Medical Marijuana Patients Demand Answers As Washington State Begins Ignoring Voters Intent

[nds87]

Does anyone still believe this is a "Free" country?

[MrAudiovideodisco]

The worst part of this mess is that by making such a big deal out of cannabis, there will be a perfect excuse to put off leaglizing other drugs down the line.

" Oh NOW they want to legalize psilocybin, typical hippies, they should be happy that they got their cannabis, what with all the trouble the legalization process caused."

[LighterOfDewbies]

@MrAudiovideodisco Agreed, but hopefully after pot is legalized, opponents will see the benefits it brings and will be more open to legalization of other drugs.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies And the fact that you completely CHERRY PICK and ASSUME that "this set of votes V already goes to candidate Y" and then "candidate Z takes those votes from Y " shows you are not thinking logically. Bush stole votes from Ralph Nader.

Your logic implies we should not support soldiers who die in battle because they have no hope of winning

and give support only to those you "know" will win.

That assumes you are psychic (which is BS).

So, I learned LONG ago..

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies ... not to waste my voice or my vote other than to support those causes and those candidates CLOSEST to my set of views. And I am not going to risk pot-choice, animal rights, prisoners' rights throwing my vote away on a Republicrat or Demopub.

And you are going to have to learn to live with the fact that it is our LEGAL RIGHT to support any goddamned person we want.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello Also, I am normally a huge opponent of the mindset that you shouldn't vote for candidate X because they can't win. But strictly in terms of POT LEGALIZATION, Ron Paul is our best bet. Saying we shouldn't vote for Ron Paul because he has no chance of winning, is stupid, I agree, because even if RP can't win, voting for someone else will still result in 0% chance of legalization. But if there is a 50% for RP vs 1% for Nader, I will go with Ron Paul.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello It seems that you are the one being illogical, and it probably stems in part from your hidden agression and rage at the fact that I don't agree with your views, which can be seen from your cursing statement that "I can vote for any goddamned candidate you want." I never told you who to vote for. You go to the polls and vote your intolerant little butt off Ralph Nader, I don't care. (continued)

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello I am just debunking your illogical arguments because I know you're being disingeniuous. You're trying to convince legalization voters that voting for Ralph Nader has the best chance of legalization when in reality, you just want them to vote for your candidate because you have other priorities, such as animal rights and the environment. I think those things are important too, but my main priority is legalization, and that's why I'm going to vote for Ron Paul...

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello ...and am going to TELL THE TRUTH, and tell others that if their FIRST PRIORITY is legalization, it would be in their best interests to do the same. And if you don't like it, tough, because like you, I have the LEGAL RIGHT to "support any goddamned person I want."

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies I voted this comment up. Yes! ASIDE from just voting for candidates -

and, BTW: I totally agree, and have been saying it all along, if one is held hostage in prison over law X,

no matter how much a prisoner agrees with a politician about laws W, Y, Z,.. if that politician still holds that person in prison for law X, then laws W, Y, Z have no effect on that prisoner.

Luckily, BOTH Nader and this other guy ARE in favor of pot legalization.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello But it seems that you are voting for Nader because you are taking other issues into account as well, which is perfectly fine. I simply found fault in the logic of some of your claims about why legalization voters should vote for Nader, and I debunked them as I saw them from my viewpoint. Either way I have no problem with you or anyone else voting for Nader, that's your choice. I just think legalization would stand a better chance if we would unite behind RP. But to each his own.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies "taking other issues into account as well" That IS true. And, again, AT NO LOSS TO THE FREEDOM-OF-MARIJUANA-CHOICE ISSUE! In fact, even STRONGER.

Ron Paul would fold up to GOP forces on pot legalization if he were prez.

