Can Smoking Pot Be Considered a Form of Free Speech?

[Ralph Wiggum]

madokie (38,123 posts)

Can Smoking Pot Be Considered a Form of Free Speech?


Activists lit up in protest of the War on Drugs—now they face severe charges.



The latest front in the battle for rationalized drug laws is in downtown Philadelphia, where an activist facing a federal trial for marijuana possession asserts that he was smoking as a constitutionally protected method of political expression.

“This site is preserved for the First Amendment,” Chris Goldstein said, pointing toward the glass and brick building near 6 th and Market Street that contains the Liberty Bell. “That’s why we’re here.”

Goldstein and one other defendant will plead their case in a December trial that could result in six months in prison and $1,000 in fines.

“They’re taking the full weight of the law against us, ostensibly for that single joint,” said Goldstein, standing on the federal park space that lies in the shadow of Independence Hall. It’s here, at the site where the country’s founding fathers signed the U.S. Constitution that gives all Americans the right to free speech, where he’s been leading monthly “Smoke Down Prohibition” protests in his role as co-chair of the Philadelphia NORML chapter.

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/can-smoking-pot-be-considered-form-free-speech

To be fair, I am rather ambivalent about legalized marijuana.  I just find the DUmp posts about pot to be consistently amusing.

[FlaGator]

The argument is moot. Even free speech has limits put on it. You can't yell fire in a theater and you can't encourage people to break the law. You can't smoke pot if the government says you can't smoke it.

[Dori]

That DUmmie makes as much sense as shooting up the town square should be considered free speech.

[marv]

How about adding tobacco as free speech?

[Skul]

How about adding tobacco as free speech?

Drinking and driving?
How many analogies could be made.

[Freeper]

That DUmmie makes as much sense as shooting up the town square should be considered free speech.

Exactly, or merely just possessing the evil rifle will make them call for arrests.

[FlaGator]

Could lying to the American people about the basic foundations of Obamacare be considered a form of free speech.

[Big Dog]

The argument is moot. Even free speech has limits put on it. You can't yell fire in a theater and you can't encourage people to break the law. You can't smoke pot if the government says you can't smoke it.

You certainly can.

If the theater was on fire, it would be immoral to not yell "fire". If I was to write Backdraft: the Musical for the stage, the audience would hear "fire!" a lot.

The argument is moot. Even free speech has limits put on it. You can't yell fire in a theater and you can't encourage people to break the law. You can't smoke pot if the government says you can't smoke it.

You certainly can, and I'll prove it.

I encourage every red-blooded American to reject Obamacare. If you are a young, healthy person, I encourage you to pay the $95 "tax", and only sign up for the "free government cheese insurance" if you get sick. Starve the beast.

There. I just did it.

The argument is moot. Even free speech has limits put on it. You can't yell fire in a theater and you can't encourage people to break the law. You can't smoke pot if the government says you can't smoke it.

You certainly can. People do it every day.

"X is prohibited by law" is a far cry from "you can't do X."

[Bad Dog]

There. I just did it.

I would call you a scofflaw but I'm not sure how to spell it.

[NHSparky]

The argument is moot. Even free speech has limits put on it. You can't yell fire in a theater and you can't encourage people to break the law. You can't smoke pot if the government says you can't smoke it.

It goes beyond that.  In your house, I say fine, go ahead.

In a public place?  Screw that.  Some of us have to pass drug tests.  And don't even get me started on the drugged driving.

[vesta111]

That DUmmie makes as much sense as shooting up the town square should be considered free speech.

I agree Dori, free speech however is in some cases illegal.

Were I to use some common words in the dictionary to someone, I can be arrested.  

Try using free speech to a judge in court and calling he/she a fat bastard.   I have seen people dragged out of town meetings for becoming unruly for using free speech.  

Now the non verbal free speech such as suspending a kid from school for a T shirt they are wearing that has printed words on it that offend some ass hats, say an anti Obama shirt, is this free speech ?  

Speech is the utterance of sounds, can in some cases be given to the writing of words of protest as we did with the pole in the town squares that people posted their grievances against the Brits. about taxation with no representation.

Now breaking the law in public is in no way free speech anymore then if I lit up a cigarette in a restaurant or burned the American Flag.  

Remember John Wayne and his western movies where he said "Them's fighting words Mister"

Another thing comes to mind, a saying from the past is  "Actions speak louder then words"    Complicated here, this free speech, Be they words or actions ?

