8 ms·

Marijuana Majority Website Highlights Celebs And Tech Leaders Who Support Pot

180 points by leeskye 14y ago

dmix 14y ago
Shame half of the list is obscured on my 13" thanks to a massive fixed header.
- untog 14y ago
  One weird screen resolution you're set to if a ~30px header takes up half your 13" screen.
  - aes256 14y ago
    I assume by header they mean the semi-transparent section with the over-sized logo and highlighted quote, which remains static as you scroll through the list of people. It really is a pain to use.
    - czervik 14y ago
      +1, it's horrible.
    - micahdaigle 14y ago
      Thanks for the feedback - we'll add a button to hide the featured quote!
      - stiletto 14y ago
        Does Paul McCartney really need a label? :-)
  - dmix 14y ago
    Only the part with the headshots is scrollable: http://i.imgur.com/TfaWs.png http://i.imgur.com/TfaWs.png It's 330px not 30px with the quote.
    - untog 14y ago
      Ah, I assumed the OP was talking about the TechCrunch article the link goes to.
tzs 14y ago
I saw on the news in Seattle some interviews with people on both sides of Washington's marijuana initiative, which is basically a full legalization initiative. There was strong opposition from a group I had not expected to be against it: medical marijuana advocates. They had two interesting arguments against full legalization. 1. They believe that it is going to raise prices compared to current medical marijuana prices, and 2. They are worried that the limit it sets for blood THC levels for DUI is below the level found in the blood of medical marijuana users. Many medical users would basically be unable to legally drive. (I've read that when one is using marijuana medically, the intoxicating effects of a given dose or much lower than when it is used by a healthy person, and so medical users driving while on medical marijuana are not actually driving intoxicated, but the proposed law does not recognize the distinction).
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- aaronbrethorst 14y ago
  (I-502 is a pot legalization initiative on the ballot here in Washington state. I voted for it although I don't smoke pot) Of course the MM industry opposes it. I-502 threatens to cost them a lot of money. 1. This seems like a specious argument. What they're opposed to is that this price increase won't be going into their pockets. 2. This is a ridiculous argument intended to rally support of stoners against I-502. See here, for instance: http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I-502%20Factsheet%20-%20DUI.pdf http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I.... You can legally be prescribed codeine, an opiate, by a doctor and take it, but this doesn't mean you can drive while under the influence. Here's some more information on it: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/pot-activists-vs-pot-activists/Content?oid=12927887 http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/pot-activists-vs-pot-acti... and one more quote: "If voters pass I-502, officers would be held to the same standards as they are today: They would still require probable cause to stop a car, evidence of driver impairment, and any tests would have to be conducted by a medical professional". (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/20/why-do-some-medical-pot-patients-oppose-the-i-502-legalization-campaign http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/20/why-do-...)
rickdale 14y ago
Where I live in Mi there are billboards that say, "WE GROW THE BST OG!" All over the radio are ads to get your marijuana scripts. The biggest problem we are having here is the law left the question of dispensing medicine to each individual charter. So most around the state have passed 'moratoriums' waiting for a bigger rule to follow behind. But there are plenty of places dispensing medicine. Its amazing to me that a few states can legalize gay marriage and the democrats will put it on the ticket, but 17 states and the district of Colombia go medical and there is no discussion about it.
- aaronbrethorst 14y ago
  > Its amazing to me that a few states can legalize gay marriage and the democrats will put it on the ticket, but 17 states and the district of Colombia go medical and there is no discussion about it. What are you trying to say?
  - rickdale 14y ago
    That American politics are a joke. I have no problem with gay marriage or marijuana. I choose to do what I want and hope others do the same.
  - sbierwagen 14y ago
    The big problem with state-level marijuana-legalization is that the state can make it legal, but the federal DEA still aggressively prosecutes marijuana distributors. http://www.westseattleherald.com/2012/08/27/news/dea-orders-west-seattle-medical-cannabis-shop-clo http://www.westseattleherald.com/2012/08/27/news/dea-orders-... Full legalization can only be done at the national level.
    - mturmon 14y ago
