Bloody Elbow

Alcohol was also a major source of income for mobsters during prohibition

but look at the industry it has become. It can be regulated & make a shit-ton of money for the gov’t…even local police forces.

ATF&W?

I think the issue was there was no "industry" for weed before it was made illegal

Whereas with alcohol there have been breweries and distribution to pubs since before the founding of the country.

history tells a different story

“The culture [of tobacco] is pernicious. This plant greatly exhausts the soil. Of course, it requires much manure, therefore other productions are deprived of manure, yielding no nourishment for cattle, there is no return for the manure expended… It is impolitic… The fact well established in the system of agriculture is that the best hemp and the best tobacco grow on the same kind of soil. The former article is of the first necessity to the commerce and marine, in other words to the wealth and protection of the country. The latter, never useful and sometimes pernicious, derives its estimation from caprice, and its best value from the taxes to which it was formerly exposed…”
— Thomas Jefferson
Farm Journal (16 March 1791)

“What was done with the seed saved from the India Hemp last summer? It ought, all of it, to have been sewn again; that not only a stock of seed sufficient for my own purposes might have been raised, but to have disseminated the seed to others; as it is more valuable than the common Hemp.”
George Washington
Writings of Washington, Vol. 35, pg. 72

Are you saying from those two quotes that you came to the conclusion that marijuana was as widely used and distributed as alcohol up until it was deemed illegal?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/popmech1.htm

There was a massive Industrial Hemp industry, though. Lets not forget the plant has more uses beyond the fact that it contains THC, the male version anyhow.

This article was published in Popular Mechanics in 1937, hailing the invention of a machine that would process hemp far more efficiently than the cotton gin, blah blah. Seeing their dollars at risk, the cotton, logging, oil companies said, “HELL NO!” and funded a massive smear campaign that played on the racism of white america, among other things. So no, there was no massive medical industry (though such things were being studied even then) in place, but there was a large industrial hemp industry.

bigstupidsmile - February 22, 2012 reply

1938. My mistake, what a moron.

bigstupidsmile - February 22, 2012 reply

yes

it’s only the tip of the iceberg so you’ll have to more research if you’re interested…I can’t post a dissertation to someone who may not be interested in a history lesson.