FYI: I vote for Nader, even though he OPPOSES me on the general principle of "violence". In fact, ALL political parties, do. "Violence" has become such as terribly politically incorrect dirty word for achieving freedom or whatever political ends one has.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and just about every other prominent neoconservative always bashes Ron Paul because he does NOT bow to GOP demands. You say Ralph Nader will legalize hemp? Well there's a hemp legalization bill in Congress right now, and guess who wrote it? Ron Paul. If there is any man whose principles stand strong against partisan forces, it is Ron Paul. He has shown this time and time again by defying BOTH parties on just about every issue.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello So I have to say you have never been more wrong in your life when you say "Ron Paul would fold up to GOP forces on pot legalization if he were prez." That is extremely false. You seem to think Ron Paul is just another typical Republican but if you read up on him, you would realize he is anything but.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies Ralph Nader would NOT fold to the anti-legalization forces.

Ralph Nader supports tough action on climate change, which includes making hemp legal.

Ron Paul is wishy-washy (at best) on climate change. Maybe even a denier.

Again, that's why if everyone unites behind Nader, then we'd stand a better chance to legalize pot:

EVEN IF NADER DIDN'T WIN! (goes for Paul, too, but not so much)

because we'd make our voices heard to the Demopublicans.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello I'm sorry, I mean no insult but it sounds like you know absolutely nothing about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is THE most principle-led man in Washington or any state legislature right now. Ron Paul is very unpopular among the GOP because contrary to what you said, his firm principles throughout his career have stood unshaken by GOP demands. Ron Paul supports a far stronger non-interventionism than any DEMOCRAT has ever proposed.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies Just saw this clip of Ron Paul on YouTube

=5vbMly74cZ8 (It's never clear to me how to embed one YT clip into the comment boxes of another)

preaching his extremist religion of "solve only by property rights". Then he had DAMNED well better come out OPENLY in favor of TOTAL DRUG LEGALIZATION. I do. Do you?

It's NOBODY's business whether they want to do cocaine or meth or pot or have an abortion or look at porn.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello Yes, I agree, ALL drugs should be legal, not just pot. And so does Ron Paul. Ron Paul opposes the ENTIRE war on drugs as a breach of constitutional powers. Look up "Ron Paul, heroin legalization" in the Youtube search bar. Ron Paul was asked by a reporter sometime ago, in response to his opposition to the WoD, if he would legalize heroin, and he said yes, and the neocons seized on this and attempted to use this to make him unappealing to conservative GOP voters (and failed).

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies .. And, of course, unlike the items I mentioned - the right to choose or not choose cocaine, meth, pot, own a gun, abortion - which FOR THE MOST part impact nobody else (EVERYthing does, of course, by the butterfly effect) - climate change REQUIRES a collective effort. Either I use force by law (gov't) or I go and take it upon myself to blow up coal-fired plants and factory farms. THAT way, at least, libertarians can't complain, because I'd be using MY OWN ENERGY AND TIME...

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello Abortion, to me is a 50/50 issue since it is ARGUABLY aggression against another individual...but as long as one is not harming another human being, then yes, they should be able to do whatever they like. And I have never heard Ron Paul deny Climate Change...He simply supports a less direct approach to solving it than you do.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies .. to fight the War Against Climate Change, the War for Animal Rights, the War for Prisoners' Freedom, the War for anything damned thing I want.

Ralph Nader is not perfect, either. Again, I don't believe in this non-violence shit. But, EVERY politician - hell, even Kim Jon Il of North Korea is not going to OPENLY advocate violence - he'll openly claims "North Korea is interested only in peace" - is equal on their expression of THAT issue. Just some are much more hypo-

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies .. critical about it than the other.

So, excluding Ralph Nader's "anti-war stance just for the sake of being anti-war", Ralph Nader is the most principled politician / activist there ever was.