      (I live in CA, and I have 3 MJ dispensaries in a 10-minute walk from my house; 7 more if I want to drive five minutes.) You have raised an important point. This has turned out to be a problem in CA. Pharmacies don't want to touch MJ because it's illegal under federal law. The regulatory arm of the state of California doesn't want to touch it for the same reason. Some cities attempt to regulate it, some don't. Because the dispensaries produce a lot of cash profit (in violation of prop 215, but whatever), they have been able to fund lawyers to sue cities and invalidate all regulations. It turns out it's really hard to craft a regulation, even a simple one for licensing, that holds up to court challenge. The city of LA has given up and explicitly called in the Feds to raid the MJ shops. (The feds get them for tax evasion -- kind of a catch 22 because it's hard to report this income on your federal return; as mentioned, they're not supposed to profit but there's no way to check.) I voted for Prop 215, but I really had no idea how quickly it was going to turn to shit. Pothead idealism meets serious potential for quick profit.
ck2 14y ago
I don't care if people smoke in their homes, but tell me how you are going to stop people from driving stoned and killing me. Because people are arrogant about it and think they are perfectly fine and that it's not like alcohol - right now the fear of being caught with it in the car slows down that arrogance, once it's legal it's going to happen all the time. Also there has to be some severe penalty for public smoking because I don't want you smoking it next to the playground just because you are now allowed to.
- Lost_BiomedE 14y ago
  Driving under the influence and public intoxication are already laws.
- lliiffee 14y ago
  If the current penalties remained in place for smoke-driving there would be no increased incentive to drive while stoned. In general, I think the problems you bring up are perfectly valid, but I see no fundamental reason society should deal with them differently than with alcohol.
  - tehwebguy 14y ago
    I believe the problem he's referring to is not simply making it a crime to smoke and drive, but rather the difficulty in determining if someone is actually stoned since there is not currently a BAC test equivalent.
    - ataggart 14y ago
      If there's no way to determine if someone is driving stoned, then what's the point of prohibiting it? Further, reckless driving is illegal, even if someone has no intoxicants in their system.
- PhearTheCeal 14y ago
  I believe that public intoxication laws are already in place to prevent the people that insist on using marjiuana on playgrounds. Also, I don't see how making the drug legal would affect the amount of people that choose to drive while under its effects. Being caught with alcohol while driving is almost (if not as) bad, and yet it doesn't stop people from drunk driving.
mwcremer 14y ago
For those who would like to explore potential ramifications of legalization, consider http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1316 http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1316
tokenadult 14y ago
I'll let onlookers decide whether this is a discussion of politics on Hacker News (disfavored by many of the users who have been here longer than I have) or a discussion of something else. On my part, I'm curious about one empirical question: Richard Branson claimed in his blog post on the current law in Portugal (which "decriminalizes" marijuana but still treats marijuana possession and use as an administrative offense) http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/lists/top-10-marijuana-myths-and-facts-20120822/myth-holland-and-portugal-have-legalized-marijuana-19691231 http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/lists/top-10-marijuana-m... that marijuana used had declined since Portugal changed its law. That's an interesting claim. Do we have strong evidence from before-and-after policy comparisons in other countries that use of marijuana declines if use of marijuana is responded to by administrative sanctions rather than criminal penalties? If so, that would be food for thought for people like me (a generation older than most HN participants) who have seen a lot of promising young people in two generations "burn out" from marijuana use. Criminal approaches to social problems are harsh and expensive. If they are also less effective in dealing with reducing marijuana use than administrative approaches, and voters can be convinced of that, perhaps there is a path forward toward reforming marijuana laws on the basis that marijuana should be neither casually used nor a ground for imprisonment. (I think the actual enforcement practice in my state, Minnesota, largely is of the form of diverting users of marijuana to drug treatment programs.)
- Alex3917 14y ago
