Comments on: NH rep affirms pot civil dis in House speech – Marijuana

By: Domzdream

Domzdream — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:06:27 +0000

The fight against …
The fight against herbs and natural ‘drugs’ (I can’t believe that actual plants are labelled as drugs) is RETARDED. Let people do what they want within their own homes. Typical government trying to play as your parent, giving you slap on your wrist.

By: studape

studape — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:06:27 +0000

If you smoke weed …
If you smoke weed you are a threat to the government and big business. You are also more likely to be liberal because you are using your brain and do not beleive government lies. The war on drugs is used to disenfranchise people and keep them from getting a job or to vote in a lot of states.

By: rea1001

rea1001 — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:06:27 +0000

I could really care …
I could really care less about inane laws from control freaks, and I smoke pot freely anywhere I choose.

By: fczwartek

fczwartek — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:06:27 +0000

You use Clarence …
You use Clarence Thomas as an example of someone cares about the constitution? Really?

You think that it should be ok for the gvmnt to tell you how you should act in your own bedroom? You believe that would be constitutional?

You believe segregation or even slavery are “constitutional” if your local laws say they are?

That’s insane.

By: libertyfizz

libertyfizz — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:06:27 +0000

People are …
People are forgetting about drug seizure laws. They can take a private property owners property with drug seizure laws. This is why smoking in public is only individual risk.
I wish the political activist and the protesters would stop fighting with each other and work together. That is how the civil rights movement won their victories. It was a two prong attack on tyranny.

By: eric710221

eric710221 — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:06:27 +0000

Democracy does …
Democracy does exist at the state level, that is how the founders wanted it. As far as adultery goes what about sodomy? People like Ron Paul and Clarence Thomas who actually care about the constitution opposed the Supreme Courts decision on Lawrence v. Texas. If local laws were changed I’d support your right to resist federal tyranny. If you can’t get your local laws changed then quit about it when cops enforce them or move somewhere else. You can go smoke pot freely in Amsterdam.

By: FlailingJunk

FlailingJunk — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:06:27 +0000

The property owner …
The property owner risks much more then the individual smokers.

By: rea1001

rea1001 — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:06:27 +0000

“But I cant see how …
“But I cant see how smoking in an open air location would affect anyone with these conditions any more than the local traffic emitting exhaust from a tail pipe.”

My point with these examples: “affect anyone with these conditions any more than”

By: rea1001

rea1001 — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:06:27 +0000

There are more …
There are more cigarette smokers on the streets of Keen than Marijuana. Why isnt that an issue. Or, is it really just about Marijuana? People dont need cars, just a bike, or their own legs. Keen in small. As far as the smoke from the stoves are concerned, an electric heater will work nicely, along with better winterizing of homes. Marijuana not being a necessity is relatively subjective, depending on ones health.

By: fczwartek

fczwartek — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:06:27 +0000

You’re risking …
You’re risking getting “thrown in a cage” by smoking it in public. I would assume that someone in the crowd at the smokeout owns property. What difference does it make to them if they get hauled off a public space or private property to be “thrown in a cage?”

The reason you do it in public is for the publicity. And now that that’s quickly evaporating, I expect the public smokeouts will too.