My pot movie

Status
Not open for further replies.

tacticalcustoms

Active Member
government could make weed legal and use the funds to have a national health care system where you don't have to pay to see a fucking doctor. huh. the government is fucked up in so many ways I don't even want to get started.
 

Garden Knowm

The Love Doctor
fyi - you are the government... all of you... all of us...

Blaming the governemnt, blaming corporations, any kind of finger pointing is as crazy as blaming your ass for shitting in the toilet.. D any of you SPEND YOR days blaming your ass for smelling so bad....????

Sack it up and just move into reality... There is a lot of room OUT here....

I have heard many many people in my day DENY reality... argue with reality... they say...

IT should have, It could have, It would have....

Its all denial...

Just sack it up and take the responsibility... IT is ONLY YOU..US... WE.... I.....

THE GOVERNMENT is not to BLAME... YOU are all of US...

The government is a fictitious body.... a fictitious entity.. that WE MADE... that is MADE of US....

STOP BLAMING... once you start blaming the blaming never ends... WE are responsible.. accept it NOW.. or keep getting free lessons..

and I actual enjoy watching people get free lessons... :)

reality check... check one .... check one, two...

is this mic ON?

iloveyou
 

Zekedogg

100% Authentic A$$Hole
So let me understand this correctly.....

You BDW earned the name BDW 20+ years ago and you decided you wanted to grow herb because you were in debt....All this talk of passion and everything else is bullshit if you ask me, You got in to deep in your own story and was lying to yourself,

Or was this all a plot for the story.....Im just trying to understand what is real and what isnt...


So far I got you are in debt and growing weed to get out of debt...Hmmmmm Is there anything else I need to know:peace:
 

Zekedogg

100% Authentic A$$Hole
and BTW to all the non believers....Marijuana is becoming more and more acceptable all the time...This shit is happening right now and you people are blind:hump:
 

gotdamunchies

Well-Known Member
UMM ur wrong man felons can vote i am a felon i still vote and so is my friend.:-?
Do some research...I too am a convicted felon with the right to vote, only because my ajudication(?) was withheld, otherwise I would not be able to vote OR own a gun...its not the same for everyone.....

First, let's lay out the facts. Although some felons have been legally disenfranchised, others have not. Specifically, while only four states allow felons to vote while they are in prison, 18 allow felons to vote while they are on parole and 21 allow them to vote while on probation. Only 10 states permanently disenfranchise all felons and another handful do so to some ex-offenders or restore the ability to vote after a time limit. The Sentencing Project, a prisoner advocacy group, says that 13% of black males are disenfranchised under these laws. They're an advocacy group and their exact figure is subject to challenge, but let's not quibble over a few percentage points. Clearly, this is a big deal.
The simple answer to your question is that felons can't vote is because voting is a civil right and you forfeit certain rights, temporarily anyway, when convicted of a serious crime. But the full story, as always, is more complex. Pull up a chair and light a cigar.
The voting history of the United States is mostly one of extending voting rights from the few to the many, not the other way around. Over the course of our Constitution, rights have been extended to non-whites (Amendment XV in 1870), to women (XIX in 1920), to people unable or unwilling to pay a poll tax (XXIV, 1964) and to people over the age of 18 (XXVI, 1971). Additionally, state laws extended the right to non-property owners and others. Felons mostly just never got out from the historical and common-law prohibitions against their ability to vote.
Convicted felons have been denied various privileges granted to other citizens going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece--this practice is laced throughout the common law that serves as the basis for U.S. law. Hey, at least we don't banish offenders any more.
The guiding case law currently is Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974). In that case, a majority of the Supreme Court found that the 14th Amendment gives the states clear permission to deny the vote to felons. The second part of the amendment essentially reduced a state's representation in Congress if the state has denied the right to vote to otherwise eligible citizens for any reason "except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." William Rehnquist, then a green associate justice, wrote for the majority that this language (and the accompanying legislative history) made it clear that the states may abridge the rights of those convicted of "other crimes." Given your point about black males' voting rights, it is interesting to note that one purpose of the 14th Amendment was to encourage states to extend voting rights to newly-freed slaves. If you ever write a song about irony, you'll want a list of words that rhyme with Ramirez.
"That's not fair!" you say. Well, here's a glimmer of hope. In Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985), the court found that the right to disenfranchise felons was not absolute. Specifically, the court found that a disenfranchisement law reflecting "purposeful racial discrimination" was not constitutional. So if one could show that the pattern of convictions of blacks vs. whites in the war on drugs or otherwise showed "purposeful racial discrimination," one might be able to get Wild Bill and the Supremes to reconsider. When you go to argue the case, be sure to point out that states with tough anti-felon laws tend to be located in the South and that a lot of these laws were beefed up around the turn of the century to include crimes thought to be more commonly committed by blacks. But you probably won't win. Your better bet is to get a change to the laws of your state. Good luck--not a lot of legislators want to put "I'll give felons more rights!" on their campaign posters.
I'm grateful for the assistance of The Sentencing Project in the preparation of this item. You can learn more about felon-disenfranchisement laws from The Sentencing Project at http://www.sentencingproject.org/index.htm l.
 

kingding2385

Well-Known Member
Garden Known, i agree with you that this goverment is one we created, we gave them the power that they have, but can you also agree that our government is also corrupt? there is talk on here about voting, but hell, who gives a shit about voting bush never won his presidency legally anyway. he ran this country for 8 years on an election he never won. if the government wants a certain person to be president then that person will be president. all of that "your vote counts" shit is a crock if you ask me.
 