  "Do we have strong evidence from before-and-after policy comparisons in other countries that use of marijuana declines if use of marijuana is responded to by administrative sanctions rather than criminal penalties?" I don't think this is a fair question. What's important isn't what percentage of people are using one specific drug, or even abusing one specific drug, but rather how healthy their overall patterns of drug use are. If marijuana were legalized tomorrow and everyone who currently smokes cigarrettes switched to marijuana then obviously there would be a huge increase in marijuana use, but it would be great news from a public health perspective. Similarly, in ~2020 when MAPS (maps.org) gets FDA approval for using MDMA to treat PTSD then we will see more people using MDMA, but this will undoubtedly be a good thing.
- sethrin 14y ago
the_cat_kittles 14y ago
"We need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts, and if somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then perhaps there are other things that our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society that are appropriate for law enforcement to do." Guess which (former) political figure summoned this wonderful word storm :)
ari_elle 14y ago
I looked through the comments and was surprised that mostly there seems to be a discussion on if we should legalize it or not... I was mostly intrigued by the principle and the layout of the site. In todays time it seems like an awesome principle to just make a collection of noteworthy people and get people to twitter (generally: contact) them to get their point of view in order to use this quote for your cause. Combined with a nice layout, catchy URL and clever use of social media, seems like things like this could be done with more causes than just this one. While i know that most of you will think "Well, not really a revolution, it has been done before. Where have you lived the last few years of your life to be intrigued by something like that" I personally never saw it in such a well executed form and manner. How about doing the same with gay marriage. FEEDBACK: -) group feature is awesome -> how about additionally making groups for the parties (e.g. "Republican Party Member"), guess that would be nice feature -) how about a search function for looking up specific persons
- MartinCron 14y ago
  how about a search function for looking up specific persons CTRL-F works, it's all one giant page, after all :)
- stiletto 14y ago
  I really like the "grouping people" idea. Some other groups you could easily filter by (to find "your" kind of people), Rep/Dem, Technologists, Actors, Financial sector, etc.
benologist 14y ago
So we have pro-piracy and pro-marijuana on the front page... all we're missing now is MrBabyMan.
dutchbrit 14y ago
People that want to smoke pot, can easily get it, legally, or illegally. But it's much better to offer a controlled environment for the users, instead of 'making' people go to dealers. This part is the biggest reason why Mary Jane is a gateway drug, which lots of people use as an argument why pot shouldn't be made illegal.. Think of how much money could be going to tax instead of 'criminals' abroad. In the Netherlands, they have started requiring users to register for a weed card, which has been enforced in multiple provinces. Foreigners are no longer able to use coffeeshops. Just Dutch nationals that choose to be registered at a shop. The effects? More dealing on the street. People don't like being registered. Slowly but surely more and more people are registering, and the rest are getting it through their friends, or illegal dealers which is the worst situation. Open it up as much as possible. No registrations, just show your ID, if asked, when buying at 'coffee shops'. Governments will be able to educate the users more. Grow it as a government, allow 'farmers' to grow too. Tax it.
ggchappell 14y ago
The difference between the TechCrunch article headline and the HN headline is curious (the word "legalization" is left off of the HN headline, at least in its current form). I wonder whether this was deliberate, or just random chopping to some arbitrary character limit. Regardless, the change is important. There is a big difference between "supporting pot legalization" and "supporting pot". I often wonder whether efforts toward the former are hampered by the fact that all sides in the debate tend to think of it in terms of the latter.
davidw 14y ago
How about a web site that shows celebs and tech leaders who support a woman's right to choose? Who are against it? For gun control laws? How about a web site against Italy's "articolo 18", which is much more relevant to startups than pot is? Please, take the politics elsewhere. There are tons of sites for discussing politics. This is one of the few really good places for hacking and startups, so please let's keep it free of flame-bait. It's in the guidelines, too, for what it's worth: " Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. "
spaznode 14y ago
The website is marijuanamajority.com. Do we really need techcrunch to interpret for us? Who's idea was that?
davidcollantes 14y ago
The website on topic is http://marijuanamajority.com/ http://marijuanamajority.com/
mikegirouard 14y ago
On a somewhat related note, my `fortune` for today was Marijuana will be legal some day, because the many law students who now smoke pot will someday become congressmen and legalize it in order to protect themselves. -- Lenny Bruce

