Posted by truthtalk at 8/19/08 11:11 p.m.

Excellent.... stay stoned all through the fall and perhaps many will forget what day the election is as Homer J. Simpson did when he spearheaded a similar effort.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/20/08 3:11 a.m.

Surprised that you are tarring all Democrats with the statements of a single individual, Mason Tvert, a marijuana legalization activist. Searching the internet, I am unable to determine if he is a Democrat or Republican, although he has criticized Mrs. McCain for making her fortune from a drug that has killed millions of Americans--alcohol. This seems more like a pro-republican puff piece than "NEWS."

Posted by Panzo at 8/20/08 6:01 a.m.

Leadership you can only tolerate while stoned?

How does this differ from now?

Posted by serial catowner at 8/20/08 7:02 a.m.

It's not about smoking pot, it's about the use of police resources in a city where the Republicans have been promising to come and try to cause trouble in the streets while posing as Democrats or environmentalists for the television cameras.

An arrest for marijuana takes an officer off the street for several hours while they book the prisoner and fill out paperwork. Of course, during the convention most of the officers will be working at overtime rates and probably some of them would welcome a chance to get paid like that while sitting in an air-conditioned office filling out papers.

I know I would, but I'm just one of the taxpayers paying for this boondoggle.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/20/08 7:20 a.m.

Actually, an arrest takes as little as a few minutes. The paperwork a few more; and booking the evidence a few more than that. Don't try to justify the use of an illegal and harmful substance by making it out to be a public safety issue. Officers in both convention cities are going to do plenty of looking the other way to make sure things are safe in the grand scheme of things.

Posted by mcleodmn at 8/20/08 7:45 a.m.

"Posted by unregistered user at 8/20/08 7:20 a.m.

Actually, an arrest takes as little as a few minutes. The paperwork a few more; and booking the evidence a few more than that. Don't try to justify the use of an illegal and harmful substance by making it out to be a public safety issue. Officers in both convention cities are going to do plenty of looking the other way to make sure things are safe in the grand scheme of things."

I hope you're not really that oblivious/ignorant.

Posted by ducttape2 at 8/20/08 9:40 a.m.

serial catowner
in a city where the Republicans have been promising to come and try to cause trouble in the streets while posing as Democrats or environmentalists for the television cameras.

Hardly, In order to play the part of the Dem protestor I would have had to stop taking a shower a couple months ago.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/20/08 9:48 a.m.

Great!

I cannot legally smoke MJ but these yahoos can?

Talk about "Do as I say, not as I do!"

Posted by unregistered user at 8/20/08 9:52 a.m.

D'"Oh"

Posted by RHankinson at 8/20/08 10:04 a.m.

No one has ever died from a pot overdose... Unlike drinking...

Posted by Panzo at 8/20/08 10:25 a.m.

Posted by RHankinson at 8/20/08 10:04 a.m.

No one has ever died from a pot overdose... Unlike drinking...

CSI Rookie: We're not sure how this young man died.

CSI Old Hand: It's obvious, Rookie. Another DBT.

CSI R: DBT? What?

CSI OH: Death by toking. It's grim.

CSI R: How can you tell he was toking?

CSI OH: Chocolate crumbs on his hands. Milk mustache. Oreoes packed in his mouth.

CSI R: Oh. Choking after toking. I see now.

CSI OH: You have a lot to learn, Rookie.

Posted by Mayor McCheese at 8/20/08 10:39 a.m.

Posted by RHankinson at 8/20/08 10:04 a.m.

No one has ever died from a pot overdose... Unlike drinking...
________________________________________________________

Yeah, and....? Is this your justification for legalization? You can come with a much stronger arguement than that, son...

Posted by RHankinson at 8/20/08 11:35 a.m.

Mayor McCheese: 1st, I'm not your son... My main justification relates not to if pot is good or bad, but that YOU have no right to tell me what I can or can't do in the privacy of my own home.

Booze, just because some rednecks 200 years ago liked to drink it, get drunk and become REAL men, is now accepted. But you can't look me in the eye and say it's less of a burden on society then pot... Home many people die each year related to drinking?

Then you get these straight lacers who have never even tried it, speaking their mind on how bad it is? Go figure. If I want to light up after work to relax, what's so different then someone having a beer afterwork?

