Legalize it!

[Katzndogz]

I waded through this whole post and seriously dude, I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about here.

Simple question: do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?

And by the way, opinions aren't qualifications.

There you have the problem. When you have a large percentage of a people who cannot get through the day without being high, that civilization has a MAJOR problem. It will not be able to function. Either it will become chaotic, or a non using force will arise to subjegate the rest using drugs as a means of command and control.

So...when do you start the campaign to ban coffee?

When the coffee drinker drools and says dude. Are you really saying that the level of impairment is the same between a joint and a cup of coffee?

 

[DNAprotection]

I waded through this whole post and seriously dude, I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about here.

Simple question: do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?

And by the way, opinions aren't qualifications.

Who stated 'qualifications' yet?
I was stating opinion and you should be able to at least distinguish the difference.
"do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?"
Simple answer is of course, but such a question should only be asked if the simple questions I posed are answered first and you have wholly avoiding even addressing such and so it makes your 'debate' merely status quot which wholly serves only an anti freedom view.

Uh... well, I think I am able to distinguish the difference between opinion and qualifications since I just pointed out to you that you were stating opinion and not qualifications....

I'm just wondering why you think you're so qualified on the subject while Mr. Shaman is not since you so emphatically stated this.

Look, in any event, I get the impression we are on the same page here.

I hate Monsanto too, hemp is a miracle plant and should have been legalized decades ago and if people want to get high they should be allowed to in whatever degree they feel necessary, diverting taxpayer money in education and rehabilitation instead of throwing it away on a proven inconsequential war against it. If I can speak for Mr. Shaman, I'm certain he feels the same way.

I agree with all you've stated (only i don't 'hate' anyone or anything), its just that imo your cart is running ahead of your horse so to speak and thats all fine and dandy if such views didnt effect me and others with respect to our fundamental self evident inherent rights supposedly guarded by the constitutional, but they do.
Law is in part about precedent and in terms of this issue if gov can outlaw (actually it is legal to grow and use cannabis if you have a DEA Diversion Division permit to do so, but they aren't known for issuing them to just anyone lol) one plant then they can outlaw any plant just as long as they can justify such in even the most disprovable way, just as with cannabis.
Our personal rights to smoke come from where?
Congress?
Or maybe the constitution has guarded such rights?
If this was about smoking what you want then the constitution is where you go, not to congress.
This isn't about smoking though, this issue is literally rooted in an area more critical to our very survival than smoking etc because it goes to our freedom to grow plants in general.
Because we haven't fought this issue at its root it has allowed for the continuing slippery slope of govs hand reaching into our gardens in general and on behalf of corporations etc in furtherance of monopolizing and totally controlling anything to do with what grows or what people grow legally regardless of 'species'.
Did you not read order 81?
That was just a testing of the waters for future ventures here at home and new fed laws on cannabis are the perfect place/way to introduce and get folks use to the notion of fed permits for gardens and fed/FDA/patented/'safe' approved varieties of cannabis rather than the 'scary unknown' varieties we all know and use now. Such is a perfect primer for restricting all other plants in our gardens for whatever reasons (my guess is it will be more linked to protecting intellectual property etc).
If we had/were fighting this on the fundamental level we could have won this decades ago imo or at least in the last decade and maybe cut Monsanto et al off at the pass and helped more than just cannabis smokers.

 

[ABikerSailor]

First, it helps to understand why MJ was made illegal in the first place. For that you can thank an FBI man named Anslinger who hated black and brown people (the primary users of cannabis at the time) and he was looking for a way to lock them up, so he lobbied to get the stuff made illegal (helped out by a Hollyweird propaganda film called Reefer Madness), and made the penalties for possession as harsh as he could possibly make them.

The government also put cannabis on the Schedule I class of drugs, and those are the kind of drugs that are highly addictive and have no medicinal value whatsoever. However, since the research was started (by the governmnet btw) in the 60's to see it's effects, there is zero evidence that it is physically addictive, as well as the FACT that it has actual medicinal value.

Want to know how they could make it legal tomorrow without having to do anything? Move it to Schedule II or lower class, because that way doctors would be able to prescribe it nationwide.

