United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: State Proposes Bold Law to Treat Pot Like Tobacco And Expunge All Records of Marijuana “Crimes”
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09 ... -records-marijuana-crimes.html
Published: Sep 27, 2016
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2016-09-28 07:51:26 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 27842
Comments: 181
Bold legislation introduced in New Jersey last week would not only treat cannabis like tobacco — legalizing it — but would expunge records for individuals previously convicted of certain marijuana-related ‘crimes.’ Should the bill, A4193, pass, convenience stores would be permitted to sell cannabis alongside cigarettes — available to anyone aged 19 and older. “This bill would legalize marijuana by removing all criminal liability associated with marijuana from the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice … as well as its regulation as a controlled dangerous substance under the New Jersey Controlled Dangerous Substances Act,” the proposed law states. Sponsored by Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll — once deemed the state Legislature’s “Most Conservative” member, as the Newark Patch pointed out — the legislation “[l]egalizes marijuana and provides for records expungement for certain past marijuana offenses; treats marijuana products similar to tobacco products, including the use of civil penalties for providing marijuana to persons under 19 years of age.” Carroll’s bill audacious thumbs its nose at the DEA’s vehemently criticized decision this year not to reschedule cannabis from its current inexplicable designation as a dangerous substance of no medical value, akin to heroin or cocaine. “To me it’s just not a big deal,” Carroll told Politico. “It’s already ubiquitous. Anybody who thinks this is somehow going to increase the availability of marijuana has never been 19. If that’s the case, then what’s the big deal about having it available at the local 7-Eleven?” Alcohol, after all, is a standard fixture at convenience stores and gas stations, with store owners facing fines and other civil penalties for underage distribution. “The whole point here is to get the government out of the business of treating at least marijuana use as a crime and treat it instead as a social problem,” Carroll continued, adding he’s never tried cannabis, personally. “You’re talking to the world’s most boring, straightest guy,” he said. “I’ve never popped a pill, never smoked a joint, nothing. I’ve never quite understood the all the allure of this stuff.” Apparently, though, he doesn’t feel his personal views concerning substances should override contrary opinions and choices. On the surface, the right-wing lawmaker would seem the last person sponsoring legislation taking such a radical departure from federal law — but on issues of personal freedom, his stances align most closely with libertarian philosophy. Carroll not only co-sponsored New Jersey’s medical cannabis legislation, in April he proposed lowering the state’s drinking age to 18, saying, according to the Patch, If you’re old enough to make the determination you want to enlist in the Marines, you’re old enough to determine if you want to have a beer. Despite an overwhelming public perception cannabis should at least be decriminalized and growing national disillusionment with the failed drug war — with the resultant largest prison population in the world, gang violence, strengthening of Mexican cartels, epidemic-level police violence, and inability of those in need to get life-saving medical cannabis treatment — the Drug Enforcement Agency opted to maintain marijuana prohibition this year. Should the proposed law indeed pass, New Jersey would join Alaska, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon in legal, recreational weed. In fact, degrees of decriminalization and legalization — mostly for medical use — exist in half the states in the nation. November’s election will likely expand those numbers. Ballot measures could potentially legalize recreational use in varying degrees in California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Nevada — and although they aren’t all expected to pass, the segment of the population arguing against legalization shrinks seemingly by the month. New Jersey lawmakers are attempting a multi-pronged approach to legalizing weed. Another bill, A2068, filed in January by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora — ironically, one of the most liberal members of the state Legislature — and State Sen. Nicholas Scutari would legalize cannabis and treat it akin to alcohol. A third is expected after several legislators, including Gusciora and Scutari, return from an information-gathering field trip examining legalization in Colorado in October. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — whom Carroll refers to as “the Fat Man” — will almost certainly veto any legislation concerning cannabis. But his tenure in office draws to a close just over a year from now. “We would like to get the ball rolling, even with this governor and even if he vetoes it, the choice then could be made to put it on the ballot through the Legislature or set the groundwork for the next administration,” Gusciora told Politico. “I think it’s only a matter of time.” Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-33) not displayed.
.
.
.
