Why Are So Many Still Against Hemp / Marijuana ?

[longbarrel]

In Northern Mississippi, it can't be legal. Think of the jails, jail officers, police officers, criminal defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, probation officers, drug counselors, judges, court clerks, bailiffs, newspapers, that not only count on it being illegal, but make their way in this world because it is illegal.

 

[mrjarrell]

In Northern Mississippi, it can't be legal. Think of the jails, jail officers, police officers, criminal defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, probation officers, drug counselors, judges, court clerks, bailiffs, newspapers, that not only count on it being illegal, but make their way in this world because it is illegal.

Long past the time that the buggy whip makers were put out to pasture. These particular folks are a cancer on our society and need to be expunged, in this instance. This country has 25% of the worlds prison population. They can't all be Dillinger.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

They tried that. Alcohol can me more or less dangerous. You can have 1 or 2 drinks and be fine. When your high your high, there is no sorta buzzed. Drinking can't get the guy next to you drunk.

Refer madness much ? It may not be "scientific" but there actually is a " sorta buzzed " , it comes before being high which comes before being stoned .

Smoking pot doesn't get the guy next to you high either that's not even BS , it's horse **** .

In both my military and civilian lives , I've burned literal tons of weed and never known anyone to get high from second hand smoke .

For those who asked about building with Hemp get on YT and check out the videos of the various HempCrete buildings from houses to apartment complexes .

As far as pain relief goes I'll take weed over the pills any day .

Long story short , I re injured my back a few months ago and instead of going back to the clinic for it , I went to a chiropractor and smoked weed and within a couple days I was back on my feet , literally .

The first time I injured my back , an MD gave me two different muscle relaxers and sleeping pills and I layed in bed for a week .

Between being constipated , drooling , hunched over and sleeping I was a freakish wreck , I'll stick to the natural remedies and the law be damned .

 

[D-Ric902]

Sorta buzzed
buzzed
high
stoned

got it

aspirin is a natural remedy
oil is a natural fuel
wood is a natural building material
plants are natural foods

pot is a drug that our elected officials have deemed dangerous and have made it illegal.
for some reason I doubt if you burned tons of weed in the military, unless you were an MP

 

[Ericpwp]

Big pharma be damned! Burning ditch weed doesn't count. You never got a contact high cause you never passed it up?

 

[D-Ric902]

Big pharma be damned! Burning ditch weed doesn't count. You never got a contact high cause you never passed it up?

*snicker, snicker*

clone

*snicker*

 

[Cerberus]

pot is a drug that our elected officials have deemed dangerous and have made it illegal.
for some reason I doubt if you burned tons of weed in the military, unless you were an MP

Kentucky has used their National Guard for a LONG time for MJ destruction operations.

 

[AA&E]

I'm willing to bet you are disqualified from a lot more than me.

I'd take that bet. Nice deflection rather than attempt to set the record straight regarding your notoriously misinformed statements.

 

[AA&E]

Sorta buzzed
buzzed
high
stoned

got it

aspirin is a natural remedy
oil is a natural fuel
wood is a natural building material
plants are natural foods

pot is a drug that our elected officials have deemed dangerous and have made it illegal.
for some reason I doubt if you burned tons of weed in the military, unless you were an MP

I don't know the commenters era of service duty, but I work directly with several Vietnam War vets. They'd have to call bull**** on your remarks. There was a point in time when drug abuse was rampant in the US military. It ran through well past the 70's and into the early 80's before they really started getting a handle on it.

 

[Ericpwp]

Broa, we've been through that. You don't remember?

 

[Streck-Fu]

We're all for freedom and liberty here, except when we're not.

This really sums up the issue perfectly.

MJ prohibition as we know it began in the 30s with the formation of the FBN (Federal Bureau of Narcotics) under Anslinger. It was this agency's duty to be the US federal agency for enforcing the United States role in the Geneva Narcotic Limitation Convention. As with most regulatory agencies that are given law enforcement powers, they needed to justify their existence....And the Marijuana tax Act of 1937 cemented that agencies powers.

