Marijuana vending machine

Two medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles have installed pot vending machines. They're accessible 24 hours a day and monitored by security guards. From Thrillist:
 Images Maps 2048 After cinching up your doctor's consultation, hit an AVM location to get your prescription approved, fingerprint taken, and a prepaid credit card loaded with your profile: dosage (3.5 or 7 grams, up to 1oz a week) and strain preference (choice of five, including OG Cush and Granddaddy Purple, the mildly hallucinogenic forebear to Prince). Then day or night, all you do is hit a machine and walk away with enough vacuum-sealed, plastic-encapsulated cheeba to adequately treat your illness.


  1. @PIXEL (#2), that’s a fantastic idea. They could charge like $20 for a bag of Doritos and people would pay it.

  2. They are rotting in American prisons for using marijuana because they were not legally permitted to use marijuana due to not having a prescription to that end, and/or because they didn’t get it through legal means.

    Explanation enough?

  3. At some point there will be an ironic death when someone gets crushed by a falling vending machine after rocking it to dislodge a stuck bag of weed.

  4. “Explanation enough?”

    You are of course correct. But its the sort of explanation like “Iraq has WMD’s and are going to use them against us like right now so we have to bomb the shit out of them.”

    But a reason that is a lie used to do something while distracting from the actual reason, is a bad one.

  5. It seems counterintuitive for a movement trying to get the government to treat marijuana as a serious medicine (alternative or otherwise) to embrace the novelty of vending machines.

  6. @7 You might try reading the article you quoted. The person arrested did not have a prescription for medical marijuana; the article is quite clear on that. A doctor’s verbal (and unsubstantiated) recommendation is not a prescription. Further, you cite one case, not “tens of thousands”.

    @11 We don’t have the option of deciding which laws to obey. That using marijuana without a prescription is illegal is undeniable. People that choose the break the law should expect to suffer the consequences of breaking the law, and weigh the potential benefits against the potential costs.

    People are free to lobby to get the laws changed, but until the laws are changed they are, in fact, the law. What your straw man argument about Iraq has to do with it I fail to see.

  7. Vending machines are a novelty? How is this different than having a pharmacist sell it? Read the item again.

  8. Word, Takuan. Years from now people will look back at the lunacy of being forced to make a transaction with a guarded, locked box as one of the few semi-legal ways to acquire what they could just as easily grow themselves. Deburden our legal system of people who’ve nothing worse than anyone who has a glass of wine or, on a macro-level, operates a brewery. Among other issues I think the question of the waste of this farce ought to be put squarely in the faces of anyone running for office with their reasoning over their positions explained. The incarceration industry is one of the larger lobbies in Washington; their business could shrink almost half overnight. You’ll note I’ve note even touched on “benefit vs. risk”; I hope no one’s honestly confused about that in the face of what rates regulation and taxation. I think we could pull this country out of the looming recession by legalizing marijuana, between the suddenly available and absolved workforce, the end of subsidies, the dismantlement of Prohibition and the creation of a new industry. Is this scenario even up for consideration? Maybe this is the year it happens, and even if it isn’t, perhaps it’s the foundation for it coming to pass soon. Join up with NORML or the MPP or a more local organization and increase the dialogue.

  9. Bad laws are only changed when people stop obeying them. It has been apparent for decades that prohibition is a total failure and the will of the majority supports legalization.

    “Firnhaber, who was then at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, refused to put the marijuana recommendation in writing, according to Branson’s lawyers, becauseCU is a federally funded institution and she would be in danger of losing her job.

    Branson has since obtained the proper medical marijuana paperwork from a doctor – proving only that his need for medical marijuana was not fabricated. ”

  10. Even in states where it’s legal the feds follow thier own rules, often busting or raiding the medical marijuana dispensaries. If you owned one of these you’d need to make it Fed Proof; perhaps as soon as it senses the presence of the Goon Squad the little packets get flushed down an internal drain system…just sayin.

