I agree with what Penn is saying about drugs policies. But, now back to Penn's personal stance... didn't he used to run a show called "Bullshit!" ?

It's all a fraud, but a voluntary one. The CSA is unscientific and doesn't abide by its own classifications... but has been adopted by the States, who now don't question it.

Since 2003, the US Govt, through the DHHS, owns a patent on Cannabidiol - a main ingredient in the cannabis plant and component of the smoke from combustion of the plant -- thus invalidating the claim against medicinal value. Patent Number 6630507. So why is it illegal? Guess who is in charge of authorizing the studies?

You will have to look it up, because for all intents and purposes it is actually the DEA who sets AND enforces drug policy in our country. (of course, they swear they are just followin the orders which come right from our citizens! they are doin the good work by keepin us from getting free medicine. don't you remember asking them to ruin your life just for fun?)

The current DEA director LYINGHEART actively blocks all attempts at scientific discourse regarding marijuana, yet screams the sky is falling because of synthetic cannabinoids that have been available for over a decade, proving that the DEA is up its own ass, at least partially enough to block hearing and sight. They can still smell pot smoke though.


Marijuana is not a drug. The plant isnt a drug. The chemicals inside it are... and they have medicinal value. So why make the plant illegal? Because its free. Number one, period.

prescription pain killer abuse is at an all time high and rising with the population... so one has to question the motivations of people who keep a free effective drug illegal. The most therapeutically safe substance known to man is classified with Heroin in terms of impact on health and society. That alone should be a warning flag to any thinking citizen.

Sickening, yet the only logical conclusion in light of all the facts.

Never drank, never smoked, never did illegal substances....and I don't feel superior to people who drink and some illegal substances. I actually admire them if they can balance it into their life and it brings them some happiness.

I can't stand smoking, I grew up around it, had all but one grandparent die because of smoking giving them lung issues that either ultimately killed them or prevented them from getting procedures done to stop heart problems. Weak lungs would have guaranteed their death during surgery and no one would operate. So, I don't feel superior to them, but I'm an asthmatic it smells horrible, so I just can't be around them. Hell as I got older I had to quit hanging around with a friend of mine until he quit smoking because he just smoked more and more and I couldn't take being around him. Allergies, etc. Plus anytime he smoked I had to be away from him, so the more he smoked the less point there was to trying to hang out.

Illegal substances, mixed bag. Marijuana, not really a huge deal to me...I know too many functional people who use it. However I have a brother who is absolutely obsessed with marijuana, and it's obviously not beneficial to him due to that control it has over him. Cocaine, meth, heroin, etc....just seems like pissing money away for health issues you'll have to deal with later...plus a lot of substances age you prematurely or make your teeth fall out, etc. And teeth falling is something I've had nightmares about, so why the hell would I want to do that.

And I *KNOW* I have an addictive personality, this is why I don't try these things. Not because I feel superior, in fact I don't like not being able to try alcohol in particularly. I just know I would slowly slide into over-use on it. Plus most of it smells horrible, so as long as it smells horrible to me and I don't develop a taste for it...Im set.


I don't like Penn yelling/ranting like that to make his point, but I do think that they need to re-examine their drug policies. Because they seem less about drug control and more about people control, especially non-influential and poor people control. If it were about drug control, I think they'd be telling you that if they catch you on substances while driving you are out of a license immediately. Or if you commit a crime while on them, it's worse punishment. While if you're just on them and not doing anything of note.......then that's what you choose to do. I do get the argument on having to treat people who use substances.....but it's similar to people who overdose on scripts or over the counter stuff.

Rehabilitation does not happen anymore AFAIK, not like it used to. Now they work them for pennies on the dollar instead of paying minimum wage to regular workers. It's more for profit now than anything else, which I think is the real issue...they will find any law to enforce to get their populations and numbers up for profits.

Eeeeeehh.

