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.

 

Congress quietly ends federal government's ban on medical marijuana

page: 2
60
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
People have been celebrating this since the article was published ....



December 16, 2014

Tucked deep inside the 1,603-page federal spending measure is a provision that effectively ends the federal government's prohibition on medical marijuana and signals a major shift in drug policy.


I know high hopes take time to sink in sometimes




That's what I thought too. Didn't this already happen a while back???




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: proob4
originally posted by: xuenchen

That's what I thought too. Didn't this already happen a while back???


People are seriously just hearing this now.



WoW



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

Well of course that would be nice if the US followed in Portugal's footsteps and legalized all drugs while ending mandatory minimums that over populate prisons for the private prison business but that will not be a reality anytime soon. For now we must suffer through baby steps because Big Biz will do every it can to stop this trend.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: proob4

Way to drop the ball OP, old news? Making me feel a bunch of feeley feelings for no reason.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: bananashooter
a reply to: proob4

Way to drop the ball OP, old news? Making me feel a bunch of feeley feelings for no reason.


Looks like the "quietly ends" part actually worked as intended !!!



And as of this minute, it's still working.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Now it needs to be removed from Schedule I.

That will change everything.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Call me cynical, but what's the catch? There's always a catch.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
Now it needs to be removed from Schedule I.

That will change everything.


And then we can hear about it in about 2 years.




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Thanks for that. I thought this was old news, then I saw the number of replies and thought I was having dejavu.

Then I was worried that I traveled back in time, then I thought I might have been seeing a vivid dream I had last year fulfilled.

Everything's better now. Now I just realize that people don't know information they might not have looked for..

Hehe.





posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Well at least I didn't post in BPN. Quietly indeed.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
OP.... How dare you post old news and make me all happy.

I was even nice to Olaru12....EWWWWWWW



edit on 3-8-2015 by whyamIhere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
If drug addiction is an illness (and it is, as it requires clinical treatment), then imprisoning drug addicts is unconscionable. It would be like trying to treat the flu with prison and fines.

This is a good move in the right direction. But we have such a long way to go



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
OP.... How dare you post old news and make me all happy.

I was even nice to Olaru12....EWWWWWWW




Don't let it happen again! You have a reputation to live up to! and so do I!
edit on 3-8-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Yahoo but i wanna read exactly what it says can someone please post the exact provision so we can verify that its real.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
JUST one question. Why does the date on the article say December 16 2014 4:00am?

a google search would show the same thing...am i missing something??



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

It's the New World Order / Schumann Resonances time delay !!




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
News like this leaves me in a state of wariness...

Medical Marijuana.... to me, that is a phrase that sets off alarm bells....

It's an win/lose scenario of the worst sort. Having to have a prescription to possess marijuana is not the right way to legalization, it just gives the Pharm boys a foot in the door.

Just legalize it across the board. Make it legal to own and grow without the medical stipulation.

There is very little difference between illegal possession of marijuana and illegal possession of a prescription drug.

Be very careful of what you are asking for.





edit on R462015-08-03T23:46:26-05:00k468Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I posted this when this story was being discussed a few months ago:


From a legal standpoint:

Would it be better to, under the current system, be arrested for possession of 1 gram of pot? Or would it be better to be arrested for possession of 1 gram of a controlled substance? Is there such a thing as getting a ticket and fine for possession of a controlled substance?

In light of that, is this law really benefitting the people cheering it on? Or will it just become far, far easier to make felons out of more people?


Back in March



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Marijuana is no good because it takes the 'sheen' of tobacco and alcohol -- one of the U.S. government's biggest benefactors.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: bananashooter
Can anyone explain to me what this exactly means.

I live in California, so if I am doing a legal grow does that mean I can't be harassed by the feds.

If local LEO harass me, does it mean it can go all the way to the SCOTUS now?

Much thanks.



I'd say, definitely no. State laws will still be there. This isn't a case like gay marriage in the SC. Means that the feds can't interfere with whichever way a state goes. If your state is against, -you'd- have to go all the way up to the SC. But you could have done that anyway without any federal decision.
edit on 4-8-2015 by ghaleon12 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join