General Music Chat

A Rally for Reform is being held in Charleston, WV in on September 12, 2009. Information will be available from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Norml, and MPP. There will be a PA system set up and an open mic forum for anyone who would like to speak for or against prohibition reform, and we are also allowing anyone who wants to perform music an open mic format as well, however, due to time constraints, we are taking sign ups in advance. A notice has been sent out via email and other social networking websites and we already have some signed on. If you want a spot on the open mic, respond via this post and we will contact you further. Please leave contact information. We will have the ability to mic up to 2 amps for a performance.

Man I am all for refer reform. Waste sooo much money intead of making it. Is just foolishness.
One stipulation I would like to see implemented.
If you injure someone while DUI. They should hang you by the neck till DEAD!
Sick to death of dopers and alcies filling my hospital beds with the broken bodies of their innocent victims over and over again.
That is pure bullshit and should not be tolerated.

Man I am all for refer reform. Waste sooo much money intead of making it. Is just foolishness.
One stipulation I would like to see implemented.
If you injure someone while DUI. They should hang you by the neck till DEAD!
Sick to death of dopers and alcies filling my hospital beds with the broken bodies of their innocent victims over and over again.
That is pure bullshit and should not be tolerated.

AGREED. I say legalize all drugs. Commit any crime (rape, assault, DUI, murder etc.) and pee in a bottle when arrested. High on ANYTHING including alcohol, you get DOUBLE the sentence, NO CHANCE FOR PAROLE. SIMPLE STRAIGHTFORWARD legal reform. That's what we need. In Germany you get DUI ONCE and you lose your driver's license FOR LIFE. That's the way it should be here. If you want to do a drug in the privacy of your own home I don't give a sh*t. If you do drugs irresponsibly and you harm someone or harm property, YOUR ASS IS GONE. SIMPLE STRAIGHTFORWARD legal reform, yep that's what we need...

Double the sentence. Yea Bob I like that idea. Hang the mofos twice.

I agree that harsh penalties for irresponsible use would be a great way to usher in legalization. If you want the drugs off your streets you have to put them somewhere else, cause they're not going away. So legalize them, its much easier to regulate something when its legal and in the open, tax them (they say the drug trade funds 90% of terrorism, legalization takes the money off the black market and into the legitimate market where it can be taxed), and create penalties that are justified for commiting crimes such as violent or injurous acts, but if you are responsibly doing drugs there should be no penalties.

You know why they keep them illegal? Because in the US, there is for profit everything, including law enforcement and prisons. Private prisons get 70k per year per prisoner, law enforcement gets more money from the government based on the amount of monetary value is in what they confescate each year. Shame on us for allowing this to even happen. Some things should never be for profit: Healthcare, Prisons, Law Enforcement, Political Office, and many more.

Mike,

You are right that many laws are designed to gain more revenues, whether from local ticketing or federal monies. But I disagree that drugs being illegal is for revenue purposes. Drugs are illegal for the same reason that alchohol for awhile was. Religious sensitivities. This is a nation that is highly motivated by supposed moral laws. Some states still have blue laws, where for example, you cannot purchase alcohol from a liquor store on Sundays. In many states getting a blow job, even from your wife, is ILLEGAL. Does anyone believe the law enforcement officers of these states are following these laws themselves? It is like prohibition. Alcohol is made illegal to passify the religious sector, and yet more people drank in speak easy's or underground clubs, than BEFORE prohibition. The lawmakers knew this was happening. They were drinking at them too. But NO POLITICIAN wants the reputation of rejecting "moral" laws. They would look immoral, or at least unsympathetic to the religious lobby. So they do what LOOKS GOOD for public consumption, even when they know it is ridiculous or useless, or even makes the "problem" worse.

It is likely that drug abuse will decline if drugs were legalized.

Statistics and history bear this out, but you won't find this swaying a politician's opinion on the matter. Because it is not really about what is TRULY best. But only what LOOKS good.

The thinking goes, that if we legalize drugs, we may as well be condoning them. We can't do that, so let's keep them illegal, because we are then making a moral statement on the matter. And making a moral STATEMENT on the potential abuses of drugs, is more important than if we ACTUALLY reduced the potential abuses of them in REALITY.