I know, I know, you'll come back with, "It's against the law". Well, slavery used to legal too. So does our government really know what's best for us all the time? Or do they make mistakes...

Posted by jctsuave at 8/20/08 11:42 a.m.

I like this guy, he's framing the legalization argument as a pro-public safety issue, and in the short term nonetheless. Maybe the city council will go along with this and it will be like trial period for full decriminalization because the public safety argument could just as soon be made all year.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/20/08 12:05 p.m.

Does it really matter who smokes pot or not?

Pot should be legal anyway so if all you Repuklican war mongers want to lock up all us Democrats who smoke pot, go ahead - your taxes will be through the ceiling and be a bigger chunk of your pay then the actual money you take home! I'd laugh my butt off in jail too!

Smoke it if you got it!

Posted by unregistered user at 8/20/08 1:17 p.m.

I'm not sure Mr. Tvert's proposal is 100% genuinely based on his concern for ensuring law enforcement resources for the convention. An ounce is no small amount for an individual to be allowed to carry around for such a brief period of time, so I'm thinking somebody's got a big party planned.

No matter how stoned somebody might be, they'd never be so addlepated and out of it as to vote for people like Bush & gang, TWICE!
OTOH, some of my best friends are republicans (shh), smoke pot all day long every day, and keep jobs, run businesses, etc.

It is a puzzler - alcohol (legal mind-altering drug) causes much more violence, crime, misery, and death than pot, but every weeknight you can drink booze real cheap for an hour or two during 'happy hour,' and we know for certain that everybody gets a ride home instead of driving after spending happy hour plus at a bar. Yeah, right. And then there's all the beer (or smuggled booze) people drink at sporting events, but they all take a shuttle or bus or cab home. Uh-huh. Might as well open drive-through liquor stores.

Marijuana - kinder, gentler than alcohol.
Don't despise it, legalize it.

Posted by TheScrutinizer at 8/20/08 3:16 p.m.

Free or drug free?

No country can be both.

America is neither!

Posted by waggingitseattle at 8/20/08 5:33 p.m.

The war on drugs is Vietnam and Prohibition all rolled up in one terrorist-funding, Latin-America destroying nightmare.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/20/08 9:55 p.m.

erb is love man

Posted by unregistered user at 8/20/08 10:06 p.m.

Who cares, it's pot. It's unbelievable that some people still want the justice system - our justice system that we pay for - spending its money (your money) on harassing harmless stoned people.

Economic downturns always lead to increased crime rates, so maybe now is a good time for all of you pot-phobic police staters to consider your real crime fighting priorities.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/21/08 4:23 a.m.

It's a plant that's only been illegal for less than 100 yrs. If you know your history you'll know it was made illegal due to racism. Nobody here remembers Refer Maddness and all the bs the federal gov used to deceive Americans? The truth wouldn't work so they lied.

Don't be so closed minded to think that this is about politics, or health, or recent events. Use the full History to frame your judgments please. That's how we evolve. It's about god given rights. Man wants to make a plant illegal?? what?

I'll end with a quote from a man who thought for himself and listened to the people of his city .... in 1937.

"Prohibition cannot be enforced for the simple reason that the majority of American People do not want it enforced and are resiting its enforcement! That means so, the orderly thing to do, under our form of government, is to abolish a law which cannot be enforced. A law in which the people of the country do not want enforced!"

-Fiorello La Guardia (former Mayer of New York) 1937

Posted by unregistered user at 8/21/08 4:28 a.m.

Ask any cop who he/she would rather deal with: a pot smoker or a drunk. Hands down, they'd all choose the pot smoker. Now ask them "Why?".

The only reason pot is still illegal is because the existing corporate profiteers would stand to lose money on their drug and terrorism empire: big pharma, big oil, the arms trade, the enforcers (dea, ice, DARE, etc.), and the IRS. And let's not forget Air America, the CIA's drug smuggling operation... it didn't end with Vietnam.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/21/08 4:34 a.m.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0-U82XeIcg

Posted by unregistered user at 8/21/08 7:39 a.m.