There's no question that it should be legalized. There has never been, as far as I know, any coherent argument for why I should be able to drink myself to death, or to the emergency room for a stomach pump, but not use any of the perfectly healthy, safe, non-addictive and therapeutic substances. The shrooms I'm growing, for instance

And even if there were, it still wouldn't be good enough to justify drug prohibition when the changes people wish to see in society - less drug use and abuse, less drug-related gang violence, less addiction - are clearly more likely to be achieved by legalization and an intelligent, compassionate approach to rehabilitation.

But Cheech and Chong? Come on. If the marijuana legalization movement is to be taken as seriously as we need it to be, we're going to need more articulate spokespeople. Preferably ones that don't so completely fit into the stereotype of the stoner.

This isn't about the people who are all for smoking pot, this is about convincing the ones who are still opposed to it, and gathering enough popular momentum to permanently change drug policy. I don't think it's a good idea for those in opposition to see a couple of iconic potheads who can barely form a coherent sentence as faces of the movement.

Or maybe I should shut my goddamn mouth. Hands.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^longde:
I remember saying the same thing about Gore 11 years ago; I sure wish I had my Nader vote back. Bush hurt this country alot more than Gore would have, status quo or no.
Just because I don't think the warden is strict enough doesn't mean I am going to hand over the keys to the inmates.>> ^Fletch:
@Auger8
I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.


I hear ya. I don't disagree, but I just can't vote for "not Romney".


Why not? Life is full of "best of a bad lot" decisions, especially ones where inaction could result in the worst possible outcome. I think even the most strident Obama supporter would agree he has been a disappointment, if only because he raised our expectations so high and if the stakes weren't so high and the alternatives weren't so much worse, I would agree with you.

>> ^Auger8:
He doesn't play by their rules. This is exactly the kind of person we need in office someone who refuses to let partisan politics influence major decisions that effect the Nation as a whole.
My whole point is that he can do very little without House and Senate support, and they won't support him. I think he's a stand-up guy, but I also disagree with just about everything he stands for. I wouldn't cooperate with him either.

>> ^longde:

I remember saying the same thing about Gore 11 years ago; I sure wish I had my Nader vote back. Bush hurt this country alot more than Gore would have, status quo or no.
Just because I don't think the warden is strict enough doesn't mean I am going to hand over the keys to the inmates.>> ^Fletch:
@Auger8
I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.


I hear ya. I don't disagree, but I just can't vote for "not Romney".

Not here but he does here on my other post.

http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-why-dont-other-candidates-talk-about-drug-policy

>> ^ChaosEngine:

My heartfelt thanks to @dystopianfuturetoday for such an exhaustive and well researched list.
I'd also like to point out that RP can be just as disingenuous as the next politician. Funny how he doesn't mention his attitude towards legalising drugs and prostitution in this ad.

I did my own less comprehensive list a few days ago: http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-why-dont-other-candidates-talk-about-drug-policy?loadcomm=1#comment-1379092 - but this list above was made by a redditor: http://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughPaulSpam/comments/oeay1/inspired_by_a_comment_by_hazel2020_in_that/

I remember saying the same thing about Gore 11 years ago; I sure wish I had my Nader vote back. Bush hurt this country alot more than Gore would have, status quo or no.

Just because I don't think the warden is strict enough doesn't mean I am going to hand over the keys to the inmates.>> ^Fletch:

@Auger8
I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.

There's a reason Ron Paul is hated by both parties a simple one too. He doesn't play by their rules. This is exactly the kind of person we need in office someone who refuses to let partisan politics influence major decisions that effect the Nation as a whole. By keeping the people at the forefront of his mind and not his "Party".

I'm sick of all this Left/Right bullsh*t it's time to do what's right for this Nation regardless of petty political agendas.

[edit] And I know exactly how the system works thank you very much. It work through the bowels of corruption and greed.

I think it's high time we flushed the system as it is and started anew.

>> ^Fletch:

@Auger8
If you think for a second that a President as despised by his own party as the opposing party is just going to walk into the White House on Inauguration Day and "make decisions", you have no idea how the system works. He will have NO EFFECT on the status quo, and the country will go through yet another four years of political gridlock while both parties look ahead to 2016.
I absolutely share your frustrations with Obama, and he isn't getting my vote this time. I'll write in Kucinich or Warren, or somebody. What I won't do is jump onto the short bus with the rest of the Ron Paul nutcakes. Yeah, voting write-in will have the same effect as voting for Ron Paul... it throws a potential Obama vote away. I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.