[BannedFromDU]

     I don't know about the dope thing, but I do know that all liberals should exercise their Second Amendment rights using one of these:

[FlaGator]

You certainly can.

If the theater was on fire, it would be immoral to not yell "fire". If I was to write Backdraft: the Musical for the stage, the audience would hear "fire!" a lot.

You certainly can, and I'll prove it.

I encourage every red-blooded American to reject Obamacare. If you are a young, healthy person, I encourage you to pay the $95 "tax", and only sign up for the "free government cheese insurance" if you get sick. Starve the beast.

There. I just did it.

You certainly can. People do it every day.

"X is prohibited by law" is a far cry from "you can't do X."

I agree that merely shouting fire does not violate the law, but if there is no fire and someone intentionally creates a panic by shouting fire he or she is in violation of one several laws concerning disturbing the public peace and if someone get's killed then manslaughter charges could ensue.

As for speech that leads people to violate the law, Charles Manson participated in none of the murders for which he is jailed. Yet it was under his direction that the murders took place. I cannot make a speech and state that my listeners should go and commit some crime. If they do then I am guilty of the crime.

As for smoking pot regardless of whether a person his caught or not he or she still breaks the laws. I have never been a person who accepted the philosophy that if I don't get caught then I haven't broken the law.

Is innocence or guilt determined by being convicted in a court of law? If I kill someone and then prevail in court am I not still morally guilty of a crime? If I speed on the way home from work, I'm still a speeder whether I get a ticket or not.

[Big Dog]

I agree that merely shouting fire does not violate the law, but if there is no fire and someone intentionally creates a panic by shouting fire he or she is in violation of one several laws concerning disturbing the public peace and if someone get's killed then manslaughter charges could ensue.

That's not what you wrote. You said "you can't". Punishment after the fact is different from the inability to do something (which is the meaning of "you can't"). A person can shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Under certain circumstances, that person may be subject to punishment under the law for doing so, but that is not the same as "can't".

An easy way to think of it is "can =/= can't", or "If you can, then it is false to say you can't".

As for speech that leads people to violate the law, Charles Manson participated in none of the murders for which he is jailed.

Which proves my point perfectly. Manson did incite his followers to murder, so it would be false to say he couldn't do so. In my much milder example, I encouraged people to disobey Obamacare, proving that it can be done. Can =/= can't.

But you also stated that Manson "directed" his cult members, which is different from "encouraging". Your example didn't even support your own prior statement.

As for smoking pot regardless of whether a person his caught or not he or she still breaks the laws.

Strawman argument. You said "you can't" smoke pot because the government says you can't, yet millions of people do every day. Can =/= can't.

The difference between "X is prohibited by law" and "you can't do X" is an important one. American Liberty is based on the idea that a free man can act in accordance with his free will, so long as his act does not infringe on the equal right of another citizen, and so long as he is prepared to face the consequences if his act violates the law.

In 1775, the King of England decreed that colonial militias in the American colonies were required to disarm. That was "the law of the land". What is your opinion of the Colonials' disobedience of that law?

In 1850, the US government passed the Fugitive Slave Act. Among other things, it made the act of providing food or shelter to a a runaway slave a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment. That was the law, yet many people in the North and the South disobeyed it. What is your opinion of the actions of those people?

[vesta111]

I agree that merely shouting fire does not violate the law, but if there is no fire and someone intentionally creates a panic by shouting fire he or she is in violation of one several laws concerning disturbing the public peace and if someone get's killed then manslaughter charges could ensue.

As for speech that leads people to violate the law, Charles Manson participated in none of the murders for which he is jailed. Yet it was under his direction that the murders took place. I cannot make a speech and state that my listeners should go and commit some crime. If they do then I am guilty of the crime.

As for smoking pot regardless of whether a person his caught or not he or she still breaks the laws. I have never been a person who accepted the philosophy that if I don't get caught then I haven't broken the law.

Is innocence or guilt determined by being convicted in a court of law? If I kill someone and then prevail in court am I not still morally guilty of a crime? If I speed on the way home from work, I'm still a speeder whether I get a ticket or not.

I was under the impression old Charley boy was present at the Bianca murders.  

So if I using free speech tell someone to go out and kill someone and they do it, who is at fault ?  Long as I do not pay someone to do my bidding, how am I at fault ? All kinds of crap can be done and covered under the free speech law.  