  11. Yes, vending machines are a novelty. We may certainly sit in front of our keyboards and agitate otherwise, but regardless of the other precautions taken, Those In Charge are going to believe that this can’t be taken seriously when it’s using a somewhat more intelligent version of a coin-operated Pepsi dispenser. We don’t need that sort of perception at this point.

  12. “We don’t have the option of deciding which laws to obey.”

    I’m not sure how you can present that statement as fact.

    Strawman argument? I was citing something i saw as similar. I’m not sure you understand what a straw man means. since the lies told to get into iraq seem to be still debated, its not an easily refuted argument. Just like the reasons drugs are illegal. The two are just injustices that i happen to see as comparable. and then of course i’d have to attribute the view to you, which i didn’t do. I don’t know what your position on the iraq conflict was, so… yeah. not so much a straw man.

  13. @16 The doctor didn’t put it in writing, hence he had no prescription and was not legally entitled to have the marijuana at the time he was busted. Again, it’s fairly clear. The doctor’s reasons for not putting it in writing are unimportant.

    That he later got a prescription is also unimportant, as prescriptions are not retroactive.

    And no, bad laws are not changed by people not obeying them, they are changed through a legal process involving lawmakers and courts and the like. People that are in favor or legalizing marijuana can further their agenda by helping to elect lawmakers that agree with them, or by attempting to convince those that don’t to change their minds.

  14. Explain:
    “The doctor’s reasons for not putting it in writing are unimportant”

    As I read it; a medical doctor diagnosed a real condition and recommended the best remedy. She then did not write this down since the federal government would illegally violate her rights and have her lose her livelihood. You don’t think that is important?

    By your logic,all Jim Crow laws in America should still be on the books. You call the freedom riders criminals. I imagine you see your Founding Father revolutionaries as traitors deserving of execution.


  15. “By your logic,all Jim Crow laws in America should still be on the books. You call the freedom riders criminals”

    although THIS i would classify as a straw man.

  16. no no no! Your cue was supposed to be: “The children!,think of the children!”

    and I’m not hearing enough rabblerabblerabble from the back row!

  17. Weed-O-Matic-420 vending. I wonder what the selecttions are like? Purple Haze, Blackberry x White widow, Golden Screaming Monkey, AK47? So many varieties, so little access.

  18. But its the sort of explanation like “Iraq has WMD’s and are going to use them against us like right now so we have to bomb the shit out of them.”

    As this is a ridiculous position to take, holding it up as something to be defended while simultaneously arguing that it has the same logical basis as the position in question is, in fact, a straw man.

    As I’m sure you realize, a straw man doesn’t require attributing the view to me, just to those that believe in the counter position. Logically those arguing are taking the counter position, so it’s indirectly attributing said view.

    To summarize your argument: those that believe in the statement above would similarly believe that drug laws are logical. As the statement above is illogical, those that believe it are illogical, hence drug laws are illogical. It sounds to me that you don’t know what a straw man is, or at least how to spot them.

    As for not being able to understand how my statement about laws is a fact, why not ask the next police officer you see which laws you have to follow? It’s a good bet that he’ll say “all of them”.

  19. and does the federal government of the United States of America have to follow American law? Does Constitutional law exist in the USA? What is the recourse of the people when the government violates the fundamental law of the land?

  20. @22 Whether the doctor would have lost her job for prescribing marijuana or not has no bearing on whether the defendant illegally used marijuana. Absent a prescription, no matter the reason for its absence, using marijuana is illegal. If the defendant was set on getting his marijuana, he could have went to another doctor in the two years between when he claims the doctor recommended it and when he was busted.

    As for the Jim Crow laws, violating them did in fact result in violators going to jail until the laws were changed via a legal process. How my argument that people have an obligation to follow the law, or else they have to suffer the consequences supports a position that Jim Crow laws should be on the books I’m not sure.

    As for sodomy laws, they are generally only on the books until somebody tests them and they get thrown out on various Constitutional grounds. There isn’t (AFAIK) a process by which laws can just be thrown out, absent someone being prosecuted under said law. Unfortunately for those advocating legalization of marijuana, there’s no Constitutional right to get high.

