June 6th, 2005

Previous Entry Next Entry
11:08 am - on why I hate freedom...
So the big google news headline of the moment:

The Supreme Court has supported federal outlawing of the use of medical marijuana.

I'd write a full fledged rant here, but I'm at work right now and really can't spare the time. Suffice it to say, I'm pretty vocally anti-government involvement in my life in general and against all the ways that big brother chooses to protect me from killing myself in specific.

But this is just stupid.

I mean, I can understand the outlawing of recreational drugs. I might not agree. But I get it. I can understand the outlawing of stem cell research. I might not agree. But I get it. But the outlawing of medical marijuana? I mean, that's just a big giant fuck you for no good reason. Lets just outlaw chemotherapy too while we're at it. And morphine, cuz I mean, why not?

When I get terminal cancer, I'm gonna start walking around in public places with a joint hanging out of my mouth so big that Tommy Chong is gonna be like "damn, brotha, that's a big joint." If someone has a problem with it, they can shoot me.

EDIT: I am no longer an American citizen. Be it known that as of 11:10 EST, on Monday, June 6, 2005, from this moment forward, I pledge my Groovallegiance to the Funk. Who's with me?

Current Mood: [mood icon] annoyed
Current Music: Groovallegiance by Funkadelic

(24 comments | Leave a comment)

on why I hate freedom... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr


[User Picture]From: suicideking Date: June 6th, 2005 - 08:20 am (Link)
I can't say that I disagre with them. They relued that the way the law is written, medical marijuana is illegal. To quote the article:

"Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said Congress can change the law to allow medical use of the drug."

The law says it's illegal. Congress can always change the law.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: June 6th, 2005 - 08:32 am (Link)
But congress won't. See, I prefer to look at it the other way. The Supreme Courts specific job is to tell congress when a law is stupid. Ok, technically, its their job to say when a law is unconstitutional. Which they should have done, as it does block states rights to determine their own healthcare policies. But in any case. They're being pussies. Really, the SC is frequently like that.

Also, I wasn't so much just blaming the Supreme Court. Sorry if it came off like that. I was blaming the entire government. This includes Congress as well.

Next election, I am voting for Clinton for president. George Clinton. A Bootsy Collins for veep.
From: (Anonymous) Date: June 6th, 2005 - 10:24 am (Link)
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: June 6th, 2005 - 11:24 am (Link)
The Constitution says that they can't make such a law.

Exactly, its not even vague about it. And it also says when congress tries to make such a law, the court is supposed to slap them down. That was my point.

Also barring who's job it is, Congress or Court, common sense just dictates that a ban on medical marijuana is just all kinds of stupid besides.
[User Picture]From: suicideking Date: June 6th, 2005 - 01:20 pm (Link)
I disagree with you. As do 6 Supreme court justices.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority. - Taken from CNN.com

The problem is that the way things are done now, you can't guarentee that the pot won't be coming from a "disreputable" source, i.e. other coutries or from people that sell other illegal substances. There are a myriad of issues here that need to be dealt with on a federal level.

I am not saying that I agree with the idea that medical marijuana is wrong. But I agree with the interpretation of the law that exists.

And if you are so big on states rights, are you upset over the abolition of slavery?
From: (Anonymous) Date: June 6th, 2005 - 01:27 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: suicideking Date: June 6th, 2005 - 01:53 pm (Link)
Dude, you are being a big sissy about this.

The way the law is written, it is legal because it deals with commerce AND thus it superceedes state's rights.

Like drug laws do any good here anyway.
From: (Anonymous) Date: June 6th, 2005 - 03:30 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: suicideking Date: June 6th, 2005 - 05:08 pm (Link)
Can you guarentee that it will be grown at home? Are you sure that that will happen. Can a state make sure that that person isn't buying it from someone who brings it in from another country?

And my statements have not been facist nor apologgistic. I would invest in a dictionary, friend.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: June 6th, 2005 - 05:14 pm (Link)
I'll jump in on this one. The problem with that lithmus test there is that you can't guarantee that of anything. I can make koolaid in my home as well, but you can't guarantee that's where I'm making it, so by that logic congress can legislate anything they feel the need to just lend a trivial "interstate commerce" rubber stamp to. Which was wooble's point. Now as to whether they should be able to do that or not, is another matter. But that's the result of it.

now place nice, children.