this might also serve as visual proof

Genki Sudo's Choreographer - February 22, 2012 reply

To add to these other guys

- Hemp is the oldest cultivated fiber plant in the world. From more than 1,000 years before the time of Christ until 1883 A.D., hemp was our planet’s largest agricultural crop and most important industry, involving thousands of products and enterprises; producing the overall majority of Earth’s fiber, fabric, lighting oil, paper, incense and medicines. In addition, it was a primary source of essential food oil and protein for humans and animals.
- Hemp fiber imprints were found in pottery shards in China and Taiwan over 7,000 years old.
- Ninety percent of all ships’ sails (since before the Phoenicians, from at least the 5th century B.C. until long after the invention and commercialization of steam ships, mid to late-19th century) were made from hemp.
- In addition to canvas sails, until this century virtually all of the rigging, anchor ropes,cargo nets, fishing nets, flags, shrouds, and oakum (the main protection for ships against salt water, used as a sealant between the outer and inner hull of ships) were made from the stalk of the marijuana plant.
- The Constitution of the United States was written on hemp paper.
- The first draft of the Declaration of Independence (June 28, 1776) was written on Dutch (hemp) paper, as was the second draft completed on July 2, 1776. This was the document actually agreed to on that day and announced and released on July 4, 1776.
- In 1776 Betsy Ross made the first American flag of hemp cloth.
- George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp on their plantations.
- Benjamin Franklin started one of America’s first paper mills with hemp. This allowed America to have a free colonial press without having to beg or justify the need for paper and books from England.
- Until about 1800, hempseed oil was the most consumed lighting oil in America and the world. From then until the 1870s, it was the second most consumed lighting oil, exceeded only by whale oil.
- Hempseed oil lit the lamps of the legendary Aladdin, Abraham the prophet, and in real life, Abraham Lincoln. It was the brightest lamp oil.
- Virtually every city and town in the world had an industry making hemp rope. Russia, however, was the world’s largest producer and best-quality manufacturer, supplying 80% of the Western world’s hemp from 1640 until 1940.
- The primary reason for the War of 1812 (fought by America against Great Britain) was access to Russian hemp. Russian hemp was also the principal reason that Napoleon (our 1812 ally) and his "Continental Systems" allies invaded Russia in 1812.
- Until the 1880s in America (and until the 20th century in most of the rest of the world), 80% of all textiles and fabrics used for clothing, tents, bed sheets and linens,* rugs, drapes, quilts, towels, diapers, etc., and even our flag, "Old Glory," were principally made from hemp fibers.
- For hundreds, if not thousands of years (until the 1830s), Ireland made the finest linens and Italy made the world’s finest cloth for clothing with hemp.
- The paintings of Van Gogh, Gainsborough, Rembrandt, etc., were primarily painted on hemp canvas, as were practically all canvas paintings.
- Until 1883, from 75-90% of all paper in the world was made with hemp fiber partly because of it’s extreme durability and color (it doesn’t yellow) including that for books, Bibles, maps, paper money, stocks and bonds, newspapers, etc.
- If the hemp pulp paper process reported by the USDA in 1916 were legal today, it would soon replace 70% of all wood paper products.
- In 1935 alone, 116 million pounds (58,000 tons*) of hempseed were used in America just for paint and varnish.
- From 70-90% of all rope, twine, and cordage was made from hemp until 1937.
- Americans were legally bound to grow hemp during the Colonial Era and Early Republic.
- The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 effectively made the cultivation of hemp illegal, due largely to the efforts of businessmen Andrew Mellon, William Randolph Hearst and the DuPont family.
- In 1942, The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in contradiction to the Marijuana Tax Act, produced and distributed a motion picture called “Hemp for Victory” in which the federal government not only promoted the many uses of cannabis hemp, but also detailed the most efficient cultivation and harvesting methods.
- In 1942, after the Japanese invasion of the Philippines cut off the supply of Manila (Abaca) hemp, the U.S. government distributed 400,000 pounds of cannabis seeds to American farmers from Wisconsin to Kentucky, who produced 42,000 tons of hemp fiber annually until 1946 when the war ended.
- After the War ended, the United States government once again did an about face, prohibiting the cultivation of hemp and marijuana.

I really hope that everybody reads this

Thanks for posting all of that.

KNOWLEGE - February 22, 2012 reply

I feel so right making all these posts green

Just seems fitting.

Sweet. I'm learnin'!!!

This is a lot of good info. Thanks BE buddies.

menckenstein - February 23, 2012 reply

Before it was illegal, there was a large Hemp industry for hundreds, even thousands of years..

Marijuana is illegal in the US because of the DuPont Company. The DuPont Company wanted marijuana to be illegal because they wanted to do away with The Hemp Industry because The DuPont Company had just invented Polyester and Nylon.

What better way to make it illegal than to focus on the other, more recreational, way that people liked (and still like) to use marijuana. The DuPont Company made smoking marijuana seem like it was worse than heroin by creating many forms of propaganda.

Look it up..

KNOWLEGE - February 22, 2012 reply

Dropping some KNOWLEDGE

ElliotMatheny - February 22, 2012 reply

It's not like legalizing alcohol made the world a better place:

Alcohol causes nearly 4 percent of deaths worldwide, more than AIDS, tuberculosis or violence, the World Health Organization warned on Friday.

Rising incomes have triggered more drinking in heavily populated countries in Africa and Asia, including India and South Africa, and binge drinking is a problem in many developed countries, the United Nations agency said.

Yet alcohol control policies are weak and remain a low priority for most governments despite drinking’s heavy toll on society from road accidents, violence, disease, child neglect and job absenteeism, it said.

Approximately 2.5 million people die each year from alcohol related causes, the WHO said in its “Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health.”

“The harmful use of alcohol is especially fatal for younger age groups and alcohol is the world’s leading risk factor for death among males aged 15-59,” the report found.

In Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), every fifth death is due to harmful drinking, the highest rate.

Binge drinking, which often leads to risky behavior, is now prevalent in Brazil, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and Ukraine, and rising elsewhere, according to the WHO.