Anslinger started the propoganda machine that created the Reefer Madness advertisements and movies. In spite of contradictory evidence (The LaGuardia Commission).

MJ prohibition was also used heavily against Mexican migrant farmers in the Southwest to keep them from competing for low paying agricultural jobs during the depression.

The bottom line is that you can never expect a government entity tasked with solving a problem to actually solve that problem. They can't possibly be motivated to end their reason for existing.

 

[steveh_131]

Are none of you prohibitionists up to this challenge?

Challenge:

Name one argument in favor of drug prohibition that did not equally apply to alcohol during its days of prohibition.

 

[Ericpwp]

I think I have mentioned the "mythical" contact high ad nauseam.

 

[D-Ric902]

In comparison, the percentage of road traffic accidents in which one driver tested positive for marijuana ranges from 6% to 32%.13, 14 In one study, 9.7% of cannabis smokers reported having driven under the influence in the previous year; those who did drove while intoxicated an average of 8.1 times during the year.

national institute of health

Once such chemicals are in a pure form, and researchers understand their effects on the body, then they could be put in clinical trials for use in cancer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, glaucoma and other diseases, he said.
"There are segments of the population that want to bypass the entire process, grabbing this nugget of truth … and claiming smoking marijuana can be good for your health and have medical uses," Baler said.

life science

i beleive I have quoted life science here before but it was ignored due to not saying what the readers wanted to hear



oh yeah, post #404,405,406,407

 

[steveh_131]

I think I have mentioned the "mythical" contact high ad nauseam.

You keep mentioning it, it's just that nobody believes you. Probably because it never happened and it's utterly absurd to even suggest.

What about you, D-Ric902? Can you come up with an argument in favor of drug prohibition that did not equally apply to alcohol during its days of prohibition.

 

[rambone]

Let's get this thread back on track.

Challenge:

Name one argument in favor of drug prohibition that did not equally apply to alcohol during its days of prohibition.

The one difference is that the prohibitionists in 1919 actually passed a constitutional amendment to create a new government power to ban alcohol.

Today's prohibitionists use government to ban whatever they want and care nothing for the constitution.

 

[Ericpwp]

Don't believe what doesn't fit the narrative, how convenient.

Secondhand Smoke

?Hazards of secondhand marijuana smoke - CBS News

 

[steveh_131]

Don't believe what doesn't fit the narrative, how convenient.

Yeah, yeah. There was enough smoke flowing out of one vehicle, through the air in traffic, then into your vehicle to make you high. Yeah, that happened.

If you really insist on pursuing this fabrication, then change my challenge to also include cigarettes as a comparison.

The one difference is that the prohibitionists in 1919 actually passed a constitutional amendment to create a new government power to ban alcohol.

Today's prohibitionists use government to ban whatever they want and care nothing for the constitution.

We have a winner. This really is the only difference.

 

[armedindy]

lol, a contact high from one car to another??? is anyone really serious about this, you should be more worried about all the exhasut fumes youre inhaling

 

[jamil]

Steve, I think your challenge is not something I would pursue. In short, it smells too much like non-sequitur. It is irrelevant. I don't care if the arguments are the same or are completely different. I care about the answers to these two questions: 1) Are the stated goals of the current law being achieved? 2) Are the current laws causing more harm than the original problem?

Also I think it's not surprising that most people would resist an all out end to drug prohibition. You might as well convince people IoF is the best principle to base law upon. You should know from experience that just doesn't work on the majority of people who can resolve the concept of "it depends".

In a plural world the pragmatic approach seems best. You're not going to convince many people to just sweep all the anti-drug laws off the books in one motion. Pick a battle. One that you can actually win. How much sense does mandatory sentencing make? How many criminals do we make of people who go to jail for things like that? Is it really worth it? Is it bringing us any closer to winning the war on drugs? Are people smoking fewer joints because we lock them up? No. Let's stop that nonsense then. And then, let's move on to the next winnable nonsensical law.