  21. I think the important distinction here is the difference between justice and the law. I think only a minority of americans honestly believe marijuana use should be punished with prison time. The (non-government sponsored) medical and social science research on the subject overwhelmingly indicates that it’s relatively harmless, at least as compared to say, coca cola or beekeeping. I don’t even think pot’s safety is arguable anymore.

    Still, it’s illegal and will probably be so for quite some time. Obviously there are authoritarians here (and that’s what they are) who believe that breaking the law is wrong and deserves to be punished, regardless of whether or not the law is just. Those same people may very well agree that pot is harmless, but that breaking the law for whatever reason is not.

    All the criticisms of authoritarianism hold true for these people. IMO, they’re weak people who can’t deal with a world that isn’t black or white, need strong boundaries to feel secure, and who feel that the abuse of individuals is fine and dandy as long as it keeps the world nice and organized.

  22. @KORPO

    Bad laws should be disobeyed. People such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, our Founding Fathers, Rosa Parks, etc. would heartily agree.

    As you may be aware, the people of the state of California attempted to change the laws by passing Proposition 215 in 1996 which legalized cannabis for medical use in that state. But the U.S government doesn’t seem to care and they routinely disobey amendments 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution; they continue to engage in violent raids of medical cannabis dispensary’s, medical cannabis gardens, homes of the patients and the offices of their doctors. So much for your theory of changing the laws, eh?

    I support the legal process as one viable means of fighting evil laws, but there are many other noble and moral ways to fight them, civil disobedience being but one.

  23. @29 Are you alleging that the federal government isn’t following American law, or that Constitutional law doesn’t exist, or that the government is violating the fundamental law of the land? Moreover, are you alleging it in some way that has anything at all to do with the discussion at hand?

  24. “As this is a ridiculous position to take, holding it up as something to be defended while simultaneously arguing that it has the same logical basis as the position in question is, in fact, a straw man.”

    No. it is not. It was an analogy. In both situations the government said there was a danger and threat that justifies its actions. In both situations many people think there are other reasons for the governments position.

    I wasn’t tearing apart your position. because your answer was correct. those people are in jail because it is illegal. I was taking a shot at the governments reason for taking the position it is taking. they use Fearmongering as a governing tactic.

    “To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.”

    Neither the drug war or the war on terrorism is something that can be easily refuted. They are raging arguments. If i was creating a strawman argument, which i wouldn’t do, i imagine i’d go on an easier premise… like “nazi’s are bad.” or “the founding fathers are good.” and then twist your current argument to insinuate that it disagrees with one of these statements.

    See, what i gave are two currently debated things that i see as analogous.

    Takaun did something that can be considered a straw man. He postulated that since the founding fathers were breaking the law, you must not like them very much.

    This argument doesn’t work because the founding fathers were not operating in a system where they could change the laws they were subject to.

    His example of blatantly defying the Jim Crow laws is more applicable, but instead of insinuating that by your own logic, you must support racist laws he could have presented it as something that is analogous and should be considered. Rather than putting the words in your mouth.

    This lesson about what is, and what is not a straw man was brought to you by Cpt. Tim.

  25. @KORPO

    “Unfortunately for those advocating legalization of marijuana, there’s no Constitutional right to get high.”

    Might I remind you that the Constitution does not grant rights, it simply purports to protect them. Rights are granted by only by our creator, and “among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just laws can never take away one’s inalienable rights and any law that does so is unjust and morally unenforceable.

    Smoking cannabis (or ingesting ANY other mind altering substance) is well within the natural rights of all human beings, so long as they do not cause direct harm to the person or property of another.

  26. “As for not being able to understand how my statement about laws is a fact, why not ask the next police officer you see which laws you have to follow? It’s a good bet that he’ll say “all of them”

    Correct. But how does this make what you actually said a fact.

    “We don’t have the option of deciding which laws to obey.”

    This is not a fact. Until recently when it was declared unconstitutional. Many Straight people and homosexuals alike were deciding which orifices to stick their naughties.