“Worldwide, about 11 percent of drinkers have weekly heavy episodic drinking occasions, with men outnumbering women by four to one. Men consistently engage in hazardous drinking at much higher levels than women in all regions,” the report said.

Health ministers from the WHO’s 193 member states agreed last May to try to curb binge drinking and other growing forms of excessive alcohol use through higher taxes on alcoholic drinks and tighter marketing restrictions.

DISEASE AND INJURY

Alcohol is a causal factor in 60 types of diseases and injuries, according to WHO’s first report on alcohol since 2004.

Its consumption has been linked to cirrhosis of the liver, epilepsy, poisonings, road traffic accidents, violence, and several types of cancer, including cancers of the colorectum, breast, larynx and liver.

“Six or seven years ago we didn’t have strong evidence of a causal relationship between drinking and breast cancer. Now we do,” Vladimir Poznyak, head of WHO’s substance abuse unit who coordinated the report, told Reuters.

Alcohol consumption rates vary greatly, from high levels in developed countries, to the lowest in North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and southern Asia, whose large Muslim populations often abstain from drinking.

Homemade or illegally produced alcohol — falling outside governmental controls and tax nets — accounts for nearly 30 percent of total worldwide adult consumption. Some is toxic.

In France and other European countries with high levels of adult per capita consumption, heavy episodic drinking is rather low, suggesting more regular but moderate drinking patterns.

Light to moderate drinking can have a beneficial impact on heart disease and stroke, according to the WHO. “However, the beneficial cardio-protective effect of drinking disappears with heavy drinking occasions,” it said.

One of the most effective ways to curb drinking, especially among young people, is to raise taxes, the report said. Setting age limits for buying and consuming alcohol, and regulating alcohol levels in drivers, also reduce abuse if enforced.

Some countries restrict marketing of alcoholic beverages or on the industry’s sponsorship of sporting events.

“Yet not enough countries use these and other effective policy options to prevent death, disease and injury attributable to alcohol consumption,” the WHO said.

Alcohol producers including Diageo and Anheuser Busch InBev have said they recognize the importance of industry self-regulation to address alcohol abuse and promote curbs on drunk drinking and illegal underage drinking.

But the brewer SABMiller has warned that policy measures like minimum pricing and high excise taxes on alcohol could cause more public health harm than good by leading more people to drink homemade or illegally produced alcohol.

SammyBeez - February 22, 2012 reply

prohibitionists are the worst

you can’t nanny state your way out of the bad effects of alcohol and MJ

SammyBeez - February 22, 2012 reply

nah, but if you outlaw it people will stop using, obvs

Nice comeback.

Can’t argue with that.

SammyBeez - February 22, 2012 reply

All that said Prohibition doesn't work

So I fail to see your point despite your interesting facts.

Also the drinking age should be dropped to eighteen.

I’m out.

The issue is a lot deeper than legalization vs. prohibition:

My point is, there should be stronger deterrents put into place against something like alcohol that is clearly so damaging to a society—instead of just keeling over in supine acquiescence and saying “What the hell, people are going to do it anyway.” As narrow a stance it is to just advocate prohibition as a panacea it is also pretty shortsighted to think that just legalizing or allowing a potentially damaging substance/behavior is the solution as well—that’s my point. You don’t have to agree; it’s just the way I see it.

The word deterrent is a dangerous one. It implies, to me, taking steps to create ramifications for using a substance you want to use. In fact, according to Wikipedia: “Deterrence is the use of punishment as a threat to deter people”

People need to make their own decisions. We should make it as easy as possible for those decisions to be educated ones, but there should be no laws against being willfully being self destructive.

Just because you think you know better then other people, doesn’t mean you should be able to control their lives.

Sqwibbs - February 23, 2012 reply

Agreed, except for when self destruction impacts the society overall.

If someone is truly ONLY harming himself then that’s his business, but when that starts to impact society at large it becomes everyone’s business, IMO.

You are actually falling victim to a logical fallacy that, coincidentally, was named during the prohibition arguments in the last century. You are basically ignoring the positive impact alcohol has on society (you’ve probably never even considered it), and only concentrating on the negative aspects.