As far as lung cancer? There has been research by both Harvard Medical and Britian's Royal Medical Society that shows people who smoke cigarettes only are 21 times more likely to develop lung cancer than people who smoke nothing at all. People who smoke only cannabis? They are 0.93 to 0.74 percent likely to develop lung cancer when compared to people who don't smoke anything at all.

Me personally? I say legalize it, but put the rules for it just like what they are for alcohol, 21 and over only. Why? Because the human brain isn't fully developed until a person is around 18 to 20 years old.

 

[Dubya]

Not a prob!!

You know of any home-brewers (or home-made wine-makers) that are paying any taxes?​

You shouldn't have to pay taxes for your own consumption. All the Italian farmers had their own vineyards where I grew up.

I don't think legalizing crack would change that industry much. I don't think it could be grown outside the tropics, so Hawaii would be about it. I could see decriminalizing amounts for personal consumption and pushing for treatment programs, but it's very addicting. It wouldn't be wise to encourage it's use.

I suspect coca could be grown ANYWHERE with some research & equipment! Just grow it inside under lamps.

What makes you think a tropical plant requiring two years to mature can be grown to harvest leaves in the US? You would have to pick and dry a lot of leaves.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There you have the problem. When you have a large percentage of a people who cannot get through the day without being high, that civilization has a MAJOR problem. It will not be able to function. Either it will become chaotic, or a non using force will arise to subjegate the rest using drugs as a means of command and control.

So...when do you start the campaign to ban coffee?

When the coffee drinker drools and says dude. Are you really saying that the level of impairment is the same between a joint and a cup of coffee?

It's more the impairment brought on by a LACK of coffee. By YOUR criteria, coffee should be banned.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You shouldn't have to pay taxes for your own consumption. All the Italian farmers had their own vineyards where I grew up.

I don't think legalizing crack would change that industry much. I don't think it could be grown outside the tropics, so Hawaii would be about it. I could see decriminalizing amounts for personal consumption and pushing for treatment programs, but it's very addicting. It wouldn't be wise to encourage it's use.

I suspect coca could be grown ANYWHERE with some research & equipment! Just grow it inside under lamps.

What makes you think a tropical plant requiring two years to mature can be grown to harvest leaves in the US? You would have to pick and dry a lot of leaves.

Plenty of people grow tropical plants indoors. There are these things called "heaters" and "grow lights"! Think hard! I promise it won't hurt!

 

[Dubya]

I suspect coca could be grown ANYWHERE with some research & equipment! Just grow it inside under lamps.

What makes you think a tropical plant requiring two years to mature can be grown to harvest leaves in the US? You would have to pick and dry a lot of leaves.

Plenty of people grow tropical plants indoors. There are these things called "heaters" and "grow lights"! Think hard! I promise it won't hurt!

A coca bush is not a pot plant. Think hard, yourself!

 

[DNAprotection]

What makes you think a tropical plant requiring two years to mature can be grown to harvest leaves in the US? You would have to pick and dry a lot of leaves.

Plenty of people grow tropical plants indoors. There are these things called "heaters" and "grow lights"! Think hard! I promise it won't hurt!

A coca bush is not a pot plant. Think hard, yourself!

"Think hard, yourself!"
It shouldn't matter even if it were coca if you want to grow it and use it for your own use...some cultures have as many uses for coca as we have for bailing wire lol...
Gov's authority should only come with respect to commerce, not what I grow in my back yard for my own use, whatever that use.
We all have a right to an opinion until it starts infringing on my right to live as I choose just as long as it doesn't infringe on your right to do the same.
Me growing plants is generally not a threat to your rights etc.

 

[Dubya]

Plenty of people grow tropical plants indoors. There are these things called "heaters" and "grow lights"! Think hard! I promise it won't hurt!

A coca bush is not a pot plant. Think hard, yourself!

"Think hard, yourself!"
It shouldn't matter even if it were coca if you want to grow it and use it for your own use...some cultures have as many uses for coca as we have for bailing wire lol...
Gov's authority should only come with respect to commerce, not what I grow in my back yard for my own use, whatever that use.
We all have a right to an opinion until it starts infringing on my right to live as I choose just as long as it doesn't infringe on your right to do the same.
Me growing plants is generally not a threat to your rights etc.