This is an interesting issue with interesting comments. I'm not sure that I would try to boil it down to a Republican/Democrat issue, though. The issues seem somewhat more fundamental than along party lines.

A couple of fundamentals of good government that I think both Republicans and Democrats can agree on are that 1. personal freedom should be maximized and 2. public policy should favor efficient use of resources.

In terms of maximization of personal freedoms we often allow things which might be detrimental to an individual, but allow personal choice. For example, we don't have a government mandated diet even though having such a program would reduce obesity and its associated health costs which are borne by society. Similarly, alcohol and tobacco are tolerated, despite the negative consequences for some individuals and society as a whole. Basically we recognize that personal freedoms sometimes involve the freedom to to the wrong thing.

In terms of efficient use of resources we don't jail people for traffic offenses (e.g. speeding) even though this would decrease the incidence of speeding. Jailing people for items such as speeding would be very costly in terms of court time and costs of incarceration. Similarly, we found that alcohol prohibition, while it probably reduced drinking, resulted in an efficient use of resources because the cost of prohibition was greater than the harm caused by allowing the consumption of alcohol. (Enforcement, court time, incarceration, general rise in crime) Basically we recognize that sometimes the most efficient way of dealing with an issue, whether it be alcohol, tobacco or marijuana, is to recognize when prohibition is inefficient and try to create a model which minimizes the cost to society.

This being said, the question is, "What is the most efficient way of dealing with the marijuana issue?"

Continuing what has been done in the past might seem like a logical conclusion if some progress has been made. However, it really appears that the problem is pretty intractable in its current form. Thus, an alternate approach would seem to make sense.

If the desire is to maximize personal freedoms and use public resources efficiently, then it might be well to consider the Dutch model of quasi-legalization. The Dutch spend virtually nothing on enforcement and the percentage of the population that reports smoking marijuana is basically the same as in the U.S.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/21/08 11:23 a.m.

i'm also a republican who smokes and still believes hippies suck.......Go drive your hybrids and save the world from climate change.....i'll still be a hardworking, hatemongering, potsmoking, SELF RELIANT republican.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/21/08 12:28 p.m.

RHankinson wrote:
No one has ever died from a pot overdose... Unlike drinking...

Tell that to my little sister who was killed in a head on collision caused by a guy high on pot when he crossed the double line.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/21/08 1:29 p.m.

Follow the money.

Seizure laws take property from tokers who are otherwise productive tax paying citizens.

Those in the dregs from hard drugs generally have little or no assets.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/22/08 7:29 a.m.

You'd have to be totally stoned (or maybe on "a little blow") to want to vote for Obama.

Posted by DunnerMeister at 8/22/08 7:39 a.m.

Is it really so hard to known the difference between "then" and "than"? Here's our grammar lesson for the day and I'll use them both in a sentence:

"I went to Hollywood Video and *then* I went the grocery store."

"I'd rather get my videos at Hollywood Video *than* get them at the grocery store."

The first is a serial progression, "this then that" and the second a comparison term. See it's not so hard... :)

Posted by unregistered user at 8/23/08 11:11 a.m.

You spelled "Because" wrong. Did you just have a bong-hit?

Posted by unregistered user at 8/24/08 7:20 a.m.

Posted by RHankinson at 8/20/08 10:04 a.m.

No one has ever died from a pot overdose... Unlike drinking...

So How do you know that fact? Its an unproven statement.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/24/08 11:32 a.m.

denver R0olZ d0od

Posted by unregistered user at 9/2/08 4:15 p.m.

I live in Denver. In 2005 an initiative was passed that effectively decriminalized cannabis possession for adults over the age of up to one ounce. This was called initiative 100, in 2006 or 7 voters once again upheld the initiative by refusing to allow it to be amended. Possession of one once or less is a simple ticket. This is old news, and in no way related to the DNC.

Posted by unregistered user at 11/9/08 11:59 p.m.

No one has ever died from a pot overdose... Unlike drinking...

So How do you know that fact? Its an unproven statement.

There are no cannabinoid receptors in the brain stem(which is responsible for autonomic processes such as breathing)

That is the reason why overdosing on marijuana is impossible; it has no effect on critical life-sustaining processes. Alcohol and many other drugs do have receptors in the brain stem.