    Sorry for the split responses, i’m trying to do this, work, and read harry potter all at the same time.

  27. “Unfortunately for those advocating legalization of marijuana, there’s no Constitutional right to get high.”
    * First Amendment: some claim marijuana as a sacrament. I’d believe Rastafarians before $cientologists.

    * Fourth Amendment:m the warondrugs industry has been a veritable fountain of illegal search and seizure as well as privacy violations

    * Eighth Amendment: what could be more cruel and unusual punishment than condemning the sick to die in prison for seeking medicine?

    * Ninth Amendment: even if not specifically
    written (though pursuit of happiness should cover it) people have rights that include marijuana.

  28. and to elaborate i want to say that Korpo, i’m not even sure i’m disagreeing with your position in its entirety.

    I agree that marijuana is illegal. I agree with the fact that if i get caught with marijuana i will be in some sort of trouble, as it is illegal.

    I agree that trying to change the law is a much more effective way to legalize marijuana than getting high is.

    I just disagree with saying you can’t choose which laws to obey. Because you can, you just have to be prepared to accept the consequences.

  29. @32 Everyone has the option of obeying laws or not, but they also must realize that there are consequences for not obeying them. If they don’t like the possible consequences, they can either avoid them by obeying the law, or attempt to get the law changed. Not obeying and the complaining that you shouldn’t be subject to the consequences isn’t really an option.

    As for the amendments question, people much more knowledgeable about the Constitution have already figured it out. Further reading.

  30. rabble rabble rabble …..

    Prohibition in the 20’s …. Federal law prohibited the manufacture, sale, or possession of alcohol.
    Many people ignored this law: speak-easys, moonshiners, rumrunners, etc. Those that were caught, went to jail (or fought it out w/ the ‘revenooers’).
    As time passed, the lawmakers either: got thirsty, or realized that the law was not a good idea (because they were tired of getting bitched at by their constituents), and repealed it.

    As a ‘law’, it may be good, or not good. Each of us makes the choice: to obey, or disobey (and take our chances).
    Otherwise, lobby your politicians to CHANGE the laws, or perform ‘civil disobedience’.

    Me? I’m movin’ to Amsterdam.

  31. @34 Revising your original statement into a more reasonable one doesn’t make your original statement less ridiculous. Regardless, this whole conversation is off-topic.

    @35 You are incorrect in your belief that the Constitution grants no rights. Might I remind you that article 1 section 8 grants Congress the right to make laws, such as the CSA, which makes illegal possession of a controlled substance a federal crime.

    @36 I’ll give you that you don’t have to obey every law. You are free to violate whatever law you choose, but the powers that be are free to punish you for said violation in accordance with the law as created by your elected representatives. A more correct way to word it is that “we don’t have the option of choosing which laws to obey, unless we are willing to accept the punishment for violating those laws”. I’d assume that as a given, but it seems I have to clarify.

    Those that violated laws against sodomy were arrested and charged with violating those laws. The laws were later determined to be unconstitutional, but that has no relevance on whether it was illegal to violate them at the time that they were violated.

    @37 Your misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights is so drastic I wonder if it’s worth it to even refute your points. For those with a bit more understanding:

    *1st Amendment*
    The establishment clause prevents Congress from creating any laws establishing an official religion. It does not prevent Congress from creating a law limiting parts of religions if the law has an obvious secular purpose. Congress could not outlaw wearing a crucifix, but they can outlaw sacrificing someone on top of a pyramid.

    *4th Amendment*
    You are confusing the enforcement of a law with the law itself. Poor enforcement does not automatically mean it’s a poor law.

    *8th Amendment*
    I can think of lots of things that are more cruel and unusual, however, the federal government does not recognize marijuana as medicine. Sick people in prison receive medical care in accordance with standard medical practices. If you’d like to argue that marijuana should be considered a standard medical practice you are welcome to, but you need to convince doctors and lawmakers, not me.

    *9th Amendment*
    In a nutshell, this means that just because a right isn’t specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. However, it doesn’t mean that all rights not outlined exist. The 9th doesn’t really grant any rights, it serves only as an “instruction” on how to interpret other Amendments.