Oh who am I kidding, rip each other's goddamn throats out.
[User Picture]From: bogosort Date: June 6th, 2005 - 10:05 am (Link)
Despite what the headlines may say, the Supreme Court decision only says that the individual states have no power to make that decision, and that it's a decision that is made by Congress. Not that Congress is likely to make such use legal...
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: June 6th, 2005 - 10:24 am (Link)
yeah, again. I disagree with teh SC for deciding as such. And I disagree with Congress as well. I said I hate freedom and the government. I didn't mean to single out the SC.
[User Picture]From: sui66iy Date: June 6th, 2005 - 10:24 am (Link)
I am no longer an American citizen.

Do you want me to hook you up with Karl Kleinpaste? He's contracting at MAYA these days...
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: June 6th, 2005 - 11:25 am (Link)
well, with all due respect to Karl, I was kinda hoping it would work out a little better for me than it did for him.
[User Picture]From: sui66iy Date: June 6th, 2005 - 11:55 am (Link)
It's apparently actually rather tricky.
From: (Anonymous) Date: June 6th, 2005 - 02:19 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: June 6th, 2005 - 04:58 pm (Link)

Re: that is genius

shaking your head is a bad thing or a good thing?
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: June 6th, 2005 - 03:14 pm (Link)
Oh, so up until now you were Chinese-American? I always thought you were Chinese, sans hyphen.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: June 6th, 2005 - 03:48 pm (Link)
nope... I was Chinese by ancestry. American by nationality. The same way you are a jewish american.
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: June 6th, 2005 - 04:09 pm (Link)
So indeed, you were Chinese-American.

The analogy doesn't quite work because Judaism is a religion, not a country. One can be Israeli-American, though. Some will argue with me on this.

I think the real problem here is with you totally renouncing your Chinese heritage. Or are you now Chinese-Funkorican?
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: June 6th, 2005 - 04:57 pm (Link)
well, see Funkadelica isn't so much a place as it is a state of mind. I think really I am gravitating towards being a man without a country.
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: June 6th, 2005 - 06:39 pm (Link)
You might want to watch what you say now that you have a mortgage. Foreigners tend to get charged a higher rate because they're liable to put the house in their pocket and leave the country with it. Unless you're declaring your house to be the Independent Sovereign Republic of Funkadelica. Which is a fine idea, now that I consider it.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: June 6th, 2005 - 07:47 pm (Link)
well, like I said, I'm not really a foreigner, as that would involve having a homeland. I'm a man without a country now. No where I can take the house.
From: (Anonymous) Date: June 6th, 2005 - 05:19 pm (Link)
I am pro-efficient systems, so I would say that the government should stop people from doing things that increase the burden on the government-funded health care systems. Why should my taxes pay for other people to get quadruple hearty bypasses when they chose to eat at McDonalds every day? Even suicide may deprive the system of valuable tax revenue. I guess people who are retired, or who pay the government for the privilage of suicide, could do it.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: June 6th, 2005 - 05:38 pm (Link)
because. That's what taxes are. The entire point of taxes is to pay for crap that no one would voluntarilly pay for if it was left to the tragedy of the commons. You have to pay for health care for the poor for the same reason you have to pay for military power and decent roads. Because if you weren't forced to do so, you wouldn't. You'd let the burden fall on someone else.

Also you totally missed the point. I wasn't advocating legalized marijuana. My feelings on marijuna use for recreational purposes are immaterial. I am advocating the usage of marijuana as a medicinaly prescribed schedule II or III medication. Meaning that a doctor could prescribe it, much like any other medication. Its a better pain killer in many cases than morphine (schedule 2) and is much better for several conditions and its a lot cheaper to produce. So it actually leads much more to your theory of pro-efficient systems.

As for your theory about taxes and suicide. That's just stupid. I won't even bother to debate it at this point, unless you can back it up further. And next time leave your name. Or feel free to email me personally and debate it. Saying something controversial and anonymously just comes across as trolling.
[User Picture]From: jameel Date: June 6th, 2005 - 06:35 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: June 6th, 2005 - 06:41 pm (Link)
The "efficiency" part speaks of Warren, but then there's the problem of anonymity and that last rather lame sentence...
From: ludimagist Date: June 9th, 2005 - 01:09 pm (Link)

we may have to file this one under running jokes as well...

I think Groovallegiance to the Funk and citizenship to any particular nation is not mutually exclusive.

I wonder too if your ancestral homeland would accept you. Think of the headlines.

• Go to Top