PeterVenkman

Except for the fact that the movement to criminalize marijuana started with individual states in the US starting in the 1860s and then spread to other countries...including, for example, Russia. Different countries use marijuana laws to disenfranchise different groups of people. Sometimes it is the poor that use marijuana, sometimes it is the immigrants...in virtually every case marijuana laws are directed at the dispossessed. See the second paragraph I have posted from the wikipedia page on legality of cannabis: Under the name cannabis, 19th century medical practitioners sold the drug (usually as a tincture), popularizing the word amongst English-speakers. It was rumored that Queen Victoria's menstrual pains were treated with cannabis; her personal physician, Sir John Russell Reynolds, wrote an article in the first edition of the medical journal The Lancet about the benefits of cannabis.[3] In 1894, the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission commissioned by the UK Secretary of State and the government of India, was instrumental in the decision not to criminalize the drug in those countries.[4] From 1860 different states in the United States started to implement regulations for sales of Cannabis sativa.[5] In 1925 a change of the International Opium Convention[6] banned exportation of Indian hemp to countries that have prohibited its use. Importing countries were required to issue certificates approving the importation and stating that the shipment was to be used "exclusively for medical or scientific purposes". In 1937 the F.D. Roosevelt administration crafted the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, the first US national law making cannabis possession illegal via an unpayable tax on the drug. The name marijuana (Mexican Spanish marihuana, mariguana) is associated almost exclusively with the plant's psychoactive use. The term is now well known in English largely due to the efforts of American drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s. Mexico itself had passed prohibition in 1925, following the International Opium Convention.[7] The prohibitionists deliberately used a Mexican name for cannabis in order to turn the US populace against the idea that it should be legal by playing to negative attitudes towards that nationality. (See 1937 Marihuana Tax Act). Those who demonized the drug by calling it marihuana omitted the fact that the "deadly marihuana" was identical to Cannabis sativa, which had at the time a reputation for pharmaceutical safety.[8] However, due to variations in the potency of the preparations, Cannabis indica in the 1930s had lost most of its former popularity as a medical drug

True, tobacco is not much like pot in the sense that tobacco kills you fast by destroying your lungs and throat. Marijuana does not do that (according to many studies). It simply cannot be true that marijuana is illegal because it is mind altering. Caffeine and alcohol are mind altering and they are legal. Sugar is mind altering and it is legal. Fatty foods are mind altering and they are legal. Philosophical books and movies are mind altering and they are legal too. Marijuana is illegal because of (1) racism and (2) paranoia. But mostly racism against latinos and blacks.

So true. If there is anything people should be put in jail for, it is CLEARLY being a lazy bum and/or relaxed.

Whatever, ignore my actual argument, nothing new here... Just because your state has legal MJ does not mean they get to bypass federal laws. I live in a state with medical marijuana and I regularly interact with people that operate the dispensaries. If you really knew so much about marijuana regulation in your state I doubt your original post would have been so flippant. There are no property rights over marijuana because that violates federal law. Maybe YOU are the one that should do some more research about the relationship between state and federal laws on marijuana possession before kicking up the condescension.