letmeblazemyfuckingbong

Well-Known Member
Garden Known, i agree with you that this goverment is one we created, we gave them the power that they have, but can you also agree that our government is also corrupt? there is talk on here about voting, but hell, who gives a shit about voting bush never won his presidency legally anyway. he ran this country for 8 years on an election he never won. if the government wants a certain person to be president then that person will be president. all of that "your vote counts" shit is a crock if you ask me.
i agree with this dude we got no say one what happens what so ever the goverment will do what they see fit wither we say so or not i much rather have bush then any of the assholes coming up i know it sounds sexiest but a woman souldnt be president there to kind hearted and forgiven i mean look at hillary she allready talking about pulling ppl out of the war i know ppl say we souldnt be in war but there a terriost race they do anything they dispise americans so it had to be done or the war would of been fought on are own soil or even worse they could of just gotten there hands on a nuclear bomb i mean given time it would of happened i think we souldnt be changing there way in socity or there goverment but certain ppl had to go and they where to high of a risk u know what that be like to have a bomb target the white house and a nuclear bomb can be destroyed in the sky cause of the ozone it waste it so it was a hudge problem that had to be dealt with wither or not we had a reason
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
there is A LOT more to voting then picking a president.

i see A LOT of excuses. if you can't vote it legal then how do you explain california?

this thread is running in circles.

go back to GK's post and read the part about "denial".

anyone look into that letter yet?

he it is again in case anyone missed it.......Marijuana Law Reform - NORML
 

ORECAL

Well-Known Member
there is A LOT more to voting then picking a president.

i see A LOT of excuses. if you can't vote it legal then how do you explain california?

this thread is running in circles.

go back to GK's post and read the part about "denial".

anyone look into that letter yet?

he it is again in case anyone missed it.......Marijuana Law Reform - NORML

oh fuck yeah.... i can't wait to see how this goes. first time in a long time we have the chance to stop the bullshit... it's gunna happen. if they took a vote in the entire country about pot, I bet it would be legalized, but only if it was put to a real vote, oh, and the people who don't think their vote counts ACTUALLY VOTED :blsmoke:
 

letmeblazemyfuckingbong

Well-Known Member
see the thing to get pot legilized has toi be held in supreme court in dc and the has to be a bill singed by most of the legistlater if thats how u spell it for that simple fact i dont think it will be legilized there dick heads i mean even in amsterdam its not even legal its tolerrated its consider a health hazard instead of a criminal problem like the us looks at it thats the only reason amsterdam its legal
 

ORECAL

Well-Known Member
see the thing to get pot legilized has toi be held in supreme court in dc and the has to be a bill singed by most of the legistlater if thats how u spell it for that simple fact i dont think it will be legilized there dick heads i mean even in amsterdam its not even legal its tolerrated its consider a health hazard instead of a criminal problem like the us looks at it thats the only reason amsterdam its legal
and thats exactly what this bill is, it may not have a chance this year, but they can't fight it forever. I don't understand how you can sit there and say that you want it legalized and blah blah blah, yet you don't do anything about it, you sit there and say it's never gunna happen. of coarse it wont happen if everyone that wants it legalized were like you. VOTE, contact your legislators, do something instead sitting there saying it's never gunna happen.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
there's a law that says if more than half the states approve it then the feds HAVE to change the law. i wish i new the name of that law. i just saw it a few days ago.
 

ORECAL

Well-Known Member
there's a law that says if more than half the states approve it then the feds HAVE to change the law. i wish i new the name of that law. i just saw it a few days ago.
that's sweet, do you know if it applies only to medi pot since that is what the bills that are getting passed consist of? or would they have to decriminalize it?
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
that's sweet, do you know if it applies only to medi pot since that is what the bills that are getting passed consist of? or would they have to decriminalize it?

i'm searching and i can't find it. i don't know what to search for. it's there though. :blsmoke:
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
this isn't it but this is some good info.

changing the law has NOTHING to do with the president........Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
.
.
.

"Marijuana could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch. Congress has so far rejected all bills to reschedule marijuana. However, it is not unheard of for Congress to intervene in the drug scheduling process; in February 2000, for instance, Congress passed Public Law 106-172, also known as the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reed Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000,[10] adding GHB to Schedule I.[11]
The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule marijuana administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical marijuana without an act of Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited the lengthy petition review process as a reason why marijuana is still illegal.[1] The first petition took 22 years to review, and the second took 7 years. In 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a third petition."
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
the third petition, do you know if they have turned it in? or can we still sign it?





2002 Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis petition

On October 9, 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed another petition.[35] The new organization consisted of medical marijuana patients and other petitioners who would be more directly affected by the DEA's decision. On April 3, 2003, the DEA accepted the filing of that petition. According to Jon Gettman, "In accepting the petition the DEA has acknowledged that the Coalition has established a legally significant argument in support of the recognition of the accepted medical use of cannabis in the United States."
Gettman speculates that if marijuana is removed from Schedule I, three possible outcomes are that marijuana could be:[36]
In a footnote to the majority decision in Gonzales v. Raich, Justice John Paul Stevens said that if the scientific evidence offered by medical marijuana supporters is true, it would "cast serious doubt" on the Schedule I classification.[37]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top