180 points by leeskye 14y ago

dmix 14y ago

Shame half of the list is obscured on my 13" thanks to a massive fixed header.

untog 14y ago
One weird screen resolution you're set to if a ~30px header takes up half your 13" screen.
- aes256 14y ago
  I assume by header they mean the semi-transparent section with the over-sized logo and highlighted quote, which remains static as you scroll through the list of people. It really is a pain to use.
  - czervik 14y ago
    +1, it's horrible.
  - micahdaigle 14y ago
    Thanks for the feedback - we'll add a button to hide the featured quote!
    - stiletto 14y ago
      Does Paul McCartney really need a label? :-)
- dmix 14y ago
  Only the part with the headshots is scrollable: http://i.imgur.com/TfaWs.png http://i.imgur.com/TfaWs.png It's 330px not 30px with the quote.
  - untog 14y ago
    Ah, I assumed the OP was talking about the TechCrunch article the link goes to.

tzs 14y ago

I saw on the news in Seattle some interviews with people on both sides of Washington's marijuana initiative, which is basically a full legalization initiative. There was strong opposition from a group I had not expected to be against it: medical marijuana advocates. They had two interesting arguments against full legalization. 1. They believe that it is going to raise prices compared to current medical marijuana prices, and 2. They are worried that the limit it sets for blood THC levels for DUI is below the level found in the blood of medical marijuana users. Many medical users would basically be unable to legally drive. (I've read that when one is using marijuana medically, the intoxicating effects of a given dose or much lower than when it is used by a healthy person, and so medical users driving while on medical marijuana are not actually driving intoxicated, but the proposed law does not recognize the distinction).

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
aaronbrethorst 14y ago
(I-502 is a pot legalization initiative on the ballot here in Washington state. I voted for it although I don't smoke pot) Of course the MM industry opposes it. I-502 threatens to cost them a lot of money. 1. This seems like a specious argument. What they're opposed to is that this price increase won't be going into their pockets. 2. This is a ridiculous argument intended to rally support of stoners against I-502. See here, for instance: http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I-502%20Factsheet%20-%20DUI.pdf http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I.... You can legally be prescribed codeine, an opiate, by a doctor and take it, but this doesn't mean you can drive while under the influence. Here's some more information on it: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/pot-activists-vs-pot-activists/Content?oid=12927887 http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/pot-activists-vs-pot-acti... and one more quote: "If voters pass I-502, officers would be held to the same standards as they are today: They would still require probable cause to stop a car, evidence of driver impairment, and any tests would have to be conducted by a medical professional". (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/20/why-do-some-medical-pot-patients-oppose-the-i-502-legalization-campaign http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/20/why-do-...)

rickdale 14y ago

Where I live in Mi there are billboards that say, "WE GROW THE BST OG!" All over the radio are ads to get your marijuana scripts. The biggest problem we are having here is the law left the question of dispensing medicine to each individual charter. So most around the state have passed 'moratoriums' waiting for a bigger rule to follow behind. But there are plenty of places dispensing medicine. Its amazing to me that a few states can legalize gay marriage and the democrats will put it on the ticket, but 17 states and the district of Colombia go medical and there is no discussion about it.