  32. I wish the Constitution took into account people’s inherent apathy and laziness. I wonder how different the country would be if everyone actually voted instead of only complaining. Out of curiosity, would anyone have a problem if voting was mandatory?

  33. My link to the decision in question regarding the California law got borked. In any case, the relevant case is Gonzales v. Raich.

    @41 Are you arguing that the “ruling clique” obtains marijuana illegally and avoids punishment, hence making it OK for the populace to do so (and not expect punishment)? If so, I’d like to see an example.

    Alternately, are you arguing that the “ruling clique” violates other laws, hence making violation of any law you choose morally acceptable? In other words, if GWB runs a stop sign it’s okay for me to do drugs?

  34. And there are whole hosts of defense lawyers that would take exception to your personal interpretation of those amendments.

    Laws officially change when those in power feel overwhelming pressure from the general public to change them. The present corrupt game played to the benefit of the few means that unlawful and injust means are routinely employed by vested interests to delay and frustrate reform.

    It is vey telling that you are utterly dismissive of the earlier example of a doctor terrorized by political pressure into acting against her oath and best judgement. Where is your outrage at this clear legal breech by the federal government? How can the legal process progress for marijuana law reform if the game is rigged from the onset?

  35. gen. geo washington, thomas jefferson, and many other of our founding fathers grew acres and acres of ‘marijuana’. up until the 1930’s it was considered unpatriotic not to grow it! the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, our constitution, and the original ‘betsey ross flag”, all either made of or printed on hemp! the only reason it is ill-eagle is due to the greed and corruption of just a few individuals. it is perpetuated by the same greed due to for-profit prison systems, big pharma, big cotton, big chemical, big oil, and big agro ( you can grow at least 12x the biofuel with hemp as with corn or soy or sugar beet). since most of these lobbies are also BIG campaign contributors, it is unlikely any pro-hemp candidate will even make to election time. read jack herer’s book ” the emperor wears no clothes” for more eye opening nfo.

  36. You are incorrect in your belief that the Constitution grants no rights.

    Where do the rights of the authors of the Constitution come from before they wrote that document?

    OneFreeLiberal is correct; rights are inherent to the physics and evolutionary biology (our Creator) that has made us with the capacity for sentience.

    Between my story of how gravity works and how gravity actually works, actual gravity wins every time. Rights work the same way.

  37. “Revising your original statement into a more reasonable one doesn’t make your original statement less ridiculous. Regardless, this whole conversation is off-topic.”

    I didn’t revise anything. I just explained in detail how and why you were wrong about your application of the straw man label. If you think straw man arguments are bad you should try just insulting someones opinion.

    oh wait…. you did. congrats.

  38. Back to the doctor. The government threatened her job by blackmail (cutting university funding). They forced her to do something wrong by they themselves doing something wrong. Morally wrong. Ethically wrong. Against various laws on the abuse of power.
    Wrong. Illegal. Probably criminal.

  39. @45 Defense lawyers are free to take exception to my interpretation of the Bill of Rights. However, in our society, judges are the ones who interpret law, not defense lawyers.

    My interpretation is based mainly upon reading court decisions and my education on the subject, and as such will generally be close. If you’d like to read a few relevant cases and documents and provide an opposing interpretation, I welcome that. However, interpreting law based upon what you feel or want it to be does nobody any good, unless you happen to sit on the supreme court.

    I’m dismissive of the fact that the doctor recommended marijuana because that’s not an accepted medication for any illness or condition. If doctors nationwide want to change that, they can do so via lobbying and pressure on their lawmakers, with evidence to back it up.

    Medication such as marinol (synthetic THC in pill form) exists that provides many (all?) of the benefits typically associated with medical marijuana, legally. If the doctor had prescribed marinol, there would be no issue. Similarly, if the doctor had recommended heroin instead of prescribed morphine for pain, the patient would have legal issues to deal with.