What part of not being able to grow coca and stop the illegal trade is too hard to understand? Growing enough coca to supply America requires more than talk. If you legalize coca consumption, you aren't going to stop the illegal trade, so you are just going to make it easier for drug lords to exploit America and kill off Mexicans. Is there one shred of evidence that coca has been grown in other areas. The American people can grow pot or poppies, but I don't see them growing coca on that scale.

 

[Flopper]

“*Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see.”
― Thomas Jefferson

If it's ok with TJ, who I am argue.

 

[GuyPinestra]

First, it helps to understand why MJ was made illegal in the first place. For that you can thank an FBI man named Anslinger who hated black and brown people (the primary users of cannabis at the time) and he was looking for a way to lock them up, so he lobbied to get the stuff made illegal (helped out by a Hollyweird propaganda film called Reefer Madness), and made the penalties for possession as harsh as he could possibly make them.

The government also put cannabis on the Schedule I class of drugs, and those are the kind of drugs that are highly addictive and have no medicinal value whatsoever. However, since the research was started (by the governmnet btw) in the 60's to see it's effects, there is zero evidence that it is physically addictive, as well as the FACT that it has actual medicinal value.

Want to know how they could make it legal tomorrow without having to do anything? Move it to Schedule II or lower class, because that way doctors would be able to prescribe it nationwide.

As far as lung cancer? There has been research by both Harvard Medical and Britian's Royal Medical Society that shows people who smoke cigarettes only are 21 times more likely to develop lung cancer than people who smoke nothing at all. People who smoke only cannabis? They are 0.93 to 0.74 percent likely to develop lung cancer when compared to people who don't smoke anything at all.

Me personally? I say legalize it, but put the rules for it just like what they are for alcohol, 21 and over only. Why? Because the human brain isn't fully developed until a person is around 18 to 20 years old.

Anslinger was married to the niece of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon of Mellon Bank fame, who was a major backer of DuPont Chemical. DuPont had just synthesized a new fiber from petroleum, called nylon, and hemp fiber was it's biggest competitor.

William Randolf Hearst, the newspaper magnate, was the owner of vast tracts of timber for the pulp mills he owned that made his newsprint. (His paper was so inferior it gave rise to the term 'yellow journalism'.) Hemp was also a major competitor in the manufacturing of paper, and Hearst didn't like it. He also didn't like brown people much since Pancho Villa 'nationalized' 800,000 acres of prime Mexican timber from him. Hearst was the source of the movie 'Reefer Madness'.

IOW, marijuana faced the perfect storm of cut-throat businessmen, corrupt bankers in positions of power and virulent racism.

Needless to say, marijuana lost, and so did we.

The Marihuana Tax Act 1937

 

[Dubya]

First, it helps to understand why MJ was made illegal in the first place. For that you can thank an FBI man named Anslinger who hated black and brown people (the primary users of cannabis at the time) and he was looking for a way to lock them up, so he lobbied to get the stuff made illegal (helped out by a Hollyweird propaganda film called Reefer Madness), and made the penalties for possession as harsh as he could possibly make them.

The government also put cannabis on the Schedule I class of drugs, and those are the kind of drugs that are highly addictive and have no medicinal value whatsoever. However, since the research was started (by the governmnet btw) in the 60's to see it's effects, there is zero evidence that it is physically addictive, as well as the FACT that it has actual medicinal value.

Want to know how they could make it legal tomorrow without having to do anything? Move it to Schedule II or lower class, because that way doctors would be able to prescribe it nationwide.

As far as lung cancer? There has been research by both Harvard Medical and Britian's Royal Medical Society that shows people who smoke cigarettes only are 21 times more likely to develop lung cancer than people who smoke nothing at all. People who smoke only cannabis? They are 0.93 to 0.74 percent likely to develop lung cancer when compared to people who don't smoke anything at all.

Me personally? I say legalize it, but put the rules for it just like what they are for alcohol, 21 and over only. Why? Because the human brain isn't fully developed until a person is around 18 to 20 years old.

