The right to have medicine is a solid argument but what if we attack from another angle also? Defending marijuana use as a civil right or natural right since it allows the freedom of thought. Freedom of thought should be available to anyone. Especially when this freedom of thought can result in religious or creative inspiration. So who else thinks we need to take a civil right stance in addition to a medical right stance?
Yeah man it`s against the constitution to not let us have our Weed, our Ganja, our Marijuana, our Cannabis. Under law everybody has the equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunatly, when some of us wanna smoke a little weed some people forget about that.
yes it is our natural right to do whatever we want to our bodies and our minds. Too bad the government is retarded... Edit: They have more guns than us
They don't want us to think. This happened in the 60s with the LSD wave. People uniformly dropped what they were doing and took to the streets protesting for peace and an end to corporate and political corruption. Mind-expansion really screws up the economy. We are all to stand in line, semi-retarded, and walk single file in the direction we are told to walk - even if it's off of a cliff.
This is true. Mind altering drugs open the mind and let you think about stuff in new and creative ways. Suddenly people will start questioning everything that the government does. They want everyone to be stupid ignorant sheeple who are content so long as they have dancing with the stars, football and beer.
Somehow over the past 70 years our government has gone from moderately corrupt and somewhat functional to completely corrupt to the core and dysfunctional.
Possibly because the use of the drugs themselves haven't been made into a religion. Even though using mind altering drugs is permitted by some religions (i.e. Rastafarian to name one.)
Psychedelic drugs, in particular, have a way of making people shift their priorities from the material to the spiritual. Things like friendships, community and cooperation become much more important then material gains. I, personally, cannot stand to be at my local mall while under said influence. I can't stand to watch most television commercials either. DEFINITELY not the news - all the sensationalism and propaganda make my stomach turn. The problem with psychedelic-based religions is that they were mostly peaceful. They didn't know how to stand against the wave of aggression and violence that threatened them via more "civilized" societies. They never had the motivation for material and the need or desire to create weapons to defend it. The rest is history.
The medicinal aspect of it may be relevant but it is not the driving factor here. This IS a stance for civil rights. Our rights should be free. What we need to do is stop blaming the problem. We need to be the solution. This isn't about reform laws any more, this is about universal freedom. We need to wake up from this dream world being fed to us.
It is plausible that a strong legal argument can be constructed for legalization of Marijuana based on the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protection of speech, since Marijuana expands the mind and thought. But it depends on which jurisdiction you are in -- if you are in Canada, or elsewhere, the first amendment obviously does not apply. Canada's counterpart to the First Amendment is section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- however, that section is subjected to exceptions under s.1 (justification under the Oakes Test), which basically entitles the government to justify its restrictions of freedom of speech using other government objectives. And in the U.K, the parliament has legislative supremacy, and pretty much can legislate whatever laws it wishes. Regardless, this whole issue raises an important point. I am absolutely convinced that it is precisely the thought and mind expanding properties of Marijuana that have caused this witch hunt against it. Those in power quite simply do not want mass marijuana consumption, because they do not want their power to be questioned. Why else do you think the mind limiting and narrowing properties of alcohol have not caused it to be banned, but rather even openly encouraged?
"without chaos nothing evolves. without order nothing exists" there's nowhere for the dollar to evolve. the only way to make more of that dollar is to keep things (people ultimately) in order. ALA on intellectual freedom. ALA | Intellectual Freedom Manual Its frustrating when we have the freedom to read whatever books we want (for the most part) but cant apply anything we have read. "IN GOD WE TRUST" If God is the ultimate "I"... the empirical "I"...the self...me...you...everyone collectively - why are we having such trouble with the way people think. our founding fathers even knew freedom of the mind was what they were really breaking free from when they started this country. the US is politically very old. China didnt have a constitution until 1980 or something. WE SHOULD BE PASSED THIS. we have freedom of speech but not freedom of though? what the fuck are we going to talk about if we cant think about anything?
It is allowed for a select few in the US. Native Americans with tribes that have a history of peyote use are allowed to grow and consume peyote but they must have Indian blood. Its is a matter of religious freedom the government gives them permission. What about every body's else's religious freedom? It makes no sense every one regardless of race should be given the same freedom. Any one should be allowed to use peyote and any other plant based psychedelic for that matter.
was it wendy chapkis and richard webb that started there own church? the couple from CA that have that WAMM co-op? in the back of her book theres an ad for her church.
It unconstitutional to ban people from putting things in their bodies. Congress found away around it.
"If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.†-Terrence Mckenna Enough said