    @47 Hemp was grown for fiber and textile use, which is irrelevant to a discussion regarding the legality of smoking it for medical reasons. The fact that wood has all kinds of innocent uses is irrelevant in a discussion about whether it’s OK to stab somebody in the face with a wooden spear.

    @48 Mystical cosmic positions about rights are well and good until they meet the real world. Attempt to assert your right to carry a sack of marijuana around, and watch the government assert their right to lock you in a cell and feed you bologna sandwiches.

    Living in a society is essentially a contract between you and society, where you agree to follow society’s rules. Those rules are set forth in the Constitution. If you don’t agree with those rules, you are free to try to change the rules, or to leave, or to ignore the rules. However, society has a way with dealing with those that ignore the rules, commonly called punishment. This punishment comes in many forms, from small fines to the death penalty.

    @49 “Iraq has WMD’s and are going to use them against us like right now so we have to bomb the shit out of them.”

    “…the government said there was a danger and threat that justifies its actions.”

    Those are not the same statement. One is hyperbole to make arguing the converse impossible, the other is a rational and reasonable statement. By equating a position on the war on drugs to the illogical position above as analogous, you attempt to transfer the easily defensible position above to the argument you are trying to make. It’s a black and white example of a straw man argument, whether you realize it or not.

    Revising the statement to a reasonable one moves both subjects back into the realm of debatable.

    Again, this is off-topic and has nothing to do with medical marijuana.

  40. @51 How is that story proof of anything? The supreme court has already ruled that the California law means nothing. Those people were violating federal law, and were penalized for it.

  41. You genuinely feel human rights are a “mystical cosmic position”? Hang on a sec….

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”

    or something like that. Pretty cosmic and hippie dippie out there, yeah….

    Returning again to my point about government criminality: are you opposed to it? At least as much as you appear opposed to people using natural substances that have been around and in use for centuries.

  42. Hi folks, first bb post. Nice to meet y’all, here’s my bit: What an amazing discussion. Korpo, by now it seems clear that you are apparently quite correct, logically speaking. It also seems clear that this is only true because your first response to Takuan was correct on a technicality and so very nearly meaningless.

    Saying that it’s illegal to violate a law is a tautology, no? Sure, it brings punishment, but no, that is absolutely not explanation enough for causing extensive damage to someone’s being – letting them rot in jail – for doing something which is relatively harmless.

    The law is an artefact of the aggregate activity and views of many millions of people over time. Lawmakers don’t exist in the abstract; they are people who grew up surrounded by other people, developing their views over time. Likewise, the law itself does not usefully exist in the abstract; it’s subject to constant interpretation by different individuals in the courts, the media, the government, and so on. What’s a court case if not the act of interpreting the law?

    If you want to give explanation enough for people rotting in jails, you’ll have to look at *why* the laws say that they should be there. Logic’s a fine thing, but it’s just not powerful enough on its own to understand people, and that’s fine. Your responses are clean, ordered, certain, and rather short-sighted. One reason that bad laws stay around so long is that plenty folk will simply do what they’re told regardless of what it entails. Will you continue to champion being like that and absent yourself from the development of our society altogether?

  43. “Those are not the same statement. One is hyperbole to make arguing the converse impossible, the other is a rational and reasonable statement.”

    I could extend the governments position on drugs to the same kind of condescending tone i used for its excuse for the iraq war. Its just how i feel about it.

    but repeating your straw man accusation over and over again doesn’t make it so.

  44. And also i’d think i’d have to be.. i don’t know, disagreeing with you for the argument part to apply.

    I don’t think i’ve seen you give us your position on whether or not marijuana SHOULD be legal or not, so my thought that the fear mongering and shoddy logic the government uses to excuse the war on drugs, and terror, doesn’t really apply as an argument on your position.

    since i don’t know what it is.

