It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

War on marijuana unconstitutional, doctors testify in federal court Monday

page: 3
50
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

Good thing that the effects of marijuana are temporary and even the "giggling, paranoid, lunatic that makes schizophrenic people seem normal" people who smoke won't be like that forever. Personal responsibility or not, alcohol is worse.




posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: StratosFear
a reply to: Answer

...until big Pharma starts producing their own and add all sorts of BS like the junk added to tobacco leaves. Legalization will most certainly lead to commercialization.



Grow at home, don't buy from stores. MJ is the easiest crop to grow ever, rumor has it might grow like a "weed" in any climate (AK or HI for example).

At least that way one could avoid unintended additives.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: signalfire

WHOA there! Slow down. Getting the government to legalize marijuana and having the government admit it was wrong about it being illegal are two TOTALLY different things. I believe that the government still hasn't admitted to any wrong doing or back compensation for Prohibition. So I doubt we'd see anything you just mention happen if marijuana were legalized.


Well, we haven't 'reimbursed' the native tribes for stealing their land, massacreing their ancestors or reneging on treaties either.

Millions of people have had their lives ruined by the actions of the U.S. government. Many millions more are dead because of the actions of the U.S. government - obviously they're never going to get justice but it's important we point out that fact, too.

Guess I'm just hoping all that 'exceptionalism' had something besides hubris behind it.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: signalfire

Hey, don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I don't mean to sound harsh or uncaring about it, but I'm just a realist and understand that what you want won't happen. It's just the reality of the situation and better to be happy with what we get as opposed to what we could get.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No argument there, and I've never known anyone to get sick from smoking like I've seen from drinking too much. That line was really more of a joke, sorry you didn't take it that way.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElohimJD

originally posted by: StratosFear
a reply to: Answer

...until big Pharma starts producing their own and add all sorts of BS like the junk added to tobacco leaves. Legalization will most certainly lead to commercialization.



Grow at home, don't buy from stores. MJ is the easiest crop to grow ever, rumor has it might grow like a "weed" in any climate (AK or HI for example).

At least that way one could avoid unintended additives.


Anything Home made or Home grown will ALWAYS be better than anything you can get at the store, it would be a good way for disabled and elderly people to supplement their income. But there would be no way to regulate(tax) it so the government wont let that happen. So long as the people growing it knew how, there is a bit of a skill set involved. Heck it grows on the sides of some dirt roads in KT and TN just fine without any sort of human involvement.
Thanks for the reply.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: StratosFear
I knew it was illegal for ridiculous reasons but I am unaware there was a "War" going on against it. Then I guess my idea of War looks like something you`d see on the beaches of France summer 1944, the Khe Sanh offensive or the battle for Fallujah. Oh I need to start a Rant thread about that!

On topic: The government should not have any say in ones personal decision to put anything into their bodies, whatever and however stupid it may be. To me that is an infringement on personal liberties. However for those who do or have in the past partake/partook in describe activity will know that there are just some people that do NOT need to be anywhere near the smell of marijuana. They cannot handle it, it reduces them to a giggling, paranoid, lunatic that makes schizophrenic people seem normal. If you do partake and have not recognized this person in your group then chances are, YOU ARE THEM. Buzzkill may be a moniker of yours.

There does need to be a bit of personal responsibility instead of government oversight. I wouldn`t attempt to rebuild my car`s engine or suspension if unable to exactly remember what I was doing at the exact moment or torque numbers, sequence of parts etc, nor would I approach a customer with blood shot eyes and an inability to use short term memory.

However, once that engine was fired back up and the coil over suspension worked beautifully it might be time to celebrate. After long shift on my feet dealing with the finest idiots the general public have to offer I want to chill out and relax. How I do that is none of anyone's business so long as it is not a detriment to anyone else.

That being admitted I hope it will not be a reflection on any "credibility" one may have here. If any of you were to know me then I would hope I present myself at least little bit intelligent and articulate. I have NO, ZERO, A NONE EXISTANT desire to move on to any other sort of drug or illegal substance, Have I tried some yes, life is about experiences, but sometimes you have to know that experience rather than live it through some one else's terms.

But moderately, To much of a good thing doesn't exist.


Actually, a lot of your claims about negative effects on people would be solved by legalization.

There are many MANY strains of Marijuana. Currently, people who smoke illegally have to "take what they can get" and this often leads to junk weed. If those same "giggling, paranoid lunatics" could walk into a dispensary and get professional consultation about the best strain for them to smoke, they'd be able to enjoy the exact form of mellow they're looking for.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

Oh, I understand your tone. I was just making sure that everyone is on the same page.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Negative effects? I`m not aware I brought up negative effects. If you are referring to that particular comment it was intended to be comical in nature. Apologies to you and anyone else that might have taken offence to that, I am a character in person and it trickles down through my fingers. In my younger days I have had plenty of experience with strands of pot and strands of partakers. I probably should have made a distinction between a recreational user and medical/ psychological user. I know it really helps out people with PTSD and depression. I imagine people with blood flow and clotting issue might benefit from the chemicals dilating the veins and arteries allowing for better flow.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Personally I hate this medical cannabis debate! It is totally besides the point and a fruitless persuit... If they find it has medical properties they will NOT legalise cannabis they will turn it over to big pharma as they have done in the UK...

The point should be this... No-one has a god damn right to tell you what you can and can not do with YOUR own body! Simple as that! I am an adult and I can make up my own mind what to take! And how much and how often! Eating fatty foods all damn day every day will kill you! What next? The gov gonna regulate foods too? lmao Tell us our diet?