Gotta love moralist logic.

Morality plays a minor role in keeping drugs illegal. Keeping pot illegal for example has very little to do with morality and almost everything to do with various industries losing money were pot made legal. The hemp plant has a wide variety of uses. It can be used in the manufacture of clothing (textile industry loses money), for medicinal purposes (pharmaceutical industry loses money), to heat your home because it burns very hot (utility companies lose money), even in the manufacture of golf discs (plastics companies lose money). There are numerous big corporation lobbyists who are really keeping drugs illegal. The men in fancy suits are the ones to blame ALWAYS. FOLLOW THE MONEY. ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY. I heard that smoking marijuana is practically a cure for muscular dystrophy. Imagine how much money the drug companies stand to lose...FOLLOW THE MONEY...

Bob and Craig, you are both right. It is a moral thing with cocaine and heroine, but pot is definately about money, cause even the moral-right-wing is not som much against pot anymore. Perhaps christians would get over pot if they just read their bible. Genesis 1:29

Personally, I think we already have way too many laws. For a single act of aggression, you can be charged in way too many ways.

Okay, if I hit a guy, it doesn't matter why I hit him - it's assault & possibly battery. But now it's a "hate crime" where I'm "violating his civil rights" & an "attack with intent to harm" & whatever other f*cking spin they can put on it, for a single act. I say that's BULLSHIT!

Now some of you wanna add EXTRA charges for being under the influence? That's just more bullshit, imho.

Everyone, across the board, should get the same charges for the same activities. I really don't give a flying flook WHY a person does something. When you start regulating thoughts & intents & states of mind, you're out of frikken bounds with me.

You take a life? Then you should spend the rest of your life PAYING for that life, if it wasn't a simple accident. Being under the influence REMOVES the idea that it's a simple accident. You steal from someone? You pay the frikken price to replace what you stole, AND you pay for the hassle you put your victim through (DIRECTLY TO THE VICTIM, btw!), AND you pay your community for causing a hassle that others must intervene & deal with. You beat someone up in the heat of the moment? Same thing as if you stole - you pay for medical treatment, & hassles & pain & suffering.

Keep things simple. The testing they do today have created an entirely new way to outlaw the dreaded marijuana, & you've won NOTHING even if it gets decriminalized. Ppl can lose their jobs for going on vacation & smoking outside the country, in places where it's either legal or not. If it's been in your system in the last 90+ days, they can tell by the hair test.

Fair testing must be employed, should pot or anything else be decriminalized, to keep the innocent from being charged as guilty, or from having extra erroneous charges added to their faults.

The thought police are already in place. That is why no politician can get elected without professing his/her love for jesus. Even though this is not a christian nation, since so many believe in christianity, our laws are made based on it. The problem with that is, the bible is famously inconsistant. Well, gee, so are our laws. Oh, please, someone argue that with me.

I am a minister in my church. We do not use the bible as our main source for information. We have a completely different spin on religion and you're welcome to check it out at http://fellowshipoftheenlightened.blogspot.com/

I can tell you if you rely on the bible for your morality, you are more than screwed. the morality of the bible's god is Slavery is ok, as long as you don't beat your slaves, women have no rights, and your children should be murdered for thinking for themselves. Seriously, is that the morality you live by?

Legalization of marijuana would lead to people seeing through the bs of the organized churches of these misled people. The books of the bible were penned by man, and man is notorious for deception. Why all of a sudden, when it comes to these particular writings, do we suddenly believe those men who penned it are infallable and actually penned the direct word of god?!?!?

Lets stop making laws based on the bible and stop restricting the natural desire in ourselves to procreate and inebriate. We seek spirituality through both. Yet we pen laws to inhibit it all.

The testing they do today have created an entirely new way to outlaw the dreaded marijuana, & you've won NOTHING even if it gets decriminalized. Ppl can lose their jobs for going on vacation & smoking outside the country, in places where it's either legal or not. If it's been in your system in the last 90+ days, they can tell by the hair test.

Fair testing must be employed, should pot or anything else be decriminalized, to keep the innocent from being charged as guilty, or from having extra erroneous charges added to their faults.