  45. “@47 Hemp was grown for fiber and textile use, which is irrelevant to a discussion regarding the legality of smoking it for medical reasons. The fact that wood has all kinds of innocent uses is irrelevant in a discussion about whether it’s OK to stab somebody in the face with a wooden spear. ” hey mr korpo! i thought the dis-scussion was about freekin pot vending machines! my comment was general on the circumstances surrounding its being made unlawful. a shitload more was being done with hemp other than fiber and textile use, you argument-monger! hemp is THE oldest medicinally used herb on the planet. there are chinese medical texts over 5000 yr.s old that attest to its medicinal properties, especially in the areas of gastrointestinal discomfort and stress. it was used in patent medicines here in the u.s. until the 1940’s. hindus and native americans smoked it for millenia. the diesel engine was designed to run on hemp oil. of course that last factoid has nothing to do with med. mari., or the operation of vending machines,but, it is pretty fukkin interesting. all i’m saying is that there is overwhelming evidence to the fact that hemp is a medicinal herb, and it was made unlawful due to the fact that there were certain greedy and racist factions both within our govt. and in the business sector, who stood to make a buttload of cash with hemp’s unavailability. there has never in recorded history been a single death attributable to hemp. as far as marinol is concerned, the side effects are freakin horrific! and last for hours. now, about where to put that spear…

  46. Why does the “medical marijuana machine” look like 2001’s monolith?

    “Dave….My mind is going….”


  47. actually, a glowing red eye would be a nice touch..

    The Hal 9000 was a soulless machine that, having decided human weaknesses jeopardized the sacred mission, proceeded to kill all the humans. A parable for those who place rigid abstractions above living flesh.

  48. @32!! yes!!!
    @Cpt Tim, which harry potter were you reading atm?
    @42 no, rights cannot be “granted” that’s why they are rights not PRIVILEGES
    @48 EXACTLY!
    @52 – Stab them in the face LOL good use of shock value
    @53 Federal law should not outweigh local law, take it as personal opinion so I don’t end up in the debate everyone is having, but when the laws differ between locality and the larger scale, the locality should win out. Just for the flame value let me say – Civil War? Isn’t that why Texas has such an interesting state constitution, because they had to makie allowances for the post-slave day freedoms in the state as well as nationally?
    @55 Perfect!
    @60 I LOL’D

  49. It’s ‘Kush’, not ‘Cush’… as in the Hindu Kush, an Afghani mountain range where the strain originated.

    Also, as long as I have my magic pedant hat on, I have to say that I have no idea how ‘cheeba’ came to mean marijuana, although people do use it that way these days. It’s a poor spelling of the Spanish word ‘chiva’ (the sounds for ‘b’ and ‘v’ are closer together in Spanish than they are in English), which translates as ‘kid’. As recently as twenty years ago, asking for a bag of chiva on the streets of Los Angeles would get you heroin, not marijuana.

  50. I have to say that , for the most part, everyone on this page seems to be quite intelligent and articulate. It is so nice to see nowdays. Rarely can you find people exchanging views in a web setting where some unlearned despot with a grudge doesn’t come in and spoil it. Bravo on this site. I commend you all. By the way Herb is illegal. Granted it shouldn’t be, but it is. We (those of us who may partake on the rare, or perhaphs not so rare occasion) know the risks involved and we do so because we wish to.It’s fun, really tasty, keeps me from being indicted for assault. It inhibits the replication of cancer cells,adds fiber to those fudge brownies, heck it even looks beautiful. I should create a Bud wall paper and sell it. All the various varieties like a work of art all over your I must say vending machines are a fantastic Idea. I would love to see some around here. Maybe outside the supermarket..hmmmmmmm

  51. @KORPO

    I suggest you do a little more study on natural rights and the history of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.

    Just because some person who works for the people (i.e the government) says something is illegal, doesn’t mean in reality that it is. Sure, if they have all the guns they could possibly coerce you to obey it, but that doesn’t make it morally right, nor does it make it a just law according to natural law theory. You seem to be forgetting that in the U.S it is the PEOPLE who hold all the power, and the government is to obey them, not the other way round.