In my opinion the medical cannabis debate is a red herring taking us away from the real debate which is, does the gov or anyone have the right to use force against you to stop you putting a certain substances inside your body... My answer is hell effing no they do not!



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hemp is a robust fiber and a medicine, and it's all natural. What's not to like?



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Just how does this fall under an unconstitutional heading?



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Meee32

Well the current gameplan in the United States is to first get medical marijuana legalized in a state then push decriminalization then push for full legalization. Pro-marijuana advocacy groups are very vocal about this and aren't hiding it at all. I don't blame them either, it's working. That's how they made it legal in Colorado.

So the medical marijuana debate is VERY essential to the total marijuana legalization debate. Your worries would have merit if the legalization advocates just stopped at medical marijuana, but as soon as medical is accepted and about to be legalized, they start pushing decriminalization and legalization. Look at DC. The decriminalization bill was barely in effect and the town was already discussing (and now has added it to the ballot) legalization in this coming election. Maryland is going down the same path. First we had medical legalized, then this past election we had decriminalization take effect, and possibly by 2016 we'll have legalization on the ballot.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Like I told a previous poster, I didn't write the article. Though I do agree with the idea. It isn't outlined in the Constitution that the government has the ability to deprive the populous from using a substance. If anything that should be a states rights issue. So we can start with that.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Still illegal on a federal level though, that is the problem... And my concerns are valid because I have seen it in the UK, I live in the UK lol...

Check this out... www.theguardian.com...

2001... Is it legal here? Nope! since this time the gov even had a scientist professor David Nut look into all drugs for the purpose of reclassification... He came back with his findings... ecstacy, lsd and cannabis all less harmful than alcohol and tobacco! What did you gov do? Fired him... XD

Also it is illegal in the UK to grow cannabis... But oh no, not for big pharma! They grow it right here in the UK and make sativex XD

My problem is not the cannabis advocates pushing for legalisation, I know they do, they have done here for years too, I have been on legalise marches myself... BUT the problem is gov... They won't have it...

In the US you are lucky in the sence you have local govs that have more power than our local councils, but even in colorado the cannabis growers and sellers can still get busted by the feds and the local cops wouldn't do diddly about it.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Meee32

Any tool can be used for harm if put in the wrong hands. Pushing medical marijuana is no different. Keep in mind though, eventually the push for legalization is going to go federal, and the push will be hard. When that happens, marijuana advocates will probably start up with the playbook they've always been using. Medical Marijuana first.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure I hope so but I won't be holding my breath


I think another poster was right, by them legalising it would be as though they are admitting they were wrong... Maybe if say Ron Paul had gotten elected MAYBE he would have done something, but it's not very likely something like that will happen.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Meee32

As I responded to that person, I'll give you the same answer. The government didn't admit any wrongdoing when it repealed Prohibition, so the same will be true for marijuana.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But they did by proxy... Yes I don't know if they came out and said... Hey guys sorry, we were wrong (although that would be refreshing) in fact I don't know the reasons surrounding WHY they legalised it again... Do you? Not being cocky I'm asking XD

EDIT: I can bet one thing though, it wasn't because of the medical benefits of alcohol XD
edit on 24-10-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Meee32

Repeal of Prohibition in the United States


During this period, support for Prohibition diminished among voters and politicians. John D. Rockefeller Jr., a lifelong nondrinker who had contributed between $350,000 and $700,000 to the Anti-Saloon League, announced his support for repeal because of the widespread problems he believed Prohibition had caused.[1] Influential leaders, such as the du Pont brothers, led the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, whose name clearly asserted its intentions.

The repeal movement also attracted a substantial portion of women, defying the assumption that recently enfranchised female voters would automatically vote as a bloc on this issue.[9] They became pivotal in the effort to repeal, as many "had come to the painful conclusion that the destructiveness of alcohol was now embodied in Prohibition itself."[10] By then, women had become even more politically powerful due to ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in support of women's suffrage.[11] Activist Pauline Sabin argued that repeal would protect families from the corruption, violent crime, and underground drinking that resulted from Prohibition. On May 28, 1929, Sabin founded the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR), which attracted many former Prohibitionists to its ranks.[12] By the time repeal was finally passed in 1933 the WONPR's membership was estimated at 1.5 million. Originally, Sabin was among the many women who supported the Eighteenth Amendment. Now, however, she viewed Prohibition as both hypocritical and dangerous. She recognized "the apparent decline of temperate drinking" and feared the rise of organized crime that developed around bootlegging.[13]



The WONPR supported repeal on a platform of "true" temperance, claiming that "a trend toward moderation and restraint in the use of intoxicating beverages [was] reversed by prohibition."[15] Though their causes were in direct opposition, the WONPR mirrored the advocacy techniques of the WCTU. They canvassed door-to-door, encouraged politicians on all levels to incorporate repeal into their party platform, created petitions, gave speeches and radio interviews, dispersed persuasive literature, and held chapter meetings. At times, the WONPR also worked in cooperation with other anti-prohibition groups. In 1932 the AAPA, Voluntary Committee of Lawyers, The Crusaders, the American Hotel Organization, and the WONPR formed the United Repeal Council. The United Repeal Council lobbied at both the Republican and Democratic national conventions in 1932 to integrate repeal into their respective presidential election campaigns. Ultimately, the Republicans continued to defend Prohibition. The WONPR, which initially began as a nonpartisan organization, joined with the Democratic campaign and supported Franklin Roosevelt.[16]


Pretty much all of those points can be applied to marijuana and the larger war on drugs. I guess people back then were better at overcoming ingrained propaganda then they are today.




top topics



 
50
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join