NO dope should be legal until alcohol use is not the epidemic that it is.

TX-96 on December 8, 2012 at 7:20 AM

This. When we can’t even handle something as serious as abortion with any sense of responsibility, legalizing pot WILL start a national disaster.

Our culture has no idea how to practice moderation, cowardly political statements aside. We went straight from the Beaver Cleaver 50′s to the dope-smoking screw-in-the-mud-at-Woodstock 60′s/70′s, and things only went downhill from there.

Besides, the whole drugs-as-a-crime thing keeps those private penitentiaries full, which means good profits for Obama’s string-pullers.

This is the sad thing for blacks, who make up the majority of the prison population, and who vote heavily for Odinglenuts: their hero sees them as fodder in his efforts to accumulate power; their incarceration rates partly fund his political machine.

So, therefore, a couple of states legalizing pot is seen as the top of the slippery slope for Hugo Barack Obama, or at least to a powerful contingent of his string-pullers, so they need to jump on that trend right away and make sure it doesn’t spread, lest incarceration rates drop.

We (law-abiding citizens) need to worry about that, too, because if there are fewer potheads in jail, they’ll need to replace that revenue. Hmmm, didn’t file your tax return? Unpatriotic! Off to jail!

Not good.

Not good at all.

…

December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy…

…

A date which will live in — Infamy?

Not if you’re HotAir.com — or Google — or Yahoo.

HotAir.com posts NOTHING on Pearl Harbor Day to commemorate the horrific Japanese surprise attack on the American Naval Fleet in port at Pearl Harbor leaving 2,402 Americans killed and 1,282 Americans wounded — many of them civilians.

Pathetic.

This website has gone to crap ever since Michelle Malkin sold out to the highest bidder.

…

HotAir.com — Guaranteed Soft & Squishy™ Or Your Money Back

…

Merely letting grape juice spoil =/= proper wine.

MelonCollie on December 7, 2012 at 11:04 PM

So they think Jesus was drinking spoiled grape juice? Yuck.

cptacek on December 7, 2012 at 11:18 PM

It’s actually funnier than that. Wine naturally ferments at between 17 and 21% alcohol by volume. Dilute the wine down with water up a 5 to 1 ratio, and the alcohol content is still that of bargain brand beer, around 3.2 percent.

Merely letting grape juice spoil =/= proper wine.

MelonCollie on December 7, 2012 at 11:04 PM

So they think Jesus was drinking spoiled grape juice? Yuck.

I’d like to know what kind of refrigeration they had back then that could keep grape juice from turning into wine.

cptacek on December 7, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Merely letting grape juice spoil =/= proper wine.

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Yes, and yes. I am an independent filmmaker and hold several copyrights. What’s your point? That anyone who has ever created intellectual property should be in lock step on the copyright issue?

No, it was a simple straight forward question to determine if Mark1971 had any skin in the game or experience with copyright law.

The jurisdiction over copyrights is clearly written in the Constitution. So I have no problem with copyrights existing, nor with the federal government being the arbiter. That’s one of their enumerated powers. But I do have an issue with the trend of extending copyrights into virtual infinity.

The Constitution specifies that copyrights are to be granted for “limited” times. While technically anything other than “forever” is limited, continually extending copyrights for longer and longer and longer terms is violating the spirit of that provision. The founders who wrote the Constitution recognized, as has always been recognized, that giving the creators of intellectual property exclusive rights to it for a time is important to promote the creation of these works. But they also recognized that there is an important societal benefit to copyrights not lasting forever and the public eventually having full access to such works.

It’s the same philosophy that underlies our patent system. Patents in the United States are only good for 20 years, and I don’t see that discouraging individuals and companies from innovating and creating new products. I’m not saying copyrights need to expire after 20 years, but I am opposed to any more extensions, and I could see myself getting behind an attempt to go back to the limits in place in the early twentieth century, where they lasted in the neighborhood of 50 years.

Shump on December 7, 2012 at 9:55 PM

As far as copyright’s are concerned, no I don’t think everyone who is a copyright holder should be in lock step. as I indicated above the late Senator sonny Bono was a personal friend of mine and I worked with him on the Bono copyright extension Act.

We came up with the period of time on it because of changing technologies. The ability of a product to remain a constant and viable source of revenue for it’s creators has been profoundly extended because of technologies like Cd’s, MP3′s digital media and the internet.