    I would highly recommend reading the brilliant essay by Lysander Spooner “Vices Are Not Crimes”. It was written in 1875 and is as inerrant today as it was over 100 years ago. You can find it at the following URL:

    I also want to make clear that it is an individuals right to decide for themselves what is and is not proper medical care or treatment. Neither doctors nor governments have the right to make a binding decision about what medical treatment one wishes to avail themselves of. Passing an unjust law about the matter does not change this fact.

    As for your contention that only judges are allowed to judge the law, you really should read up on the rights of juries and jury nullification. Per Spooner in “An Essay on the Trial By Jury”:

    “If an indictment be found, the jury who try that indictment, are the judges of the law, as well as the fact. If they think the law unconstitutional, or even have any reasonable doubt of its constitutionality, they are bound to hold the defendants justified in resisting its execution.”

    And lastly, as for your comment about social contracts, I will leave you with another quote from Spooner:

    “The whole Revolution turned upon, asserted, and, in theory, established, the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government under which he lived. And this principle was asserted, not as a right peculiar to themselves, or to that time, or as applicable only to the government then existing; but as a natural right of all men, at all times, and under all circumstances.”

  52. @KORPO

    I forgot to add a comment about your assertion that Marinol is equal to natural cannabis in medicinal benefit.

    Marinol, as you seem to be unawares, consists entirely of a single cannabinoid, THC. Natural cannabis on the other hand, contains at least 64 active cannabinoids, some which attenuate and some which enhance the effects of THC. This fact alone completely refutes your statement.

    Marinol is in no way superior, or even equal, to natural cannabis.

    To learn more about cannabis and cannabinoids, you can begin with the following books (both can be found at

    “Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence”
    -Dr. Mitch Earleywine

    “Marijuana Reconsidered”
    -Lester Grinspoon, M.D.

    Also, there need be no proof given for cannabis as a medicine, as it has been used by human cultures for over 5,000 years and can be found in the earliest pharmacopeia’s of China and other ancient cultures. The proof has been around for millennia.

  53. @KORPO

    I might also add about the medically accepted uses of cannabis: even the federal government agrees, as they provide 7 patients every single month with up to 300 machine rolled cannabis cigarette’s for the treatment of various medical conditions (the program was closed down in 1991).

    So for the U.S Government to suggest that cannabis has no medical value is disingenuous to say the least.

    Read about the Compassionate IND program here:

  54. A topical quote from Lysander Spooner’s “Vices Are Not Crimes”:

    “It is a natural impossibility that a government should have a right to punish men for their vices; because it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess.

    They could not contribute to the government any rights, except such as they themselves possessed as individuals. Now, nobody but a fool or an impostor pretends that he, as an individual, has a right to punish other men for their vices. But anybody and everybody have a natural right, as individuals, to punish other men for their crimes; for everybody has a natural right, not only to defend his own person and property against aggressors, but also to go to the assistance and defence of everybody else, whose person or property is invaded.

    The natural right of each individual to defend his own person and property against an aggressor, and to go to the assistance and defence of every one else whose person or property is invaded, is a right without which men could not exist on the earth. And government has no rightful existence, except in so far as it embodies, and is limited by, this natural right of individuals. But the idea that each man has a natural right to decide what are virtues, and what are vices — that is, what contributes to that neighbors happiness, and what do not — and to punish him for all that do not contribute to it; is what no one ever had the impudence or folly to assert.

    It is only those who claim that government has some rightful power, which no individual or individuals ever did, or could, delegate to it, that claim that government has any rightful power to punish vices.”

  55. Wow, they say 3 people die from vending machines every year – I wonder if this should be changed to how many people die from the products bought from vending machines? Check out more strange vending machines

  56. Marijuana is only a problem because the laws make it a problem. It’s a waste of taxpayers (your) money to prosecute/incarcerate people for this “crime”. We could save tremendous amounts of money, take strain off the justice system and even make money off of taxing and regulating it. I don’t understand why anyone, besides lobbyists and the like, are so opposed to legalization or even just decriminalization. No one gets stabbed in the eye with a joint, so why does it deserve jail time at the expense of the taxpayers? Even if you never have the urge to smoke it, don’t you want your money put towards something that’s an actual problem?

Comments are closed.