The more I interact with and meet people (online and in person), the more it is proven that there is ZERO difference between a person tweaked out on meth and a person who cannot or refuses to do mathematical modelling of law / justice / war/conflict. They are BOTH subhuman.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello Lol 99% of the population can't understand what true justice or correct law is so I think calling them "subhuman goes a bit far", but yes, most people are generally philosophically ignorant when it comes to justice, war, etc. Still, look up "ron Paul heroin legalization" and read up a little bit more on him.  Even if you don't find him perfect or as favorable as ralph nader, I think you will still like him as a politician. You seem not to know much about him. He isn't a typical Repub

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello Your claim that Bush stole votes for Ralph Nader is anything but logical. Typically when one candidate "steals" votes from another, it's the underdog candidate that steals the votes from one of the two main contenders. Bush stealing votes from Nader is like the law-abiding citizen stealing from a theif - it doesn't happen that way.

My logic doesn't support leaving losing soldiers to die in battle, because that would be inhumane. Votes are not people.

[mphello]

The DEA is a terrorist organization and needs to be treated as such by the US military.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies Marijuana (and consumption of ANY substance that isn't forced upon someone else - counterexample: meat, which tortures animals) should NOT be up to a referendum. What if the majority of citizens still keep it illegal? It's none of their fucking business. Those who suffer the MAJORITY OF THE EFFECT of the anti-pot laws - being IMPRISONED - should decide. And that brings up: those who are already imprisoned by anti-pot law MUST be allowed to vote in such a referendum.

[mphello]

@mphello Otherwise, fuck the referendum.

If the majority of citizens AFFECTED BY LAWS (both prisoners and non-prisoners) AGREE WITH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE of allowing people to do what they want on their own property (of course, we have to first PROVIDE everyone with their own property) without gov't interference, then THAT is the principle that must be upheld by law. Freedom of marijuana-choice automatically follows. Then, people canNOT be allowed to pick and choose and say...

[mphello]

@mphello .. that marijuana should be illegalized just because "I don't like pot-smoking hippies" or "pot's not for me, I prefer tobacco".

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello Are you kidding? Ralph Nader has almost zero chance of winning, he gets about 1% of the vote every time. Ron Paul is currently third in the Republican primary race. If he can make it to the top, he will have the Republican nomination and will have a better chance of winning than any third party candidate. Second, who is "we"? Count me out of this group, I would rather have Ron Paul win than Ralph Nader.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies Ralph Nader supports ending factory farming and supports animal rights.

Ron Paul HURTS any anti-Fed pro-pot cause he claims to help by giving support to the GOP.

Any weakening of anti-pot laws and strengthening of anti-Fed laws has been due to Nader.

Past statistics are ZERO indicator of causation in politics. In deterministic fields like climate science, yes. They are part of the overall proof that AGW is real and serious.

People can physically push a button for RN.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello No, Ron Paul HELPS any anti-fed pro-pot cause more than any third party candidate ever could simply by being in the GOP and taking their nomination if he wins it. And no, Nader does not single-handedly claim all support for pro-pot legislation. Ron Paul created the Industrial Hemp act that would legalize hemp that is currently going through Congress, and Ron Paul cosponsored the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, AND then again in 2009.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello Look man, I would be all for Ralph Nader if he had a shot in hell of winning. But there's a reason Ron Paul is running for the GOP nomination, and it's not because he upholds their views. It's because he realizes the only way he stands a chance of becoming President is if he goes through one of the main parties. The last time supporters of a cause abandoned a main party candidate and voted for Nader, it ended up costing Gore and the environmentalists the 2000 election. (continued)

[LighterOfDewbies]

@LighterOfDewbies by dividing the vote up. I don't want to see that happen again, especially not with the issue of marijuana legalization because this is too important of an issue to screw up.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies And Gore and Bush cost Nader the Presidency. And that guy Pat Buchanan.

You talk as though human behavior can be mathematically modelled as deterministic cause and effect.

What IS deterministic is the fact that:

The more you give support to candidate X, the more that causes candidate to get elected or their policies to get enacted. Since this has been proven true for all politicians (Reagan, Clinton, Jesse Ventura, senators, etc.) it is true when X = Nader, too.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello "And Gore and Bush cost Nader the Presidency. And that guy Pat Buchanan."

