It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Jeff Sessions’ Coming War on Legal Marijuana

page: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 01:47 PM
Here in Alaska the stores have finally opened. There is one in my town now too. When I went to go check it out they were already out of stock. I guess there was line a mile long on opening day.

There was a resistance from stubborn groups of people who are just indoctrinated with the propaganda demonizing cannabis. Thankfully they couldn't stand in the way any longer and people will be able to enjoy this new freedom. I think this is going to be huge, I am really excited to see how this develops for our town and the whole state ot Alaska.
edit on 7-12-2016 by GoShredAK because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 01:56 PM

originally posted by: RedDragon

Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug. This is what a schedule 1 drug is:

"Schedule I drugs are those that have the following characteristic according to the United States Drug Enforcement Agency: The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S."

wow you can copy a peace of paper like a parrot.

originally posted by: RedDragon
I'm not going to read any hokey hippy science. I'm not into health crystals or magnet therapy or any of that nonsense.

Lots of real scientific studies are being done now. Many proving that in fact it does have medical uses and why.

originally posted by: RedDragon
The DEA is the top authority in the country and has decades of experience.

You you trust the goverment......cute....

Cause the goverment never lies or have agendas.

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:10 PM
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Excellent post, my friend.

You may recall that before Idaho's Christian conservo family man, Senator Larry Craig was arrested for toe tapping/dancing under the airport mens room stall with a undercover cop, he had voted repeatedly against all bills that supported gay empowerment, such as spousal/companion health coverage. assignment of survivor benefits, etc.,.

And, I'm certain that President Obama would have vigorously opposed any bill that permitted the discreet (in a limo) smoking of "rocks, kibbles & bits" while receiving skullification from a willing same sex partner.

Prohibition was repealed by many of the same congressmen who passed it when juries began exonerating defendants for non violent "liquor crimes". That is why there are two constitutional amendments (18th and 21st) that do nothing but cancel each other out, and serve as a permanent reminder that politicians don't want citizens to get in the habit of vetoing bad law in the jury box or at the ballot box.

I suspect that we're at the tipping point or "polar shift" on marihuana (federal spelling) and once the people (jurors, voters) refuse to support the sinking of govt teeth into the asses of those who defy reefa laws, the govt will hastily back off just as they did when they repealed the 18th amendment, and the onerous Volstead Act.

"First we free the school kids and and otherwise law abiding adults arrested for defying the corporations who wish to keep industrial hemp (Dupont petro plastics) medical and recreational marijuana (liquor and BIG PHARMA) off the shelves. "

If our jury votes don't inspire congress then the next step is to sacrifice a congressman or two, preferably an older incumbent who was a "rep. for life" before being returned to the world of heavy lifting and actually living under the myriad laws he or she heaped upon the rest of us while in office.

There aren't enough religious zealots, liquor barons or chemical company board members in any one district to save a carefully targeted politician. In fact, the more likeable and worthy of the office the better. We want the pocket lining sleazes and hypocritical drug warriors to see a decent chap swinging in a noose fashioned by their obstinate refusal to read the writing on the wall. If we do it right the mass conversion of congress to respecters of personal choice and privacy will make our heads spin!

"Although I would not approve of my children using marihuana, if the people of my state believe that personal liberty is at stake, then I will no longer dispute it. I am after all, a lifelong supporter of The Bill Of Rights!"___Sen. Pontius Despot (R) Anywhere, USA

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:55 PM

originally posted by: RedDragon

originally posted by: GoShredAK
a reply to: RedDragon
Doesn't matter if you buy it or not. It is a fact.

Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug. This is what a schedule 1 drug is:

"Schedule I drugs are those that have the following characteristic according to the United States Drug Enforcement Agency: The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S."

"The US Government has not approved or provided a plan to recall corrupt elected officials, or remove appointed officers regardless of their perceived un-suitablility to hold the office.