aaronbrethorst 14y ago
> Its amazing to me that a few states can legalize gay marriage and the democrats will put it on the ticket, but 17 states and the district of Colombia go medical and there is no discussion about it. What are you trying to say?
- rickdale 14y ago
  That American politics are a joke. I have no problem with gay marriage or marijuana. I choose to do what I want and hope others do the same.
- sbierwagen 14y ago
  The big problem with state-level marijuana-legalization is that the state can make it legal, but the federal DEA still aggressively prosecutes marijuana distributors. http://www.westseattleherald.com/2012/08/27/news/dea-orders-west-seattle-medical-cannabis-shop-clo http://www.westseattleherald.com/2012/08/27/news/dea-orders-... Full legalization can only be done at the national level.
  - mturmon 14y ago
    (I live in CA, and I have 3 MJ dispensaries in a 10-minute walk from my house; 7 more if I want to drive five minutes.) You have raised an important point. This has turned out to be a problem in CA. Pharmacies don't want to touch MJ because it's illegal under federal law. The regulatory arm of the state of California doesn't want to touch it for the same reason. Some cities attempt to regulate it, some don't. Because the dispensaries produce a lot of cash profit (in violation of prop 215, but whatever), they have been able to fund lawyers to sue cities and invalidate all regulations. It turns out it's really hard to craft a regulation, even a simple one for licensing, that holds up to court challenge. The city of LA has given up and explicitly called in the Feds to raid the MJ shops. (The feds get them for tax evasion -- kind of a catch 22 because it's hard to report this income on your federal return; as mentioned, they're not supposed to profit but there's no way to check.) I voted for Prop 215, but I really had no idea how quickly it was going to turn to shit. Pothead idealism meets serious potential for quick profit.

ck2 14y ago

I don't care if people smoke in their homes, but tell me how you are going to stop people from driving stoned and killing me. Because people are arrogant about it and think they are perfectly fine and that it's not like alcohol - right now the fear of being caught with it in the car slows down that arrogance, once it's legal it's going to happen all the time. Also there has to be some severe penalty for public smoking because I don't want you smoking it next to the playground just because you are now allowed to.

Lost_BiomedE 14y ago
Driving under the influence and public intoxication are already laws.
lliiffee 14y ago
If the current penalties remained in place for smoke-driving there would be no increased incentive to drive while stoned. In general, I think the problems you bring up are perfectly valid, but I see no fundamental reason society should deal with them differently than with alcohol.
- tehwebguy 14y ago
  I believe the problem he's referring to is not simply making it a crime to smoke and drive, but rather the difficulty in determining if someone is actually stoned since there is not currently a BAC test equivalent.
  - ataggart 14y ago
    If there's no way to determine if someone is driving stoned, then what's the point of prohibiting it? Further, reckless driving is illegal, even if someone has no intoxicants in their system.
PhearTheCeal 14y ago
I believe that public intoxication laws are already in place to prevent the people that insist on using marjiuana on playgrounds. Also, I don't see how making the drug legal would affect the amount of people that choose to drive while under its effects. Being caught with alcohol while driving is almost (if not as) bad, and yet it doesn't stop people from drunk driving.

mwcremer 14y ago

For those who would like to explore potential ramifications of legalization, consider http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1316 http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1316

tokenadult 14y ago

I'll let onlookers decide whether this is a discussion of politics on Hacker News (disfavored by many of the users who have been here longer than I have) or a discussion of something else. On my part, I'm curious about one empirical question: Richard Branson claimed in his blog post on the current law in Portugal (which "decriminalizes" marijuana but still treats marijuana possession and use as an administrative offense) http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/lists/top-10-marijuana-myths-and-facts-20120822/myth-holland-and-portugal-have-legalized-marijuana-19691231 http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/lists/top-10-marijuana-m... that marijuana used had declined since Portugal changed its law. That's an interesting claim. Do we have strong evidence from before-and-after policy comparisons in other countries that use of marijuana declines if use of marijuana is responded to by administrative sanctions rather than criminal penalties? If so, that would be food for thought for people like me (a generation older than most HN participants) who have seen a lot of promising young people in two generations "burn out" from marijuana use. Criminal approaches to social problems are harsh and expensive. If they are also less effective in dealing with reducing marijuana use than administrative approaches, and voters can be convinced of that, perhaps there is a path forward toward reforming marijuana laws on the basis that marijuana should be neither casually used nor a ground for imprisonment. (I think the actual enforcement practice in my state, Minnesota, largely is of the form of diverting users of marijuana to drug treatment programs.)