Anslinger was married to the niece of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon of Mellon Bank fame, who was a major backer of DuPont Chemical. DuPont had just synthesized a new fiber from petroleum, called nylon, and hemp fiber was it's biggest competitor.

William Randolf Hearst, the newspaper magnate, was the owner of vast tracts of timber for the pulp mills he owned that made his newsprint. (His paper was so inferior it gave rise to the term 'yellow journalism'.) Hemp was also a major competitor in the manufacturing of paper, and Hearst didn't like it. He also didn't like brown people much since Pancho Villa 'nationalized' 800,000 acres of prime Mexican timber from him. Hearst was the source of the movie 'Reefer Madness'.

IOW, marijuana faced the perfect storm of cut-throat businessmen, corrupt bankers in positions of power and virulent racism.

Needless to say, marijuana lost, and so did we.

The Marihuana Tax Act 1937

Reefer Madness began its cinematic life as a 1936 cautionary film entitled Tell Your Children. It was financed by a small church group, and was intended to scare the living bejeezus out of every parent who viewed it. Soon after the film was shot, however, it was purchased by the notorious exploitation film maestro Dwain Esper (Narcotic, Marihuana, Maniac), who took the liberty of cutting in salacious insert shots and slapping on the sexier title of Reefer Madness, before distributing it on the exploitation circuit.

Source: Reefer Madness History :: www.Reefer-Madness-Movie.com

Your source seems to be biased and stretching the truth. I can't find any record of Hearst being involved with 'Reefer Madness.' That nylon stuff sounds like nonsense too.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiUpnE3StmE]90min Reggae Dubstep Mix 2012 [HD] - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ABikerSailor]

First, it helps to understand why MJ was made illegal in the first place. For that you can thank an FBI man named Anslinger who hated black and brown people (the primary users of cannabis at the time) and he was looking for a way to lock them up, so he lobbied to get the stuff made illegal (helped out by a Hollyweird propaganda film called Reefer Madness), and made the penalties for possession as harsh as he could possibly make them.

The government also put cannabis on the Schedule I class of drugs, and those are the kind of drugs that are highly addictive and have no medicinal value whatsoever. However, since the research was started (by the governmnet btw) in the 60's to see it's effects, there is zero evidence that it is physically addictive, as well as the FACT that it has actual medicinal value.

Want to know how they could make it legal tomorrow without having to do anything? Move it to Schedule II or lower class, because that way doctors would be able to prescribe it nationwide.

As far as lung cancer? There has been research by both Harvard Medical and Britian's Royal Medical Society that shows people who smoke cigarettes only are 21 times more likely to develop lung cancer than people who smoke nothing at all. People who smoke only cannabis? They are 0.93 to 0.74 percent likely to develop lung cancer when compared to people who don't smoke anything at all.

Me personally? I say legalize it, but put the rules for it just like what they are for alcohol, 21 and over only. Why? Because the human brain isn't fully developed until a person is around 18 to 20 years old.

Anslinger was married to the niece of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon of Mellon Bank fame, who was a major backer of DuPont Chemical. DuPont had just synthesized a new fiber from petroleum, called nylon, and hemp fiber was it's biggest competitor.

William Randolf Hearst, the newspaper magnate, was the owner of vast tracts of timber for the pulp mills he owned that made his newsprint. (His paper was so inferior it gave rise to the term 'yellow journalism'.) Hemp was also a major competitor in the manufacturing of paper, and Hearst didn't like it. He also didn't like brown people much since Pancho Villa 'nationalized' 800,000 acres of prime Mexican timber from him. Hearst was the source of the movie 'Reefer Madness'.

IOW, marijuana faced the perfect storm of cut-throat businessmen, corrupt bankers in positions of power and virulent racism.

Needless to say, marijuana lost, and so did we.

The Marihuana Tax Act 1937

Reefer Madness began its cinematic life as a 1936 cautionary film entitled Tell Your Children. It was financed by a small church group, and was intended to scare the living bejeezus out of every parent who viewed it. Soon after the film was shot, however, it was purchased by the notorious exploitation film maestro Dwain Esper (Narcotic, Marihuana, Maniac), who took the liberty of cutting in salacious insert shots and slapping on the sexier title of Reefer Madness, before distributing it on the exploitation circuit.