And there is no relief for voters who wish to defeat the "power of incumbency" when an elected official has reached the age of diminished effectiveness or capacity. The people have no power to remedy the problem of officials entering office as working middle class only to retire as millionaires

Such power would have a high potential for abuse in public hands. "

All of these perceived problems could be addressed by willing officials, and taught to grade school students as lessons in elementary civics. Instead children are taught that, "...Because Mary earned $6,000 at her lemonade stand this summer, she must file a tax return for any tax she owes."

By the way, alcohol is the most deadly drug in the world. Cigarette ads were banned decades ago, but liquor ads continue to entice young people to addiction, and the pickling of their livers and the killing of brain cells and other vital organs. In fact liquor consumption/addiction could be why you respond with such superficial answers that require no more study than guzzling beer in front of the most powerful of propaganda tools, your television.

By the way, do you have cable or just rabbit ears? Either way, corporations are paying for your entertainment and they all have agendas and use the methods of Edward Bernays to create desire for products you'd never before seen, some of which you can no longer live without.

Henry Ford made a car from hemp. Do you have any idea of the forces who rallied against him and a car that was biodegradeable, and cost a fraction of the price of a traditional car body? And, Dupont had just patented their "plastic from oil" technology, plastic which is now choking the world's oceans and landfills, without an enzyme in the universe that can eat it.

Never mind marijuana. Ask your trusted sources why industrial hemp must be banned and calibrate your BS detector with any answers you may receive.

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:52 PM

originally posted by: RedDragon
Alcohol is already legal. We don't need to add any more temptations to that list. Marijuana is dangerous like all drugs. I don't buy that it has medical uses either.

The LaGuardia Committee was the first in depth study into the effects of smoking marijuana in the United States. An earlier study, the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, was conducted by the colonial authorities in British India in 1893-94. The reports systematically contradicted claims made by the U.S. Treasury Department that smoking marijuana results in insanity, deteriorates physical and mental health, assists in criminal behavior and juvenile delinquency, is physically addictive, and is a "gateway" drug to more dangerous drugs.

The report was prepared by the New York Academy of Medicine, on behalf of a commission appointed in 1939 by New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia who was a strong opponent of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. Released in 1944, the report infuriated Harry Anslinger, who was campaigning against marijuana. Anslinger condemned it as unscientific.[1]

Anslinger went on an offensive against what he saw as a "degenerate Hollywood" that was promoting marijuana use. After high-profile arrests of actors like Robert Mitchum, Hollywood gave Anslinger full control over the script of any film that mentioned marijuana.

Sociological Conclusions

After more than five years of research the members of the committee drew up a catalog of 13 salient points with the conclusions they reached.[2]

Marijuana is used extensively in the Borough of Manhattan but the problem is not as acute as it is reported to be in other sections of the United States.
The introduction of marijuana into this area is recent as compared to other localities.
The cost of marijuana is low and therefore within the purchasing power of most persons.
The distribution and use of marijuana is centered in Harlem.
The majority of marijuana smokers are Blacks and Latin-Americans.
The consensus among marijuana smokers is that the use of the drug creates a definite feeling of adequacy.
The practice of smoking marijuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word.

sense of the word.
The sale and distribution of marijuana is not under the control of any single organized group.
The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or coc aine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking.
Marijuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes.
Marijuana smoking is not widespread among school children.
Juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice of smoking marijuana.
The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marijuana smoking in New York City is unfounded.

Therefore, according to the LaGuardia Report, the gateway drug theory is without foundation (points 7 and 9).


The DEA has decades of experience at scratching for justification for a hemp and marijuana ban, without a single justifiable reason that survives peer review.

The DEA approved every dangerous drug that was ever repealed. (Remember Vioxx a few years back? And in England Thalidomide was used for nausea during pregnancy and resulted in babies born with no arms? Well, it's now legal in the US for different problems)

And the cops have the better perspective of marijuana.

"Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is an international 501(c) 3 nonprofit organization of criminal justice professionals who bear personal witness to the wasteful futility and harms of our current drug policies."[/i]

One state trooper noted that "drunk drivers drive too fast and kill themselves and others. Drunks who do get home beat their wives and children, and factor into a majority of domestic violence crime reports.