Wow. I'm not thinking logically? You do realize Gore was only a few popular votes away from winning Florida? Most of Nader's supporters said they didn't vote for Gore because he wasn't tough enough on his stance on the environment (tragic irony). It's safe to assume that if this group of voters' main concern was the environment, they probably would've voted for Gore over Bush. This is perfectly logical.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies Then that is the fault of Gore and Bush. Tell the Bush-voters to vote for Nader. Tell the Buchanan voters to vote for Nader. That is perfectly logical. They still have a choice.

It's no use complaining (i.e. not logical, not practical) to Nader voters, because we're not going to change our vote.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello Lol you still have it all wrong. I do not care and am not complaining about your decision to vote for Nader. If you want to do that, fine. You are the one that seemed to have a problem with me voting for Ron Paul. If not, I apologize, but it strongly seemed that way. I merely offered a suggestion in my first comment in this conversation that legalization combine their votes into one candidate to increase their chances of getting the desired results.

[mphello]

Vote Ingrid Newkirk or Amory Lovins or Ralph Nader for President 2012!

Green Party and Ralph Nader have demanded pot legalization long before RonPaul-nobody even heard of pot.

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello The last thing we need is to have the legalization vote divided up between Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Green Party-whoever...Ron Paul has the best chance of winning. Let's vote for him.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies

Ralph Nader has the best chance of winning, and we don't want RP to win, anyway.

1st RP is only 1 year younger than Nader, so it's not exactly like we'd be electing a spring chicken.

2nd, there are more than just position of President to fill: Nader and Greens can fill offices at ALL levels.

3rd RP is an AGW-denier.

4th, and probably most important of all: RP is a member of the anti-American terrorist organization known as the GOP!!

[LighterOfDewbies]

@mphello 1st There's a one-year age difference. What's your point?

2nd - I would rather Libertarians fill most White House positions than Greens

3rd - No he is not, he supports free market environmentalism instead of a government approach.

4th - Ron Paul just uses the GOP as a medium to get elected. Quite a smart move in my opinion. God knows he is anything but a neocon.

Your arguments against RP sound like typical arguments from people that know nothing about him.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies Actually, I oppose the non-violence dribble of BOTH libertarians and Greens.

Violence IS justified when one is using it to protect someone (including non-humans) from torture.

And it doesn't just have to be "for defense".

3rd - and that's exactly why RP fails and why we need Nader. If you don't like environmentalists using LAWS (i.e. gov't) to reduce AGW and pollution, then you've got NO right to complain if civilians take it into their own hands to fight pollution.

[mphello]

@LighterOfDewbies 2nd: yeah - YOU would. Most people would prefer Greens fill all gov't positions.

5th point: Ralph Nader supports animal rights and ending factory farms.

Nader has been pro-choice on marijuana for decades before RonPaul-come-lately joined the bandwagon a year ago.

[LighterOfDewbies]

What we need to do is start demanding that our state legislatures allow the referendum process. That is more likely to get bipartisan support than marijuana legalization. After states begin allowing referendums and ballot initiatives to take place, we can change the laws ourselves.

[Rocketfueler]

hm. Gregoire can kiss my ass. I grow my own. I'm voting to retire the bitch.

[ranger4usa83]

they can only do what we allow them to do. if we all just got off are asses and really took matters into our own hands and fix our country we would live a good life, but none of you except a small minority have the balls to do it. we the people own this country, not the corp's or the politicians.

[rsnboy08]

What a joke this country has become.

[TheReaperMedic]

Would cats outlaw catnip? What a joke we are....IT'S A FUCKING PLANT!

[mphello]

@TheReaperMedic My cat did. She's the sheriff of my livingroom to our other cats. :(

[NickThomas1983]

Here in Montana too. DEA doesn't care about votes or doctors or sick or dying. They are part of a unified black market. And keeping pot illegal is key. Quit whining about laws and vote, report about the black market lobby in washington

[DANYHWH]

its cut n dry legalize it the state gets tax revenue keep it illegal and drug lords get the revenue. fuckin idiots!