Source: Reefer Madness History :: www.Reefer-Madness-Movie.com

Your source seems to be biased and stretching the truth. I can't find any record of Hearst being involved with 'Reefer Madness.' That nylon stuff sounds like nonsense too.

Tell ya what...........................check with the name Anslinger and Reefer Madness.

And yeah..................DuPont and Hearst were involved.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You shouldn't have to pay taxes for your own consumption. All the Italian farmers had their own vineyards where I grew up.

I don't think legalizing crack would change that industry much. I don't think it could be grown outside the tropics, so Hawaii would be about it. I could see decriminalizing amounts for personal consumption and pushing for treatment programs, but it's very addicting. It wouldn't be wise to encourage it's use.

I suspect coca could be grown ANYWHERE with some research & equipment! Just grow it inside under lamps.

What makes you think a tropical plant requiring two years to mature can be grown to harvest leaves in the US? You would have to pick and dry a lot of leaves.

Obviously, you don't know shit about cannabis.

You don't harvest the leaves, you harvest the buds.

Oh yeah................btw............................you have to harvest the female buds and make sure they don't grow seeds.

And...................you can have good buds from a plant you grew from a seed in around 5 or 9 months.

Try and learning a bit before you spout bullshit.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

There you have the problem. When you have a large percentage of a people who cannot get through the day without being high, that civilization has a MAJOR problem. It will not be able to function. Either it will become chaotic, or a non using force will arise to subjegate the rest using drugs as a means of command and control.

You "conservatives" need to put a little-more effort into quelling your fascistic-fantasies, and spend a little-less time on worrying about other people enjoying their Life, much-more than you can mange. ​

Bro your post here seems right on par with most of the other ironically misinformed posts I've seen in this thread whether pro or anti cannabis.

"....ironically misinformed...."????

Gee.....how definitive.

 

[Dubya]

Anslinger was married to the niece of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon of Mellon Bank fame, who was a major backer of DuPont Chemical. DuPont had just synthesized a new fiber from petroleum, called nylon, and hemp fiber was it's biggest competitor.

William Randolf Hearst, the newspaper magnate, was the owner of vast tracts of timber for the pulp mills he owned that made his newsprint. (His paper was so inferior it gave rise to the term 'yellow journalism'.) Hemp was also a major competitor in the manufacturing of paper, and Hearst didn't like it. He also didn't like brown people much since Pancho Villa 'nationalized' 800,000 acres of prime Mexican timber from him. Hearst was the source of the movie 'Reefer Madness'.

IOW, marijuana faced the perfect storm of cut-throat businessmen, corrupt bankers in positions of power and virulent racism.

Needless to say, marijuana lost, and so did we.

The Marihuana Tax Act 1937

Reefer Madness began its cinematic life as a 1936 cautionary film entitled Tell Your Children. It was financed by a small church group, and was intended to scare the living bejeezus out of every parent who viewed it. Soon after the film was shot, however, it was purchased by the notorious exploitation film maestro Dwain Esper (Narcotic, Marihuana, Maniac), who took the liberty of cutting in salacious insert shots and slapping on the sexier title of Reefer Madness, before distributing it on the exploitation circuit.

Source: Reefer Madness History :: www.Reefer-Madness-Movie.com

Your source seems to be biased and stretching the truth. I can't find any record of Hearst being involved with 'Reefer Madness.' That nylon stuff sounds like nonsense too.

Tell ya what...........................check with the name Anslinger and Reefer Madness.

And yeah..................DuPont and Hearst were involved.

The fact that Hearst didn't have anything to do with the film, that it was funded by a church who sold it to Dwain Esper, does mean something. Look at the films Dwain Esper made!

Dwain Esper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first thing they manufactured with nylon was a toothbrush after the act taxing marijuana. These are all separate things written up into a conspiracy.