Marijuana users drive slowly and carefully and when they get home they laugh and roll on the floor with their kids and family dogs."

Drunks puke and die. Pot users fall asleep.
Drunks punch holes in the walls. Pot users eat the yummy snacks.

Drunks riot and engage in bar fights. Pot users listen to the music and talk with the chicks.
Drunks pay child support to tattooed skanks and barflies they didn't even know the next day. Pot users take girls to the mountains and parks and camp under the stars.

And it's not a question of need, It's a question of rights, as the govt learned when they passed the 18th amendment (Alcohol Prohibition- effective in 1920) and repealed it with the 21st amendment some 13 years later.. Women pushed Prohibition while millions of men were in Europe fighting WW One. Men came home (after defending The right of the French to drink) and spent over a decade educating the govt, not vice versa. Some folks educate the govt and some folks just do as they're told, unless they're drunks who live in dry counties....Not a problem for the ol' Red Dragon, I'll bet! The crime families that provided bootleg liquor remained even after repeal. And the drug cartels created by govts will also remain and diversify.....

We now have two amendments that stand as permanent proof of govt's "decades of experience".

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:11 PM

You do realize that he is being appointed as Attorney General right?
The AG enforces laws, he/she does not create them. He cannot
enforce laws that don't exist or that he arbitrarily makes up.

For Krazy, a not only valid but justifiable fear. Good thread BTW
and I have no problem siding with anyone on the side of the
'right thing', 'legal' or not.

edit on 7-12-2016 by derfreebie because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:24 PM
a reply to: RedDragon

Would you like to tell us why it is schedule 1 and who made it so..despite evidence to the contrary?

posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 08:44 AM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The one thing that always trumps, (not pun intended), ideology is money. There's LOTS of money being make in the legal weed field. That alone will be enough to keep Sessions at bay.

posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 08:53 AM
a reply to: TownCryer

Not if they can't put it in banks. That was a problem in Wash State for a while. The Feds backed off but with a new man in charge with his record, who knows. It will always be a looming threat.

posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 10:19 AM
While I don't have access to any information the rest of you don't...I suggest not worrying. Here is how I think this will all play out.

First...the government and/or any leaders will be hesitant to take a "drug" and make "drugs" legal for the purpose of getting stoned. That should be obvious.

Second...what we should be promoting is the alcohol vs pot argument. If alcohol is legal, there is no scientific reason pot shouldn't be legal.

Third...Trump may be President and a leader but he is a businessman first. He is going to look at all this from that perspective and obviously, on the makes sense to legalize pot and regulate it. won't be growing it at home and legally selling it in baggies to others, but it will (IMHO) be not-illegal. are some of the problems:
Does pot have medical uses? Yeah...kinda.
Is pot worse than booze? No...but it is called a "drug". That needs to change because no politician wants to legalize drugs.
What is the social impact? Here we go...

If pot is legal for everyone over the age of 21, how will that affect society and economics? Will more work be missed? Will more people not work? Will the quality of work fall? Will there be more "impaired" drivers, accidents, etc? Will there be health issues that raise healthcare? Can police "breathalyze" for pot? What is the gauge for pot impaired driving? Etc., etc., etc.

Bottom line...if anything I think Trump will support legalized marijuana. But he also will not allow it to harm social and economic numbers. That is a solid business position. suggestion is to be open to restrictions, rules, etc. and everything will be fine. Rules like on alcohol of when you can sell it, that you can't sell more than certain amounts, maybe that it can't be sold on Sunday and maybe that if you appear stoned you can't buy it.

If we accept some logical restrictions, it is only reasonable to assume pot will be legalized.
edit on 12/8/2016 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 10:47 AM

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: knoxie
I live in Colorado and very much appreciate being able to purchase legally. if trump or sessions hurt this wonderful new freedom in any way, i'll be protesting. bigly.

bringing jobs back... yeah right. we can't go backwards.

Imagine that... The go-to alternative for snowflakes that don't get their way.

Perhaps you should revisit a bit of US history-- The Boston Tea Party might be a good place to start.

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8   >>

log in