Browse By

Activists Choose To Smoke A Joint Instead of Fighting for Constitutional Rights

On the social activism site, the ideal of restoring our civil liberties through the repeal of laws like the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act has gained a total of 1,270 votes. That’s about 500 more than the idea had when Jim wrote about it last week.

However, the issue of the restoration of American liberty as guaranteed in the Constitution is only in second place in the category of Criminal Justice. In first place, with 3,521 votes, is the ideal of legalizing recreational as well as medical use of marijuana. In third place, with several hundred votes, is the ideal of ending the War On Drugs. In 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th place, each with several hundred votes, are more requests to legalize marijuana.

Look, I don’t want to make this a harsh anti-drug message. Personally, I don’t care much about other people getting high, and I can see some benefits would come with legalization of marijuana.

The thing is, when activists prioritize the right to get high by smoking a joint over their constitutional rights to things like a fair trial, free speech, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure, that bothers me. It indicates to me that people are more interested in entertaining themselves than they are in defending the foundations of our democracy.

8 thoughts on “Activists Choose To Smoke A Joint Instead of Fighting for Constitutional Rights”

  1. Britney says:

    This post was boring. You need to write something with a little more snap to catch people’s attention.

  2. Jim says:

    Oh, I see. Do you mean that Truman should have written something like this?

    Jennifer Aniston’s Bouncing Boobies Spell Out “Respect the Constitution” in Semaphore

    Did that headline bore you, too? Would you rather have the miming testicles of Doogie Howser?

    Or are you just distracted by a bout of the munchies?

  3. Heathers says:

    Kudos to you, Brits! Like, how can I be an activist when it’s so, you know, boring, to be responsible! Gah! How can you expect people to do something when it isn’t snappy?

  4. Britney says:

    OMG Doogie Howser’s balls and Jennifer Aniston’s tits are SOOOOO 90’s LOL

  5. Richard says:

    “constitutional rights to things like a fair trial, free speech, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure”

    Truman is partly correct, but mostly wrong.

    Ganja libertarians don’t share his blinkered vision. They understand what Truman apparently does not – most of the impetus for the attacks on fair trial, free speech and unreasonable search and seizure derive directly from the war on drugs, which is epitomized and embodied in the attack and persecution of ganja consumers. What Truman is failing to recognize is that if one destroys that prohibitionist attack they have derailed the mechanism that creates those other, undesirable changes. Mostly. We all know that the fascists will always try to find another avenue, but historically speaking the focus for the fascists at this moment in time is ganja consumers.

    Nice try, Truman, but you need to take your blinkers off _before_ you write.

    1. Truman says:

      No, Richard, I think it’s you who have a few blinkers on. Ever heard of the War On Terror? Seems that’s caused a bit more invasion of privacy than going after people smoking marijuana.

      Go after the deeper problem – lack of Constitutional protections – and you’ll protect rights across issues. Just try to get your joint legalized, and, well, you still won’t have your Constitutional rights. You’ll just be able to get high while Big Brother watches you.

      1. Richard says:

        The so-called “war on terrorism” is a farce, and I also understand that there are SOME incursions being created through such instruments as the “Patriot Act.” The REALITY of the Patriot Act is that the policies that got rolled into that act had been on the table for over a decade in the name of hte “War on Ganja Consumers.” and were held at bay because of ganja activism. It took a special effort that abused the tragedy of 9/11 to create a new opportunity where the original plan was stymied.

        I agree, deeper problems exist, but (despite the idiocy with which it was presented) other correspondents have it correct – pure issue activism is simply not something that the majority can understand, they _need_ a context. Without context, I believe that they lack the knowledge (and maybe the intellect) to grasp the issues. Whether with the War on Drugs or War on Terrorism context, getting people to take part in real activism is nearly impossible.

        To discard the power of using the context of Prohibition would be foolish. What we would have left would be you and me and a small handful of others who get it without context.

        I want to make one final note. “War on Terrorism” spending thus far, possibly $60 billion. “War on Ganja Consumers” spending so far, possibly $600 billion (at a growing rate of about $60 billion a year combined federal, state and local by some estimates).

      2. Ralph says:

        “War” rhetoric has always been manipulated to justify incursions on rights and freedoms. That’s one thing the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror” share. And let’s not forget absurd neologisms like “narcoterrorist” that try to roll the two into one.

        But how exactly does legalizing marijuana stop the constitutional violations of the “war on drugs?” Won’t people’s rights just continue to be violated in the pursuit of other more dangerous drugs?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!