Alex3917 14y ago
"Do we have strong evidence from before-and-after policy comparisons in other countries that use of marijuana declines if use of marijuana is responded to by administrative sanctions rather than criminal penalties?" I don't think this is a fair question. What's important isn't what percentage of people are using one specific drug, or even abusing one specific drug, but rather how healthy their overall patterns of drug use are. If marijuana were legalized tomorrow and everyone who currently smokes cigarrettes switched to marijuana then obviously there would be a huge increase in marijuana use, but it would be great news from a public health perspective. Similarly, in ~2020 when MAPS (maps.org) gets FDA approval for using MDMA to treat PTSD then we will see more people using MDMA, but this will undoubtedly be a good thing.
sethrin 14y ago

the_cat_kittles 14y ago

"We need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts, and if somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then perhaps there are other things that our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society that are appropriate for law enforcement to do." Guess which (former) political figure summoned this wonderful word storm :)

ari_elle 14y ago

I looked through the comments and was surprised that mostly there seems to be a discussion on if we should legalize it or not... I was mostly intrigued by the principle and the layout of the site. In todays time it seems like an awesome principle to just make a collection of noteworthy people and get people to twitter (generally: contact) them to get their point of view in order to use this quote for your cause. Combined with a nice layout, catchy URL and clever use of social media, seems like things like this could be done with more causes than just this one. While i know that most of you will think "Well, not really a revolution, it has been done before. Where have you lived the last few years of your life to be intrigued by something like that" I personally never saw it in such a well executed form and manner. How about doing the same with gay marriage. FEEDBACK: -) group feature is awesome -> how about additionally making groups for the parties (e.g. "Republican Party Member"), guess that would be nice feature -) how about a search function for looking up specific persons

MartinCron 14y ago
how about a search function for looking up specific persons CTRL-F works, it's all one giant page, after all :)
stiletto 14y ago
I really like the "grouping people" idea. Some other groups you could easily filter by (to find "your" kind of people), Rep/Dem, Technologists, Actors, Financial sector, etc.

benologist 14y ago

So we have pro-piracy and pro-marijuana on the front page... all we're missing now is MrBabyMan.

dutchbrit 14y ago

People that want to smoke pot, can easily get it, legally, or illegally. But it's much better to offer a controlled environment for the users, instead of 'making' people go to dealers. This part is the biggest reason why Mary Jane is a gateway drug, which lots of people use as an argument why pot shouldn't be made illegal.. Think of how much money could be going to tax instead of 'criminals' abroad. In the Netherlands, they have started requiring users to register for a weed card, which has been enforced in multiple provinces. Foreigners are no longer able to use coffeeshops. Just Dutch nationals that choose to be registered at a shop. The effects? More dealing on the street. People don't like being registered. Slowly but surely more and more people are registering, and the rest are getting it through their friends, or illegal dealers which is the worst situation. Open it up as much as possible. No registrations, just show your ID, if asked, when buying at 'coffee shops'. Governments will be able to educate the users more. Grow it as a government, allow 'farmers' to grow too. Tax it.

ggchappell 14y ago

The difference between the TechCrunch article headline and the HN headline is curious (the word "legalization" is left off of the HN headline, at least in its current form). I wonder whether this was deliberate, or just random chopping to some arbitrary character limit. Regardless, the change is important. There is a big difference between "supporting pot legalization" and "supporting pot". I often wonder whether efforts toward the former are hampered by the fact that all sides in the debate tend to think of it in terms of the latter.

davidw 14y ago

How about a web site that shows celebs and tech leaders who support a woman's right to choose? Who are against it? For gun control laws? How about a web site against Italy's "articolo 18", which is much more relevant to startups than pot is? Please, take the politics elsewhere. There are tons of sites for discussing politics. This is one of the few really good places for hacking and startups, so please let's keep it free of flame-bait. It's in the guidelines, too, for what it's worth: " Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. "

spaznode 14y ago

The website is marijuanamajority.com. Do we really need techcrunch to interpret for us? Who's idea was that?

davidcollantes 14y ago

The website on topic is http://marijuanamajority.com/ http://marijuanamajority.com/

mikegirouard 14y ago

On a somewhat related note, my `fortune` for today was Marijuana will be legal some day, because the many law students who now smoke pot will someday become congressmen and legalize it in order to protect themselves. -- Lenny Bruce