#34. To: Operation 40, Vicomte13, nolu chan, Deckard (#32)
You can call it a BS law. you can say it is an illegal law and you can disobey the law. But after you vent and despite some type of state cannabis laws in 40 states, cannabis is still illegal under federal law. The federal government still regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811). Your “call to arms rhetoric” is sophomorically comical because it was made by you while you were also “sitting on your ass at your computer” and saying Americans have turned into “slaves who can’t get off their couches.” If you want to really protest, then do a Martin Luther King “type” protest and be prepared to go to jail for your cause….draw national attention for support. You can do that by getting off your ass, planting a large amount of marijuana and start selling pot throughout the U.S. by mail order. Your trial will get you some nationwide recognition and jail time for your cause. Now, that is a protest while posting a rant on LF is as you say, “BS!” Hell, man, you can even make headlines on the Free Thought Project website….just imagine that. And then Deckard can post the article about you on LF….WOWEE!
nolu spam's entire argument is "pot is illegal in states that have approved the use of it by adults because fed.gov says so". Well, he's right. The federal law trumps state law. Of course, Obama is not really interested in suppressing pot, so he's not using the executive branch to really go after the use in Colorado or elsewhere. Nevertheless it remains true that marijuana is illegal nationwide because of federal law, and the federal government CAN prosecute, or otherwise make life miserable for, people using it in states that have legalized it. The state has legalized it, but the federal government has not, and the supremacy clause of the Constitution means that it's not legal, and the Feds can prosecute if they want to. Obama hasn't pressed it. Deckard, what makes it so hard for you to understand that nolu chan is right? The federal law does trump state law and therefore the federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811). Under federal law, cannabis is treated like every other controlled substance, such as cocaine and heroin. The federal government places every controlled substance in a schedule, in principle according to its relative potential for abuse and medicinal value. Under the CSA, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the federal government views cannabis as highly addictive and having no medical value.
Except they do know there is medical value- they hold a patent on the main ingredient US PATENT #6630507 United States Patent 6,630,507 Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants Abstract Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. The use of Cannabis for medicinal purposes dates back to ancient times https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq Facts are difficult things for drug warriors. You can't admit to yourself that you were led down a rat-hole by despicable liars who would sell out their mothers for 2 bits of silver. You lost the war, get over it. Surely there are other things to obsess over.
As I will continue to post mine. That's the problem with you PAULTARDS. You haven't figured out that YOUR opinions are meaningless. You, all by yourselves, are meaningless. A court decision is WAY more important than all of the LF agenda posting PAULTARDS, combined. All you are is a small rabid cult of anarchist... you are not only little, unimportant insignificant people, but you all are KOOK unimportant, little insignificant people. Just like all those urban animal black lies matters scumbags. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
United States Patent 6,630,507 Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants Abstract Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. You are invited to read the patent for the first time and stop bullshitting about it. It is an object of this invention to provide a new class of antioxidant drugs, that have particular application as neuroprotectants, although they are generally useful in the treatment of many oxidation associated diseases. Yet another object of the invention is to provide a subset of such drugs that can be substantially free of psychoactive or psychotoxic effects, are substantially non-toxic even at very high doses, and have good tissue penetration, for example crossing the blood brain barrier. It has surprisingly been found that cannabidiol and other cannabinoids can function as neuroprotectants, even though they lack NMDA receptor antagonist activity. This discovery was made possible because of the inventor’s recognition of a previously unanticipated antioxidant property of the cannabinoids in general (and cannabidiol in particular) that functions completely independently of antagonism at the NMDA, AMPA and kainate receptors. Hence the present invention includes methods of preventing or treating diseases caused by oxidative stress, such as neuronal hypoxia, by administering a prophylactic or therapeutically effective amount of a cannabinoid to a subject who has a disease caused by oxidative stress. The cannabinoid may be a cannabinoid other than THC, HU-210, or other potent cannabinoid receptor agonists. The cannabinoid may also be other than HU-211 or any other NMDA receptor antagonist that has previously