In the realm of copyrights, not including technological patents or trademarks, the exclusive right to profit from a given artistic work in no way, shape or form diminishes or degrades anyone elses ability to create an artistic work.

In this sense, copyrighted material, i.e. intellectual property takes on the same form as any other property. In no other instance is it considered acceptable to strip an individual of their property rights based solely on the duration of their ownership of said property.

It cannot be reasonable argued that lacking any diminishing or degrading properties for society, that any individual should be stripped of their property so that the revenue generated by it can be redistribute to others. There simple is no rational, logical or moral justification to say to anyone, you have profited enough off your creative labors, now you have to allow someone else to profit off your labors.

Watch what you argue. I’m a Catholic and I hear arguments all the time from fundamentalists that Christ didn’t REALLY drink wine and that it was more like grape juice. Y’know, despite the fact that the Bible makes it clear that when He turned the water into wine at the wedding, the guests were already pretty well sloshed…

Shump on December 7, 2012 at 9:58 PM

I’d like to know what kind of refrigeration they had back then that could keep grape juice from turning into wine.

In addition, legalized pot has gained support from the likes of Pat Robertson and Palin so opposition among evangelicals is not likely to be robust.

Hey, this is America, you are entitled to hold pretty much whatever assine demonstrably false and incontrovertibly stupid personal beliefs you want to. Jesus Christ drank wine on a lot of occasions, he was clearly a loser. President Ulysses S Grant drank a small lakes work of Whiskey and was obviously a complete and total looser. Albert Einstein smoked tobacco on an hourly basis, and everyone knows what a looser he was. Hell, even that super cosmic looser Micheal Phelps, with a mere 18 Olympic Gold medals smoke the evil marijuana.

I’m about as anti drug use as you can get, but even I can see the bigoted stupidity in your assertion. Blanket statements are never accurate, they only serve to expose the stupidity of those who insist on defending them as if they held any tacit veracity.

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Watch what you argue. I’m a Catholic and I hear arguments all the time from fundamentalists that Christ didn’t REALLY drink wine and that it was more like grape juice. Y’know, despite the fact that the Bible makes it clear that when He turned the water into wine at the wedding, the guests were already pretty well sloshed…

Have you ever created any intellectual property, do you now or have you ever held any copyrtights?

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Yes, and yes. I am an independent filmmaker and hold several copyrights. What’s your point? That anyone who has ever created intellectual property should be in lock step on the copyright issue?

The jurisdiction over copyrights is clearly written in the Constitution. So I have no problem with copyrights existing, nor with the federal government being the arbiter. That’s one of their enumerated powers. But I do have an issue with the trend of extending copyrights into virtual infinity.

The Constitution specifies that copyrights are to be granted for “limited” times. While technically anything other than “forever” is limited, continually extending copyrights for longer and longer and longer terms is violating the spirit of that provision. The founders who wrote the Constitution recognized, as has always been recognized, that giving the creators of intellectual property exclusive rights to it for a time is important to promote the creation of these works. But they also recognized that there is an important societal benefit to copyrights not lasting forever and the public eventually having full access to such works.

It’s the same philosophy that underlies our patent system. Patents in the United States are only good for 20 years, and I don’t see that discouraging individuals and companies from innovating and creating new products. I’m not saying copyrights need to expire after 20 years, but I am opposed to any more extensions, and I could see myself getting behind an attempt to go back to the limits in place in the early twentieth century, where they lasted in the neighborhood of 50 years.

Why do you twist the words of each person to whom you’ve replied? Nobody in my operation smokes pot. I have to test. I was drawing a distinction between wanton abuse and social-use. Neither suits me. But I don’t consider a hard-working guy who loves to go off a loser.

And what does being gay have to do with any of this?

@swalker
Did you know Lynn Strait? Do you know anybody listed there? Long shot…but it’s a small world and getting smaller.

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Blaine Edwards and Antoine Merriweather say “two snaps up.”

Upper/middle-class blacks have come to see hemp as an endemic disease to the lower-class black community.

If he cracks down on tokin’, it’s because he, Michelle, Jarrett, Holder, etc… see legalization as being more destructive to younger blacks than anyone else because we’re going to see a whole new field of small businesses sprout up.