Nylon is a thermoplastic, silky material, first used commercially in a nylon-bristled toothbrush (1938), followed more famously by women's stockings ("nylons"; 1940) after being introduced as a fabric at the 1939 New York World's Fair.

......Bill Pittendreigh, DuPont, and other individuals and corporations worked diligently during the first few months of World War II to find a way to replace Asian silk and hemp with nylon in parachutes.

Source: Nylon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manila hemp, also known as manilla, is a type of fiber obtained from abacá (Musa textilis), a relative of the banana. It is mostly used for pulping for a range of uses, including speciality papers. It was once used mainly to make manila rope,[1] but this is now of minor importance. Manila envelopes and manila paper take their name from this fibre.[2][3] The Manila rope is used to hang convicts to death in India.

It is not actually hemp, but named so because hemp was long a major source of fibre, and other fibres were sometimes named after it. The name refers to the capital of the Philippines, one of the main producers of abacá.[2][3]

Source: Manila hemp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Andrew William Mellon (March 24, 1855 – August 26, 1937)

Source: Andrew W. Mellon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Marihuana Tax Act 1937

Hemp was in decline because of Manila Hemp and the government encouraged farmers to grow hemp once WWII started and cheaper fibers were lost. Mellon was dead by the time the Marijuana Tax Act was passed and nylon didn't have a commercial fiber market established. Nylon was used to replace silk in parachutes. It was already used in stockings and the interest for fibers only came after WWII made the demand, because we lost our cheap supply of fiber.

That Ponch Villa story is also off and that Hearst ranch was sold to the Mexican government in 1953. The ranch was looted sometime around 1915 by Panco Villa irregulars and was owned by Hearst's father George. I seriously doubt it was prime timber country in the Mexican state of Chihuahua, as if a newspaper would depend on it.

 

[sfcalifornia]

We incarcerate more people than any other nation including China which is 4 times our size. One third of the people in prison are in there for offenses with no identifiable victim, primarily drugs. We waste huge amounts of money on investigations, trials, and imprisonment of marijuana users and dealer yet during the last 10 years marijuana usage has risen significantly.

We need to stop waste law enforcement resources and prison spaces on a victim-less crime that most believe should not even be a crime.

You wouldn't get an argument from me if we treated druggies like they do in China. No prison. Work camp instead. No trial. It's a medical problem. No need for a trial if they test positive. Send the illegals out of the fields. Send druggies there as rehabilitation. Fresh air and sunshine. I would agree to that.

We'll remember that the next time you go on about Constitutional rights being violated.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I waded through this whole post and seriously dude, I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about here.

Simple question: do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?

And by the way, opinions aren't qualifications.

Who stated 'qualifications' yet?
I was stating opinion and you should be able to at least distinguish the difference.
"do you think people should be able to get high or not if they want to?"
Simple answer is of course, but such a question should only be asked if the simple questions I posed are answered first and you have wholly avoiding even addressing such and so it makes your 'debate' merely status quot which wholly serves only an anti freedom view.

Uh... well, I think I am able to distinguish the difference between opinion and qualifications since I just pointed out to you that you were stating opinion and not qualifications....

I'm just wondering why you think you're so qualified on the subject while Mr. Shaman is not since you so emphatically stated this.

Look, in any event, I get the impression we are on the same page here.

I hate Monsanto too, hemp is a miracle plant and should have been legalized decades ago....

I don't know what this Monsanto-trip is all about.....seeing-as-how it was the Hearsts/Duponts who were producing the Reefer Madness that was sweeping the Country (....and, providing the Teabagger-types with the horror-stories they crave).

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKh7lzOXBPQ]Hempocrisy The History and Hipocrisy of Hemp in America - YouTube[/ame]
*
​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Are there those on the forum who believe that we are winning the drug war? If you are against gov't interfering in your life then how can you be for anti legalization? Jus wondering

I can see legalizing pot and decriminalizing cocaine in small amounts, but I don't think legalizing it would change much about the black market. The same drug cartels would control it. I think nations could destroy the plantation source in South America.

Kinda new to the whole subject, are you???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qnwp6J7P20]Marijuana Inc. on MSNBC with Al Roker - Part 1 of 5 - YouTube[/ame]​