been reported. A potent cannabinoid receptor agonist is one that has an EC50 at the cannabinoid receptor of 50 nM or less, but in more particular embodiments 190 nM or 250 nM or less. In disclosed embodiments the cannabinoid is not psychoactive, and is not psychotoxic even at high doses. [...] And then there is this: (1) Marijuana has a high potential for abuse. The HHS evaluation and the additional data gathered by DEA show that marijuana has a high potential for abuse. (2) Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Based on the established five-part test for making such determination, marijuana has no "currently accepted medical use" because: As detailed in the HHS evaluation, the drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well- controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available. (3) Marijuana lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. At present, there are no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved marijuana products, nor is marijuana under a New Drug Application (NDA) evaluation at the FDA for any indication. The HHS evaluation states that marijuana does not have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy. The statutory mandate of 21 U.S.C. 812(b) is dispositive. Congress established only one schedule, schedule I, for drugs of abuse with ‘‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States’’ and ‘‘lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.’’ 21 U.S.C. 812(b). Although the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data lead to the conclusion that marijuana must remain in schedule I, it should also be noted that, in view of United States obligations under international drug control treaties, marijuana cannot be placed in a schedule less restrictive than schedule II. This is explained in detail in the accompanying document titled ‘‘Preliminary Note Regarding Treaty Considerations.’’ Accordingly, and as set forth in detail in the accompanying HHS and DEA documents, there is no statutory basis under the CSA for DEA to grant your petition to initiate rulemaking proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Your petition is, therefore, hereby denied. Sincerely, Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator
He understands perfectly. He pretends not to, attempts to dazzle with his brilliance, and where that fails, to baffle with bullshit.
An amendment was not required to make alcohol "illegal" in the first place. In dry counties, alcohol sales are prohibited today by local laws. What makes you think it requires a constitutional amendment? And the 18th Amendment prohibited "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes." What is not there is simple possession. The bottle of scotch one lawfully had the day before prohibition began did not become contraband the next day.
And I agreed. What's the matter with you?
Big fan of international treaties and the U.N. are you? No doubt you'd have no problem if an international treaty decreed that all American gun owners be disarmed. And you wonder why you are despised by many posters here. That among other things. He's also a submissive fed.gov sycophant with a pathological authority fetish. He also lacks empathy for the sick and dying who wish to ease their suffering. And when Mexico, in retaliation for Trump's wall, legalizes meth and floods our country with it that's OK with you, also. Hey. As long as you get your precious marijuana legalized, f**k everyone else, right?
The self-admitted drug warriors here are certainly adamant in their Reefer Madness propaganda pushing. Their attitude is - fed.gov would never lie. Poor deluded slobs. Yes - I'm sure the fevered rantings of a lunatic like you are worth oh-so much. Seriously man - anger management classes are certainly available in your area. I'd advise you to run not walk to the nearest one. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not required to make alcohol illegal. Neither is one required for marijuana or any other drug.
MY precious marijuana? Never used the stuff. Think that people who do are fools. Think that it rots the brain. Trump will put up that wall and seriously cut back drugs. Meth is made in America. Every trailer you see out there in the countryside has a meth lab in it. Marijuana kills people in about the same time that it takes cigarettes and beer to do it. Meth kills people in about 3 years. So, if the Mexicans go ahead and decide to commit SUICIDE by legalizing meth, then we won't need the wall much by the end of Trump's second term. The Mexicans will all be dead from meth. You don't like marijuana, but you really HATE the idea of being FORCED off of a law that you agree with. We all hate that. Nevertheless, that's what happened to the Christian Ladies who got their Temperance Movement law erected as Prohibition, but then saw themselves unable to keep that law, because it didn't work. In the end, no compromise was really found with them. They were simply overpowered and the law they loved was struck down by superior force. That's really how things work politically: law is determined by naked power, not wisdom. If the cops keep shooting people, the public backlash will eventually result in a fundamental shift of power against them, just like we were eventually forced to pull out of Vietnam and lose the war, because the people just were not going to stand it anymore.
An amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not required to make alcohol illegal. Neither is one required for marijuana or any other drug. Plants are regulated and prohibited by laws. For a list of prohibited plants in the state of New York, with pretty pictures, see: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/isprohibitedplants2.pdf http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/2359.html What is the difference between prohibited and regulated invasive species? Prohibited invasive species cannot be knowingly possessed with the intent to sell, import, purchase, transport or introduce. In addition, no person shall sell, import, purchase, transport, introduce or propagate prohibited invasive species. Regulated invasive species, on the other hand, are species which cannot be knowingly introduced into a free-living state, or introduced by a means that one should have known would lead to such an introduction, although such species shall be legal to possess, sell, buy, propagate and transport. Federally, plant control comes under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under federal statutes at 7 U.S.C.
Nope. I have yet to read one good reason why we should legalize yet another recreational drug.
So have poisons also been used for medicinal purposes across the spectrum of human existence dating from before 4500 BC to present day. Yep, for centuries healers and scientists have harnessed the power of natural poisons, toxins, and venoms, to create medicines against such ailments as cancer, diabetes, and malaria. Should there also be no laws, regulations and controls on poisons and these poisons distributed to the public totally uncontrolled? I don’t think so. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 mandated the EPA to protect the public from "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" by regulating the manufacture and sale of chemicals. Poisons are defined as chemicals.
I somehow don't believe this has ever crossed his mind....and it never should.
Not really poison when it is used in a medically beneficial way, is it sparky? Should there also be no laws, regulations and controls on poisons and these poisons distributed to the public totally uncontrolled? Regulation is one thing - prohibition is quite another. Please try to keep up. Oh, one more thing simpleton - marijuana is NOT poison. I somehow don't believe this has ever crossed his mind....and it never should. Don't worry "Major" - you still have the top spot. No reason will persuade you. You're not persuadable on the subject, just as I am unpersuadable on abortion. You're certain you're right, and you're not budging. And if we were kings, that would be that. As things are, the world moves on without us. It imposes rules we don't like, it doesn't ask us our opinions, and that is that.
A place of honor coming from the low life likes of you.
Not really: But heavy use of pot,does transmogrify you into an alien:
Marijuana is really not a medicine since unlike drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “dispensary marijuana” has no quality control, no standardized composition or dosage for specific medical conditions. It has no prescribing information or no high-quality studies of effectiveness or long-term safety. While the FDA is not averse to approving cannabinoids as medicines and has approved two cannabinoid medications, the decision to keep marijuana in Schedule I was reaffirmed in a 2015 federal court ruling. That ruling was correct. Data from 2015 indicate that 30 percent of current cannabis users harbor a use disorder — more Americans are dependent on cannabis than on any other illicit drug. Yet marijuana advocates have relentlessly pressured the federal government to shift marijuana from Schedule I — the most restrictive category of drug — to another schedule or to de-schedule it completely. Their rationale? “States have already approved medical marijuana”; “rescheduling will open the floodgates for research”; and “many people claim that marijuana alone alleviates their symptoms.”
Garlic has medicinal properties. Should it be banned? It has no quality control, no standardized composition or dosage for specific medical conditions!
I guarantee you that if honestly studied, we would discover that any direct inhalation of any burnt leaves directly into the lungs increases death risk and reduces longevity by about the same proportion, due to soot and lung damage. The current science has exhaustive statistics on tobacco, which has been studied extensively in large audiences long term routine use. Similar data does not exist for marijuana. If the number is showing as ZERO, and pretending that's REAL, it's self- evidently bullshit. Standing around a campfire breathing log fire soot every day reduces lifespan. Working in dark rooms lit by candles results in lung problems. Sitting around incense filled rooms does the same. There is no way on God's green earth that directly inhaling substantial amounts of marijuana smoke directly into the lungs does not do the same harm that any other soot does. If the science says "0", then the science is an ass, isn't real, and must be rejected as untrue. It is OBVIOUS that inhaling fresh soot will most certainly cause lung problems. We know that. Marijuana is not a magical unicorn. It's a burning leaf that puts off big plumes of smoke. The smoke doesn't stop being harmful because it's a treasured drug. And if the science says otherwise, the science itself is a lie, is false, is untrue, and must be disregarded as not being real. Get real scientists to really test it - hell, test it on live non-smokers in countries where it's legal. Take a bunch of non-smokers and then divide the group into a group that take up marijuana smoking, and a group that remains free of it. Track them through life. People who smoke ANYTHING will CERTAINLY not be as healthy, over time, as people who smoke nothing. We don't need scientists to tell us the obvious. And if scientists actually tell us something like that "0 harm" statistics, then they're still full of shit and obviously did the experiment wrong.
