police attempted to arrest his followers more always showed up to peacfully remove the threat. Even after he had predicted his own death he still refused to budge his position.

"If you don't have a cause worth dying for, whats the use of living?", is what he said. If we had taken that position from the start prohibition would have ended years ago. We don't need to initiate violence to win, but we do have to risk it. Otherwise Congress is going to just keep coming up with excuses as to why no election or initiative can ever change the drug laws. They did it with the court ruling and they will do it with any federal election that has an unfavorable result on the subject.