Morality and the law are two different things, ABORTION, Mercy Killings, ordering the Doctors to pull the plug on a wealthy relative to inherit their money,  or that poor woman whose husband decided to pull the plug on his wife in order to collect what was left of her insurance pay out and marry the woman he had 3 kids with after she went into a coma.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder.   The Law is the Law.

"       I cannot make a speech and state that my listeners should go and commit some crime. If they do then I am guilty of the crime. " Quote

Now you are stating that others have no free will. You believe that others will do your bidding against their own will ?

Do you really believe the Manson girls and guys were forced into doing as Manson told them to ?  These misfits were all natural born killers and were more then happy to put the blame for their actions on old crazy Charlie.    We were on drugs they claimed, so were they forced to take the drugs ?   Free will to follow any path in life, no sense in blaming others, you are the one that makes the choice.

Any of us are offered at some time in our life to do or act on someone Else's suggestion, we have the choice , to do so or not do so.    We make the wrong decision and then cry out------They made me do it.   Patty Hurst anyone ???

Humans make their own decisions in life, to smoke cigarettes, drink booze, to marry and divorce, to Abort their children or to go into a Nunnery or the Priest hood.  

Choices we all have, few are so addled they have no idea what they are doing or care.

Morality is and has been a no choice for us humans, we act on instinct as to what is good or bad.   Or at least we did in the past.    Some woman 20,000 years ago gave birth to a baby and instinct took over and she fed it from her breast.  Her man instinctively went out a hunting to feed the woman and protective them with their life.

Some where we have screw up in just the past 50 years, humans have lost the instinct to survive, baby's now trashed as litter, the fathers long gone, humans getting their kicks from feeding on each other.

Good reason we have the Bible to teach us about good and evil.  But, how long will it take to get back to the what we call uncivilized days to start all over?

[FlaGator]

That's not what you wrote. You said "you can't". Punishment after the fact is different from the inability to do something (which is the meaning of "you can't"). A person can shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Under certain circumstances, that person may be subject to punishment under the law for doing so, but that is not the same as "can't".

An easy way to think of it is "can =/= can't", or "If you can, then it is false to say you can't".

Which proves my point perfectly. Manson did incite his followers to murder, so it would be false to say he couldn't do so. In my much milder example, I encouraged people to disobey Obamacare, proving that it can be done. Can =/= can't.

But you also stated that Manson "directed" his cult members, which is different from "encouraging". Your example didn't even support your own prior statement.

Strawman argument. You said "you can't" smoke pot because the government says you can't, yet millions of people do every day. Can =/= can't.

The difference between "X is prohibited by law" and "you can't do X" is an important one. American Liberty is based on the idea that a free man can act in accordance with his free will, so long as his act does not infringe on the equal right of another citizen, and so long as he is prepared to face the consequences if his act violates the law.

In 1775, the King of England decreed that colonial militias in the American colonies were required to disarm. That was "the law of the land". What is your opinion of the Colonials' disobedience of that law?

In 1850, the US government passed the Fugitive Slave Act. Among other things, it made the act of providing food or shelter to a a runaway slave a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment. That was the law, yet many people in the North and the South disobeyed it. What is your opinion of the actions of those people?

You are correct that Charlie was at the scene of the La Bianca murders but he was no where near the Tate house and he was convicted for those murders as well.

I attempt to obey the law. If the laws says something is illegal I consider it as something I can't do. Do I speed? Yes but I try not to. I understand that I may get a ticket if I get caught and most of the time the risk of  a ticket isn't equal to what I gain if I get away with it.

The Supreme Court ruled when it over turned the Schenck decision that riling people up with generic hate speech does not constitute a crime, however inciting people to specifically break the law is a crime. To tell people they should kill a certain person or a certain classification of people is a violation of the law. Saying that someone is bad and something should be done is not.

I completely understand that shouldn't and can't are two different things but I was hoping that was understood when I posted. When I am posting among friends I assume that they understand the point I am attempting to make without dissecting my choice of words. I guess I should have said you can't legally smoke pot or can't legally shout fire when there is none but I figured that most people would have understood this.

Posting on this subject elsewhere, say a legal board, I would have used more concise language but here I figured you would get my meaning. Having to go through all the trouble to explain something that I'm sure you already understood is tiresome and one of the reasons I keep my comments to quick one liners that don't stir someone to respond.