Looks like a 2016 Trick-or-Treater dressed up as a hippie. Way too clean. The hippies I grew up with were smelly, dirty-haired, hairy armpits, and stoned. More Joplin-like:
When a man kills his wife after eating garlic candy like the man did after he ate pot candy and when a teen leaps 4 stories to his death after eating garlic cookies like a teen did after eating pot cookies….then that possibility should be considered.
After wasting time reading this stupid fu*king thread, I'm just glad most of the people here are "Goofy old F*cks" not long for this world. This level of stupidity can't live on.
They've tried in the lab to establish a fatal dose of THC for larger mammals (dogs, monkeys) but were unable to kill any. Any claimed lethal dose of THC is an extrapolation from intravenous administration to mice. And as has already been pointed out - but bears repeating - a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. A 19-year-old boy shot those test results all to Hell after “he established a fatal dose of THC from eating six time the recommend dose of a marijuana cookie” and then jumping off a fourth-story balcony. Marijuana-related deaths happen, but not in the way you probably expect….not in lab tests on large mammals.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” President Jefferson used this power to prohibit trade with foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo of 1807) and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indian tribes (Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802). Keep in mind that James Madison -- the author of the Commerce Clause -- was Jefferson's Secretary of State and surely would have advised his President that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit". But he didn't. But you're saying that "to regulate" -- used once in the clause to apply to all three areas -- means something totally different when it comes to the states?
[...] Marijuana-related deaths Move those goalposts. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. James Madison -- the author of the Commerce Clause -- was Jefferson's Secretary of State and surely would have advised his President that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit". But he didn't. The point is not whether the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit, but whether prohibition advances or retards the goals that typically motivate regulation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You forget one thing. One joint can be for few people and effects can last for hours. On the other hand a heavy cigarette smoker can have 2 packs a day - 40 cigarettes together. So it could be 100x difference in inhaling smoke.
According to the link, the measures are leading everywhere but Arizona. And Trump and Clinton each say it's an issue for the states. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. My bad. I thought your argument was that a ban does not regulate. Oh, wait. Your argument was a ban does not regulate. Now it's about motivation. ''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin.''
If so, then who's responsible for keeping marijuana in the states?
-- Street marijuana can contain unknown impurities. Meaning, all this factors into any comparison to tobacco.
Comments (75 - 181) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIt's a BS law and Americans - real Americans, the descendants of rebels that fought the biggest empire in the world - don't obey for the sake of obeying. The law itself is illegal. No one is going to tell me which plants I can use and which ones I cannot. It's basic Americana. And how did Americans turn into slaves over the last 100 years or so? Few even protest anymore. Can't get up off their couches, apparently.
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
#36. To: Vicomte13, Deckard, nolu chan (#30)
(Edited)
#37. To: Gatlin (#36)
the federal government views cannabis as highly addictive and having no medical value.
Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)
#38. To: Deckard (#26)
To: nolu chan, tpaine I will continue to post federal court opinions. Yes, exactly - opinions.
#39. To: Operation 40, Gatlin (#37)
Except they do know there is medical value- they hold a patent on the main ingredient US PATENT #6630507
Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC) SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Based on the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data, DEA has concluded that there is no substantial evidence that marijuana should be removed from schedule I. A document prepared by DEA addressing these materials in detail also is attached hereto. In short, marijuana continues to meet the criteria for schedule I control under the CSA because:
#40. To: Gatlin, Deckard, Vicomte (#36)
Deckard, what makes it so hard for you to understand that nolu chan is right? The federal law does trump state law and therefore the federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811).
#41. To: Operation 40, Gatlin, Vicomte13, Deckard (#32)
Alcohol was made illegal (for awhile) through an amendment to the Constitution. Since there's nothing in that document regarding plants, why wasn't another amendment required to make a plant illegal?
