I just wanna say that pot can be legalized at a state level and has been. Its weird though because you can still be arrested by a federal agent for it but not a police officer?? GG america.

I'm gonna stay outta this because I'm not from America and don't know their constitution.

This game is a drug. The serotonin & dopamine levels in your brain dont lie. Were hooked bad, and re-up is still like over a month away. More content, faster! Krackcode brain hungy, need new dope...Der I mean [b]lewt[/b]?

Marijuana has a lot of beneficual efects and smoking it is not the best way to cosume it but is the easiest one. While you hate on "pot" why dont you check how many people hase died in alcohol related issues and compare them to marihuana. You can not get an overdose of weed but you can have alcohol poisoning. Weed was tinted by church and religion it was babtise the devils weed in i think 1950's before that canabinoid were highly use to cure decise. But thanks to bad promotion and misinformation it was banned and it was a big competitor to alcohol and tobbaco which were big corporations backed by rich people. Marijuana has helped a lot of people and the federal goverment has its own supply belive it or not and there are only two people that has the federal goverment supply them weed because it helps their illness. You sir are am ignorant fool that eats any wrong information that is given do your research before making your self look like an idiot. Marihuana is usefull and a treat for bif companies in the medical field specialy cancer related. Anyways sorry for my grammar mistakes English is my second language.

Exceptions to Freedom of Speech, these are cases in which you are not protected by freedom of speech: Inciting imminent lawless action; ex. starting a riot in a theater by shouting "fire!" When no such event is occurring. Fighting words; Inflammatory words that are either injurious by themselves or might cause the hearer to immediately retaliate or breach the peace. Use of such words is not necessarily protected "free speech" under the First Amendment. True threats (I hope I don't have to explain this one.) Obscenity; defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.) Child pornography (I [b]really[/b] hope I don't have to explain that one.) Defamation; Limits placed on libel and slander attach civil liability and have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made famous in the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt. Making false statements in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government is also a crime. Invasion of privacy (I hope these are getting pretty obvious now.) Intentional infliction of emotional distress; ex. Telling some one that those loved ones will be harmed or else. Commercial speech; ex. Restrictions on commercial speech, defined as speech that "propose[s] a commercial transaction", is subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other speech, although recently the court has taken steps to bring it closer to parity with other speech. 1. The speech regulated is fraudulent, misleading, or proposes an illegal transaction; or 2.All of the following elements are present: A. The government's interest in regulating the speech is substantial; B. The restriction directly advances the government interest; and C. The restriction is no more extensive than necessary to advance the government interest. This is why the government can ban advertisements for cigarettes and false information on corporate prospectuses (which try to sell stock in a company). Political spending ex. Campaign contributions See Buckley v. Valeo and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Independent political expenditures See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Government speech The government speech doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own, leading to a number of contentious decisions on its breadth. Public employee speech Statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline as per the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos. This applies also to private contractors that have the government as a client. The First Amendment only protects employees from government employers albeit only when speaking publicly outside their official duties in the public interest Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist., updated and clarified by Lane v. Franks. Speech is not protected from private sector disciplinary action. Student speech; ex. the Supreme Court extended broad First Amendment protection to children attending public schools, prohibiting censorship unless there is "substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others". This applies to all students. National security; don't fûck with big brother and you're a okay. Out side of these reasonable restrictions to speech, so long as what you say doesn't infringe upon another's rights then you are free to speak your mind as defined by the first amendment. Talking about having done something illegal isn't illegal, it's stupid as shit because your confessing to a crime (therefore are opening yourself up to that can of worms) if you did in fact commit the crime, but there is no legal standing that saying something about having done something is illegal if it avoids the above conditions. Remember, it's not illegal to confess, stupid if they don't have evidence, but not illegal.

I will let you into a secret, I am not American, so your constitution is irrelevant.

Oh, lord. You just spiked up a political debate on a forum full of stay-at-home gamers and kids. Be prepared....

The only problem I have with stoners and weed culture in general is how "cool" it is to talk about it

I think the deepest part of your concern is felt and shared by the responsible adults at Bungie and associates. Know that efforts are continuing to provide and maintain a safe environment for players to communicate. Violations of code of conduct are dealt with by "ninja justice" when they reported and confirmed. Keep in mind that this is an effort between us forum users and mods/ninjas/admins and is effective over time. Content is already curated to ensure that impressionable players be protected by the code of conduct, sometimes so efficiently it is unnoticed. So in closing, I assure you that that they are hearing the concerns of those who have good intentions. The wellbeing of players is important to Bungie, but it is also important to your fellow players. I help how and when I can.

Sigh.... read a -blam!-ing book. States rights have ALWAYS trumped Federal laws.

LOL. Everyone here defending pot is ignorant and probably didn't even read his post. He has a completely valid point. Who cares if pot is good or bad? That's not the issue here......