The fallacy is called “If-by-whiskey:”
-———————————————————————————————————————-
The label if-by-whiskey refers to a 1952 speech by Noah S. “Soggy” Sweat, Jr., a young lawmaker from the U.S. state of Mississippi, on the subject of whether Mississippi should continue to prohibit (which it did until 1966) or finally legalize alcoholic beverages:

My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
-———————————————————————————————————————————
ps, I couldn’t get the block quotes to work right with multiple paragraphs so I just used the lines, is there some trick to it?.

Anyway, you should check out a neat little documentary called “How Beer Saved The World” which you can stream on Netflix instant. Obviously it should be taken with a grain of salt, but it is a pretty fun little film.

Sqwibbs - February 23, 2012 reply

I've considered both pros and cons:

IMO the harm outweighs the benefit, however, this discussion has prompted me to want to do some research into the matter since it certainly is a controversial and hottly debated topic. I do have Netflix—thanks for the reccomendation—will check it out. Btw, with the block quotes when you hit the " symbol for the html tag type your quote after the tag and then to close it(so it doesn’t quote everything else afterwards), hit the " symbol again and then put a forward slash / before the word block between < and >. :)

^Hotly(typo)

...aaaaaand "recommend"

getting OCD w/ my typo’s now ;)

I highlighted the whole thing and hit the " symbol, which placed the opening and closing tag around the whole thing. But when I hit preview, only the first paragraph was in a block quote, even though the tag was at the end of the several paragraphs. When I removed the extra spaces, it put everything in the block quote, but made it a wall of text. Weird behavior.

I guess the most important point I would like to make, is that while it is true that self destructive people use alcohol as a tool to be self destructive, those same people would be using something else to self destruct if they didn’t have alcohol to turn to. For example, right now there is an epidemic of prescription drug abuse. One of the big reasons for this is that it is socially unacceptable to be drinking at 11am, or when you are taking care of your children, but it’s perfectly ok to "take your medicine" any time of the day.

The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of the people in the statistics you provided above would still find some way to self destruct even if we could wave a magic wand and make all the alcohol in the world disappear. The real answer isn’t punishing the millions of people who safely and responsibly enjoy alcohol every day, but looking at what causes those people to be self destructive in the first place.

Sqwibbs - February 23, 2012 reply

Yeah, it's a very deep subject.

Especially once you get into all the other types of intoxicants and substances involved. It’s like having a discourse on the nature/problem of good & evil—there’s a lot to consider. Thanks for your input. :)

‘major’? Somehow I doubt something that can be grown in your backyard could be more lucrative to organized crime than say something that requires heavy synthetic processing or has a physically addicting characteristic.

Armleglegarm Head - February 22, 2012 via mobile reply

if your backyard is the size of a National Forest, then yes it is hugely lucrative. the only additions you have to make are booby traps & armed guards. It’s called weed because it’s extremely easy to cultivate, basically requiring sunlight & H2O.

Im guessing youve never actually grown Marijuana

Negrodamus - February 23, 2012 via mobile reply

How should I answer this on a public internet post? No, I have never grown marijuana. I may be paranoid, but I’m not stupid.

tigerlee - February 23, 2012 reply

Then you would know cultivating marijuana requires a lot more than just sunlight and water.

Negrodamus - February 23, 2012 reply

key word: basically

I’m not going to go into separating sexes, cross-breeding, or hydroponics on a board devoted to MMA, but growing can range from ditch weed to large scale professional hydroponic cultivation. Depends on what your quality needs are, but it does basically come down to sunlight & water…this plant will grow pretty much anywhere, hence the term ‘weed’. It’s not rocket science, it’s farming.

tigerlee - February 23, 2012 reply

Yeah, so legalizing it would logically take away that source of income from the "bad guys"

ElliotMatheny - February 22, 2012 reply

I never understood this.

Arguing against legalizing weed because of a bad effect that comes from the fact that its illegal.

Horribly circular logic.

Gov't can't compete at this point

There’s more to it than most people realize. It would not be financially beneficial to the government.

that doesn't address the circular logic at all

you brought up the point that MJ sales fund criminal organizations.

I brought up the point that MJ funds criminals by definition because its illegal. Whoever sells it, by definition, is a criminal.