Bad form Loudmouth Mormon... First, the article does not draw a connection between smoking pot and committing violence at all. It's a 2 paragraph article that says a person stole a car and crashed it into a pot dispensary. There is no evidence the driver was high, and there was no evidence that anything was taken from the dispensary. This seems to imply that the driver was not intending to rob the dispensary and so the connection between the driver and marijuana is dubious. Second, intentional or not, your post misrepresents the real political dimensions of marijuana stereotypes and law. You say everyone just accepts that pot smokers are calm and non-violent, which oversimplifies the issue. In truth, smoking marijuana does calm people and rarely leads to violence. However, that does not mean that there is no violence associated with the marijuana trade. The answer to the violence is legalization, not making fun of pot smokers. Let me break it down for you simply. The reason why there is violence associated with marijuana is precisely because marijuana is illegal. See, in the US, we have this legal concept called "Property rights." I have property rights over the stuff that I own and I have legal remedies for protecting my property. For instance, if someone steals my computer, I can sue them in a court of law to get compensation. I don't have to resort to fighting the thief myself because I can use the legal system to recover my losses. Alcohol is legal, and therefore people have property rights over alcohol and may sue people that infringe on their rights. Marijuana, on the other hand, is not legal, which means there are no property rights associated with possession of marijuana. If someone steals my marijuana, I cannot use the police, the legal system, or any other legal mechanism to protect my rights. Therefore, I have to have a gun or some other form of weapon to protect my stash. Legalizing marijuana provides property rights to users, and takes away the INCENTIVE for violence. Legalizing marijuana would cause such a sharp decrease in gun violence that it is enough of a justification on its own to legalize and tax. After all, there is a reason why you don't see armed militia's guarding Tecate trucks as they bring beer across the border... Generally, pot smokers are a lot more caring and responsible than people who regularly use other drugs. The World Health Organization just released a study that classified the most dangerous drugs in the world. The WHO found that the two most dangerous substances on the face of the planet earth are (1) alcohol and (2) tobacco. And they are the only two legal substances in America!! Something is wrong with this picture.

A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

Or, to put it another way: "You don't have a right to marry your loved one because I might have to see it or recognize it." Then it becomes a problem.

As a note, this line of thinking is a textbook example of the interplay between heteronormativity and homophobia. The whole, "gay people in public are icky and shouldn't do it why should I have to explain to my child why two women are kissing at a basketball game" so perfectly illustrates the concept that this line is used by queer theorists all the time to show/explain the concepts.

Yep. Generally the term is used to denote someone who feels threatened by the presence of homosexuality around them. Feeling fear/threatened does not necessarily mean that you are afraid a gay person is going to attack you or overwhelm you, it means that your actions towards them derive from your revulsion. Anytime you place a group of people into the category of the "abject", one consequence is abuse and violence. After all, we have a tendency to want to be as far away from the abject as possible. Compare homophobia with the concept of heteronormativity. Homophobia is literally a fear of gay people. That fear can manifest in a variety of ways. Heteronormativity is a more subtle assumption that heterosexual sex/culture is "normal" while anything that falls outside that paradigm is deviant. In my opinion, heteronormativity as it exists today is a relatively new (and pervasive) social force that sets the stage for homophobia. The two are interrelated.

Yep. I believe it's called feint praise.

WOW. Here's an interesting thought experiment regarding cognitive dissonance: Compare the responses to the proposal to sign a petition to reinstate a gay Boy Scout leader in this thread with the responses to the proposal to sign a petition to boycott Groupon for offering a coupon to tour an armory that is also used to film porn in the next thread over. Just wow.

Um, yes, there are good porn companies and bad ones. I understand that you think all porn is bad and immoral and all that, but that shouldn't prevent you from seeing that some purveyors of pornography are worse than others. Some are more manipulative and violent, etc. As a very basic example, there is a HUGE difference between Playboy and Hustler magazines. Even people who oppose all pornography should be able to tell the difference. Sigh, you missed my point about the lawyers. It's not that S&M porn has better lawyers, it's that S&M porn knows its going to be subjected to legal inquiry more often, so it tends to follow the rules more than other porn companies...

Yeah, and I agree generally with what you said. Although many people are turned off by the content and find it immoral, it does seem to be legal. One of my best friends from law school worked as an attorney for Kink. It's funny because the nature of the content provided by Kink actually submits them to much higher standards and review by watchdog groups than other pornography companies. In other words, since they specialize in S&M (which has a much larger following than anybody wants to admit), they have less of an opportunity to skirt the rules as opposed to your average fraternity boy pornography hub...This is anecdotal evidence from one of their legal representatives, so I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kink was more "above the table" than more mainstream porn companies.

I think encouraging gay people to marry into heterosexual relationships destroys the institution of marriage because it requires them to maintain a type of relationship that many LDS admit is not what marriage should be about.

I've taken a tour of the castle in question for an art exhibit. Didn't see anyone getting assaulted. Regardless, I've searched and cannot find any official relationship between Groupon and Kink...