Oh that's an easy one how bout his lame signing statement on the NDAA.

>> ^longde:

I see what you are saying, but do you have a more consequential example? I mean, who cares about a speech that noone was going to watch anyway? On Obama's list of priorities that day, that one should rightly have been under #500. I doubt he made that decision at all; it would probably have fallen to his chief of staff.>> ^Auger8:
Here's my problem with Obama and don't get me wrong I voted for the guy. But everytime he say "I'm gonna change this "Insert Policy Here"" he makes a great case for it and then someone on his staff or the Speaker or Joint Chiefs tell him "No you can't do that because it will piss off "Insert party here"". He folds without any fight whatsoever.
Example:
He pulled what I thought was a daring and awesome move by planning a Presidential speech the night of the first GOP debate. Effective pulling away potential competition for upcoming votes against him. Then the Speaker of the House got pissed and whined about it to him to change the date. And he did. No argument, nothing he just folded up like an worn out lawnchair for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean give me a break how can you pretend to make bold moves like and not follow through with it. Your the freakin President it's your decision not the Speaker's who isn't even in your Party. WTF man grow a pair already. I'm tired of president who won't their guns and not let partisan politics dictate what they can and can't do for the better of the nation.
Partisan politics in the U.S. are slowly killing this nation we need someone who won't be influenced by that and will make decisions based on what's right for the country not what's right for the party who voted them in.
>> ^longde:
I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.
Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:
Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.

I see what you are saying, but do you have a more consequential example? I mean, who cares about a speech that noone was going to watch anyway? On Obama's list of priorities that day, that one should rightly have been under #500. I doubt he made that decision at all; it would probably have fallen to his chief of staff.>> ^Auger8:

Here's my problem with Obama and don't get me wrong I voted for the guy. But everytime he say "I'm gonna change this "Insert Policy Here"" he makes a great case for it and then someone on his staff or the Speaker or Joint Chiefs tell him "No you can't do that because it will piss off "Insert party here"". He folds without any fight whatsoever.
Example:
He pulled what I thought was a daring and awesome move by planning a Presidential speech the night of the first GOP debate. Effective pulling away potential competition for upcoming votes against him. Then the Speaker of the House got pissed and whined about it to him to change the date. And he did. No argument, nothing he just folded up like an worn out lawnchair for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean give me a break how can you pretend to make bold moves like and not follow through with it. Your the freakin President it's your decision not the Speaker's who isn't even in your Party. WTF man grow a pair already. I'm tired of president who won't their guns and not let partisan politics dictate what they can and can't do for the better of the nation.
Partisan politics in the U.S. are slowly killing this nation we need someone who won't be influenced by that and will make decisions based on what's right for the country not what's right for the party who voted them in.
>> ^longde:
I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.
Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:
Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.

Here's my problem with Obama and don't get me wrong I voted for the guy. But everytime he say "I'm gonna change this "Insert Policy Here"" he makes a great case for it and then someone on his staff or the Speaker or Joint Chiefs tell him "No you can't do that because it will piss off "Insert party here"". He folds without any fight whatsoever.

Example:
He pulled what I thought was a daring and awesome move by planning a Presidential speech the night of the first GOP debate. Effective pulling away potential competition for upcoming votes against him. Then the Speaker of the House got pissed and whined about it to him to change the date. And he did. No argument, nothing he just folded up like an worn out lawnchair for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean give me a break how can you pretend to make bold moves like and not follow through with it. Your the freakin President it's your decision not the Speaker's who isn't even in your Party. WTF man grow a pair already. I'm tired of president who won't their guns and not let partisan politics dictate what they can and can't do for the better of the nation.

Partisan politics in the U.S. are slowly killing this nation we need someone who won't be influenced by that and will make decisions based on what's right for the country not what's right for the party who voted them in.

>> ^longde:

I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.
Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:
Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.