That has nothing to do with if it would be financially beneficial to the government to legalize or decriminalize MJ. And even if somehow the government couldn’t tax the shit out of it, it would stop wasting money on policing what are currently MJ crimes. No more MJ arrests, trials, incarcerations- the government stands alot to save if MJ were legalized, even if I accept your premise that the government won’t make money off of MJ sales.

they definitely can compete

it’s far easier to regulate industry than it is to regulate “the war on drugs”.

sad how its a big deal with criminal orgs still

gxc - February 22, 2012 reply

wow good timing menckenstein

gxc - February 22, 2012 reply

I don't get how this is what you took away from the article.

The point here is that the NSAC is being lenient and giving Diaz the ability to apply for therapeutic exemption AFTER THE FACT. It has nothing to do with controversy, and everything to do with being fair and just.

ElliotMatheny - February 22, 2012 reply

I wonder if they are just saying this to seem like they are being fair and have no intent of granting TUEs

Or if they are really considering it because of their acceptance of TRT.

Time will tell.

It sounds like they’re giving Diaz a real break here to me.

ElliotMatheny - February 23, 2012 reply

FREE NICK DIAZ

RandyCouture'sDivorceLawyer - February 22, 2012 via mobile reply

Free Karl!

ChillMike - February 22, 2012 reply

I think just asking for an exemption is going to be too much. Nick and his team should figure out a way to show that urine in his system doesn’t mean he’s high. If that means volunteering to have his blood tested at the fight, or convincing them that he (and other people with medical needs) need to use a different threshold to trigger a positive test, or something. I really don’t think “i have a card, i can have weed in my system” is going to work.

Phildo - February 22, 2012 reply

There's no precedent which may help him.

He also has a REALLY good lawyer. Like one’s whose mother holds a very high ranking government position. I believe Mayor of Las Vegas?

Matthew Roth - February 22, 2012 reply

He also has no precedent to help him.

This commission pulled Credeur out of a fight beforehand for Adderall, they have precedent that a prescription doesn’t mean it’s allowed, never mind a doctor’s recommendation, is not enough to allow someone to compete with a banned substance on their list.

He’s not going to get off for this time because instead of trying to work something out he tried to beat the system, and failed.

Phildo - February 22, 2012 reply

My guess is a temporary exemption

With the topic being discussed at the next ABC meeting.

Matthew Roth - February 22, 2012 reply

I really don’t know why you would think that. This goes beyond the ABC, it’s on the WADA banned list, going further away from WADA standards opens a new can of worms.

I don’t understand why people want to treat weed differently from everything else on the banned list. It may be stupid that it’s there, but it’s there, some people thinking it shouldn’t be there isn’t really going to change much.

Phildo - February 22, 2012 reply

It is because most people use, so they are advocates of it. If they really step outside that box and really comprehend why it is on that banned list then they wouldnt be adament about the topic.

KingLujan - February 22, 2012 reply

It’s on the WADA banned list as a substance you can’t use at time of competition. It’s not banned out of competition.

Matthew Roth - February 22, 2012 reply

The problem is that the established method of testing of the NSAC (urinalysis) does not show the timeframe of use, rendering that argument invalid in this case.

Machiel Van - February 22, 2012 reply

and it was in his system when he competed, and its now too late to show something else.

that’s why offering his blood or seeking approval beforehand are much better approaches than trying to dig himself out after the fact.

Phildo - February 22, 2012 via Android app reply

Just because it's in your system

Doesn’t man your high in the actual fight.

Lauren J Darkbloom - February 22, 2012 reply

That’s not really relevant. Nick knew how the NSAC tested for weed, Nick failed that test.

That could have been relevant if he would have gotten an exemption beforehand, or suggested an alternate form of testing, or done anything besides, “i can beat the test, homie,” but he didn’t.

Phildo - February 23, 2012 reply

The way I read this

Kizer and everyone else is setting up a decision where they go easy on Diaz. It just feels that way to me. Kizer’s public comments sounded incredibly mild to me.

We’ll have to see whether I’m totally off-base, but here is my prediction. The next step is for Ceasar “The Enabler” Gracie to grovel in front of the commission and say he screwed up by not asking for the exemption, and then for Nick Diaz to stumble his way through a statement written by someone else about how he understands that he failed to file properly for an extension.