#42. To: A Pole (#33)
"so I said decriminalization could be a compromise."
#43. To: misterwhite (#13)
And how do you propose to legalize marijuana nationwide and not violate the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs international treaty?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#44. To: A Pole (#33)
You are a sadist.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
"I don't. This is 'Murica. Fuck the treaty. Or rather, "abrogate" it."
#46. To: Operation 40 (#37)
Facts are difficult things for drug warriors. You can't admit to yourself that you were led down a rat-hole by despicable liars who would sell out their mothers for 2 bits of silver.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#47. To: GrandIsland (#38)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#48. To: Operation 40 (#32)
"Alcohol was made illegal (for awhile) through an amendment to the Constitution. Since there's nothing in that document regarding plants, why wasn't another amendment required to make a plant illegal?"
#49. To: misterwhite (#45)
Hey. As long as you get your precious marijuana legalized, f**k everyone else, right?
#50. To: misterwhite, Operation 40 (#48)
"Alcohol was made illegal (for awhile) through an amendment to the Constitution. Since there's nothing in that document regarding plants, why wasn't another amendment required to make a plant illegal?"
New York State
Prohibited and Regulated
Invasive Plants
September 10, 2014 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYCRR Part 575 Invasive Species Regulations
Questions and Answers
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
"You don't like marijuana, but you really HATE the idea of being FORCED off of a law that you agree with."
#52. To: Operation 40 (#37)
(Edited)
The use of Cannabis for medicinal purposes dates back to ancient times
#53. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#43)
And you wonder why you are despised by many posters here.
#54. To: Gatlin, Operation 40 (#52)
(Edited)
So have poisons also been used for medicinal purposes across the spectrum of human existence dating from before 4500 BC to present day.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#55. To: Gatlin (#53)
And you wonder why you are despised by many posters here.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#56. To: misterwhite (#51)
I have yet to read one good reason why we should legalize yet another recreational drug.
#57. To: Deckard (#55)
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
Marijuana kills people in about the same time that it takes cigarettes and beer to do it.
#59. To: Deckard (#54)
Not really poison when it is used in a medically beneficial way, is it sparky?
#60. To: Gatlin (#59)
Marijuana is really not a medicine since unlike drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “dispensary marijuana” has no quality control, no standardized composition or dosage for specific medical conditions.
#61. To: A Pole (#58)
#62. To: A Pole (#58)
#63. To: A Pole (#60)
Garlic has medicinal properties. Should it be banned?
#64. To: all (#0)
#65. To: Gatlin (#52)
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 mandated the EPA to protect the public from "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" by regulating the manufacture and sale of chemicals. Poisons are defined as chemicals.
#66. To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
They've tried in the lab to establish a fatal dose of THC for larger mammals (dogs, monkeys) but were unable to kill any. Any claimed lethal dose of THC is an extrapolation from intravenous administration to mice.
#67. To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
"And as has already been pointed out - but bears repeating - a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."
#68. To: Gatlin (#66)
The Toxic Substances Control Act
#69. To: misterwhite (#67)
"a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#61)
I guarantee you that if honestly studied, we would discover that any direct inhalation of any burnt leaves directly into the lungs increases death risk and reduces longevity by about the same proportion, due to soot and lung damage.
#71. To: Deckard (#0)
Ballot measures could potentially legalize recreational use in varying degrees in California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Nevada — and although they aren’t all expected to pass, the segment of the population arguing against legalization shrinks seemingly by the month.
#72. To: ConservingFreedom (#69)
"The point is not whether the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit, but whether prohibition advances or retards the goals that typically motivate regulation."
-- Chief Justice Taft, Brooks v. United States
#73. To: ConservingFreedom (#71)
"it's an issue for the states."
#74. To: A Pole (#70)
"So it could be 100x difference in inhaling smoke."
-- Marijuana contains twice the carcinogens and four times the tar as cigarettes
-- Joints vary in size, so you can't compare them apples-to-apples with cigarettes.
-- Joints are smoked unfiltered
-- Users draw marijuana smoke deep into the lungs and hold it
-- Joints are smoked down to the last tar-and-carcinogen-soaked millimeter
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]