[bobster451]

Legalize it already!

These folks need their medication.

[Gilliatt83]

Hippocrates

[righyanb]

someone needs to shoot somone, i got some guns...

[RyanR3volution]

@onlyathought1

He has always been a warmongering liar, always.

[peterpotpie]

Vote the current government out of office. They are owned by big business, and will not act in the best interest of the people.

Ron Paul in 2012. The ones in power say he can't win, but we need him so badly.

We need to end the corruption now.

[MYAR15SaysImFree]

@peterpotpie i fear if he is elected, he will be the next JFK. the powers that be cant have an honest man for the people

[SimianAxiom]

I don't smoke but I fully support it's legalization.

[RevolutionNewsDotUS2]

Cannabis stops cancer - Harvard

Cannabis grows brain cells - Princeton

US Govt Patented Medicinal Marijuana, US patent #6630507

Marijuana is illegal because it's related to THE MOST VERSATILE plant on the planet... HEMP.

"HEMP can't get you high unless you smoke a joint the size of a telephone pole!"

—Dr. Ron Paul

Fuel, Paper, Fiber, Food, Medicine... Educate Yourself!

Real News @ RevolutionNews.US

[kmg501]

Just keep voting out the establishment. They are murderers, thieves, incompetents and authoritarians.

-

[AveragePope]

FUCK THE FEDS. FUCK ERIC HOLDER.

[cheeseaura]

"limited federal funds"

[ADULTEDUCATION4U]

vote her out of office

[sx200ser]

people say they don't want activist judges but wtf does the supreme court do exactly, what amendment to the constitution doesn't allow you to get fucked up on drugs, or even commit suicide. the most powerful body able to shred laws deemed constitutional, yet they do nothing. someone take this Nixon war on drugs crap to the courts, should there be term limits on them to keep them honest

[Xc31]

@sx200ser the supreme court also ruled that your government cant tax you an income tax, but I dont suggest you try that if you dont have the money and legal backing to safe your skin. your government will get you no matter what court rules anyhting, your government commits warcrimes around the globe but no one ever stands trail except the little slaves. the system is rotten from the inside.

[mphello]

@sx200ser You are 100% half true. When the constitution does not allow cops to stop you from doing drugs, suicide, or force you to pay income tax, but some judge or gov't does anyway, the constitution is on your side.

But what if it's amended so it's not? (e.g. a constitutional amendment to BAN pot, etc) Then you'll complain when (not if) the judges and gov'ts act consistently with the constitution!

We need to throw out the concept of law as we know it.

[exacerbatedtaboo]

If you can't get it legally buy it illegally. Either way it's not going to stop people from using it. We've kept it illegal for how many years now? And marijuana consumption has risen by how much? Fuck the government. We don't need government approval to smoke weed.

[kiararei]

that makes no sense whatsoever, they can grow the pot but they can't distribute it to their patients.

[BadSwineDOTcom]

LMAO Voter wishes.

This is not a Democracy, this is what happens when you let the federal government ignore the tenth amendment.

Liberal logic = State rights... but someone might be discriminated against so lets have a dictatorship instead and just hope no republicans get elected.

[sethzky77]

@BadSwineDOTcom A democracy means majority rule, 51%. A republic means rule of law limited by restrictions upon the government not to infringe on peoples god given rights. An Oligarchy is not a dictatorship, but a system where the few control the masses governed by an appointed figure head by those few. The terms, liberal, democrat, republican and so forth or irrelevant. We live in an Oligarchy which is meant to be a republic.

[twistfinger]

Think of all the jobs this would kill. Think of all the jobs that legalization/decriminalization would create.

[chocomalk]

Haha, "voters wishes."



[raiden409]

I want the fedral goverment investigated! They get away with everything!!

[TheBeardedMarxist]

@raiden409 Yeah... Lets get the government to investigate them. lol