Again, we’ll see. But the stage is certainly set for this little theater production to happen.

Retroactive exemption? Why would Nick be allowed to do this and not other guys that have been caught recently for mishandling their exemption situation, such as Sonnen and Marquardt, etc. What makes Nick so special that he’s allowed to skip over his responsabilities?

Shnak - February 22, 2012 reply

TRT is performance enhancing. Nuff said.

Armleglegarm Head - February 22, 2012 via mobile reply

Without pot, Nick is apparently a mess. So, for Nick, pot is actually performance enhancing. Nuff said.

Shnak - February 22, 2012 reply

Can't argue with logic like that.

Glad we agree

Shnak - February 23, 2012 reply

Both TRT and Pot are on the same list of banned substance. Both have processes to make them okay to use.

KingLujan - February 22, 2012 reply

There is no precendence for a TUE for Mary Jane though.

He got busted for metabolites...

not for being high during the fight.

We’ll have to wait until the hearing for the details, but a bad weight cut resulting in a failed urine test for a substance no longer active in the bloodstream which would clear itself up in a couple days is in a different league than having substantially more artificial testosterone in your blood than is allowed going into a fight. It’s a big difference, especially when combined with his doctors recommendation.

Bloody L - February 22, 2012 reply

Does anyone

Actually want to not see another Nick Diaz fight for a year? Well if we’re all in agreement then fine him, slap him on the wrist and continue on, business as usual.

Armleglegarm Head - February 22, 2012 via mobile reply

yep.whatever else you say about the guy, he's money in the bank.

it’s not fair, that’s true. Maybe you’vre heard about whether life is fair, though?

I wanted Thiago Silva to fight Rampage before he got caught with the whizinator… but because we wanted to see him fight Rampage, are you saying that he should’ve been given a slap on the wrist and allowed to fight regardless? That doesn’t make any sense.

Shnak - February 22, 2012 reply

Thiago Silva's not money in the bank.

it’s not about sense, it’s about dollars

(SEE WAT I DIDD THAIR?)

Charlie Custer - February 22, 2012 reply

I’m with you, pulling for him to beat this. The thought of Condit collecting dust and waiting for GSP’s knee to be 124.5% is just dreadful. Diaz/Condit 2 happening sometime this summer would be a godsend for the casual and hardcore fan of MMA as well as a financial boon to Zuffa and these two fighters. Although the first one fell short in terms of pure action, I could pretty much watch these guys fight ten times in a row and be content. Maybe toss a Penn/Condit or a Diaz/Ellenberger in there somewhere. I just want to make sure that GSP is at least able to stick the vault landing with confidence before he even thinks about returning to MMA.

Please Raptor Jesus,

Dont allow this to turn into another moronic “it’s just pot its totally harmless” debate. Thanks

Earl

Earl Montclair - February 22, 2012 reply

Dear EM -

I’ll do what I can, but it looks like there’s already a legalization debate starting up, that doesn’t bode well,

Sincerely,
RJ

ps – HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

your puny species has made it harmful

I made it, I should know

F'n Clownshoes - February 22, 2012 reply

Rob Young - February 22, 2012 reply

this is epic

f’n fantastic!

Awesome idea, piss poor execution

no surfboard, no cred.

F'n Clownshoes - February 22, 2012 reply

i don't think it's bad

the photo is awful but the lines are good and the shading is good. the scroll work and lettering could be better.

Definitely needs touch up

Machiel Van - February 22, 2012 reply

Roth?

Luke Nelson - February 22, 2012 reply

I'm 90% sure that he'll just end up being suspended 12 months.

All the arguments people are suggesting argue for a change in the rules, but none of them argue that an established rule wasn’t broken. The only reason I’m not 100% certain is that the NSAC is known for some circus acts, such as granting a license for someone fight when they are supposed to be in jail.

Machiel Van - February 22, 2012 reply

90% is valid, the inner workings of a state agency are a mysterious cabal.

But I’m glad NSAC is open to making concessions to allow medicinal use…Diaz is a catalyst for change!

Now on to judging criteria.