There is no such thing as fair testing. A drug test is a clear violation of 2 important rights. 1, the right to privacy under the privacy act of 1973 that guarantees you protection of all your medical records. Well, peeing in a cup and a laboratory test are medical records, yet the test results are shared with other private citizens without authority. For a court to do this, they require a judges signature, and it must withstand scrutiny in appelate court. Why do private citezens have easy access to our body's if the government deems it necessary to legally obtain the highest permission first?
and 2, it is a direct violation of your 5th amendment right against self incrimination. A court cannot compel you to testify against yourself in a criminal matter. Drugs are illegal and therefore criminal matters. Yet, private citizens can once again require you to give up your right against self incrimination at any given time whether for pre-employment or otherwise. You do not have to testify against yourself, giving of your urine, blood, or any other bodily sample is testifying against yourself.

The testing they do today have created an entirely new way to outlaw the dreaded marijuana, & you've won NOTHING even if it gets decriminalized. Ppl can lose their jobs for going on vacation & smoking outside the country, in places where it's either legal or not. If it's been in your system in the last 90+ days, they can tell by the hair test.

Fair testing must be employed, should pot or anything else be decriminalized, to keep the innocent from being charged as guilty, or from having extra erroneous charges added to their faults.

There is no such thing as fair testing. A drug test is a clear violation of 2 important rights. 1, the right to privacy under the privacy act of 1973 that guarantees you protection of all your medical records. Well, peeing in a cup and a laboratory test are medical records, yet the test results are shared with other private citizens without authority. For a court to do this, they require a judges signature, and it must withstand scrutiny in appelate court. Why do private citezens have easy access to our body's if the government deems it necessary to legally obtain the highest permission first?
and 2, it is a direct violation of your 5th amendment right against self incrimination. A court cannot compel you to testify against yourself in a criminal matter. Drugs are illegal and therefore criminal matters. Yet, private citizens can once again require you to give up your right against self incrimination at any given time whether for pre-employment or otherwise. You do not have to testify against yourself, giving of your urine, blood, or any other bodily sample is testifying against yourself.

Um...but the important question remains - should you refuse the test, will you get the job?

Anyone whom has had to work with nurses with needle tracks, or a night shift in a long term care center where you aids are smoking crack in the parking lot instead of watching your grandmother, may have a differing veiw on this.
Like Craig said what you do in your home is your business. But when you bring it into the public indangering me and my family, different story.

Now, Rev. Mike, a couple of points...

First off, I went to your site (Fellowship of the Enlightened) cause I really wanted to have fellowship with the enlightened, but sadly, I couldn't find anyone fitting the bill.

Secondly, if you are going to trash the Bible, I expect you to be a student of it. Which you are not. That is a little like, being ok at fingerpainting, and believing that this qualifies you to walk into the Apostolic Palace of The Vatican to criticize Raphael's frescoes. A little presumptuous, to say the least.

People who believe the Bible is FULL of inconsistencies, are not very knowledgeable of the Bible, and don't read it's text in historical context, choosing instead to draw out verses at random and apply improper exegesis. These people are often self-educated in biblical theology, having gained their mastery of sacred text from cut and paste sites that exist only to assault the value of a religious work of the magnitude of the Bible, which is not a "book" but a "book of books" 66, in fact, written by at least 40 authors over several thousand years.

In contrast, the "sacred" text on your site, reads more like a combination of bad science fiction and mythology. It is made up, and not even thoughtfully so. People who INVENT a religion on a whim, I find, have no respect for sincere religion or respect for things holy and divine.

Offended?

Just remember that YOU offended nearly 1/3 of the world's population when you casually assaulted a religious work, thousands of years in the making, which is regarded as holy and sacred by more than 2 BILLION of it's adherents.

On a lighter note...

The Bible DOES NOT promote murdering children for THINKING. It promotes murdering children for being disobedient and rebellious toward their parents.

Get your facts straight!

One of the major factors in why it is so difficult to gain ground on sensable legalization legeslation is often those whom push for it the loudest are crack head freaks only interested in their own agenda.
Not sensable legeslation reform.
We have much more crucial issues facing the US for sensable thinking people to get overly involved in drug legalisation.