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.

 

Jeff Sessions ignorant comments regarding cannabis.

page: 6
46
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

It is big money but guess who's in the business to
Legalize it and capitalize on legal
Profits??? Yah SOROS




posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: charlyv

It is big money but guess who's in the business to
Legalize it and capitalize on legal
Profits??? Yah SOROS


Man, he's really Trump's boogeyman isn't he? I'd say most of the drug lords pushing it right now are probably worse than Soros. Also, if you think Soros is the top of the food chain you have no idea what's going on.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

Just for the record I heard even in the 80's that canbabis can alter DNA and here's a new study on it www.medicalnewstoday.com...
So I wouldn't discount such studies. Use at your own risk and that if your children.



Yep if it's in the medical news it must be true. The medical professionals/big pharma always have our best interests in mind.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a similar study all over the media about GMO's?

I'll bet people would stop eating anything related to GMO's if they found out how they modify our DNA too. smh


www.collective-evolution.com...
edit on 3-3-2017 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

Just for the record I heard even in the 80's that canbabis can alter DNA and here's a new study on it www.medicalnewstoday.com...
So I wouldn't discount such studies. Use at your own risk and that if your children.



Yep if it's in the medical news it must be true. The medical professionals/big pharma always have our best interests in mind.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a similar study all over the media about GMO's?

I'll bet people would stop eating anything related to GMO's if they found out how they modify our DNA too. smh


www.collective-evolution.com...
It was a study that was done and peer reviewed. There were several sources for the story.
Are you trying to tell me that DNA damage is just from gmo and not from thc? Perhaps you should recheck that.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: hombero

I think people expected him not to lie..duh
He said he would leave it in the STATES hands...I repeat..leave it in the STATES hand's..clear now?



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus



NVM
edit on 3-3-2017 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Oh tell me who's at the top of the food chain then? Soros has funded many front groups for legalization.
According to this article, Soros wants pot to be legalized not because it's inherent value but to stop incarceration and use money for treatment(because you know there are health issues. ). m.washingtontimes.com...
Here's another article from a different study in Eurooe ( because you know liberals think Europe is cooler). www.sciencedaily.com...
Here's another article detailing it s bit differently www.drelist.com...
edit on 3-3-2017 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: six67seven

No, true believers will not. My mom, good old Baptist, would not when she was sick with chemo and radiation. She died 86 pounds. Putting religious people in charge of the justice system is a real bad thing.



Yet, my father, as he was dying of esophageal cancer, smoked daily and at the end, we put it in what little he could eat.....then hospice came in and he died from the narcotics with a smile on his face.....and my father was an ER physician and toxicologist.....he just believed in the medicinal qualities of MJ......(plus he smoked it most of his life to relax)
I smoke it for my epilepsy and chronic pain.......



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Cornczech

My personal feeling is that terminal is a different thing....and at that point it is palliative care. But ya they give heavy narcotics and anti anxiety to calm them down as their internal organs go into shut down. They use a phentanyl patch.
edit on 3-3-2017 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: choomsuba
a reply to: dreamingawake You can cherry pick which studies on weed justifies your argument. I suppose a person could develop a greater lung capacity by smoking a crack pipe or smoking a blunt filled with all natural maple leaves, still doesn't address the issue of inhaling carcinogenic filled smoke in to your lungs, any sort of smoke inhaled is toxic for the lungs. There is not enough research yet on the short and long term effects of smoking pot like there is with tobacco. What are the parameters defining short term and long term pot use anyways?


Speaking of cherry picking: Rely on agenda leaning studies paid for by lobbyist that are against marijuana or you can look into neutral studies.

Marijuana is not carcinogenic to the lungs.

There are more than the studies as studies and there are studies that are ongoing, many vary apparently when it come to long term and short term.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: choomsuba
a reply to: dreamingawake You can cherry pick which studies on weed justifies your argument. I suppose a person could develop a greater lung capacity by smoking a crack pipe or smoking a blunt filled with all natural maple leaves, still doesn't address the issue of inhaling carcinogenic filled smoke in to your lungs, any sort of smoke inhaled is toxic for the lungs. There is not enough research yet on the short and long term effects of smoking pot like there is with tobacco. What are the parameters defining short term and long term pot use anyways?


Speaking of cherry picking: Rely on agenda leaning studies paid for by lobbyist that are against marijuana or you can look into neutral studies.

Marijuana is not carcinogenic to the lungs.

There are more than the studies as studies and there are studies that are ongoing, many vary apparently when it come to long term and short term.
Don't you mean relying on pro mj lobbyist paid for by Soros? Who else would be a lobbyist ?



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Oh tell me who's at the top of the food chain then? Soros has funded many front groups for legalization.
According to this article, Soros wants pot to be legalized not because it's inherent value but to stop incarceration and use money for treatment(because you know there are health issues. ). m.washingtontimes.com...
Here's another article from a different study in Eurooe ( because you know liberals think Europe is cooler). www.sciencedaily.com...
Here's another article detailing it s bit differently www.drelist.com...


I fail to see how stopping wrongful incarceration of pot smokers is bad? And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are the two main families that run things.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: choomsuba
a reply to: dreamingawake You can cherry pick which studies on weed justifies your argument. I suppose a person could develop a greater lung capacity by smoking a crack pipe or smoking a blunt filled with all natural maple leaves, still doesn't address the issue of inhaling carcinogenic filled smoke in to your lungs, any sort of smoke inhaled is toxic for the lungs. There is not enough research yet on the short and long term effects of smoking pot like there is with tobacco. What are the parameters defining short term and long term pot use anyways?


Speaking of cherry picking: Rely on agenda leaning studies paid for by lobbyist that are against marijuana or you can look into neutral studies.

Marijuana is not carcinogenic to the lungs.

There are more than the studies as studies and there are studies that are ongoing, many vary apparently when it come to long term and short term.
Don't you mean relying on pro mj lobbyist paid for by Soros? Who else would be a lobbyist ?

I don't follow Soros nor does he control all of the pro marijuana and neutral stances on it.
There are many out there on the other side such as Koch Bros. Not limited to just Soros as one of them.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: StookieWilliams

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Oh tell me who's at the top of the food chain then? Soros has funded many front groups for legalization.
According to this article, Soros wants pot to be legalized not because it's inherent value but to stop incarceration and use money for treatment(because you know there are health issues. ). m.washingtontimes.com...
Here's another article from a different study in Eurooe ( because you know liberals think Europe is cooler). www.sciencedaily.com...
Here's another article detailing it s bit differently www.drelist.com...


I fail to see how stopping wrongful incarceration of pot smokers is bad? And the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are the two main families that run things.

Exactly Soros isn't of the elite "Illuminati" family influence, but he is one of the controllers. Follow the money with him.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: choomsuba
a reply to: dreamingawake You can cherry pick which studies on weed justifies your argument. I suppose a person could develop a greater lung capacity by smoking a crack pipe or smoking a blunt filled with all natural maple leaves, still doesn't address the issue of inhaling carcinogenic filled smoke in to your lungs, any sort of smoke inhaled is toxic for the lungs. There is not enough research yet on the short and long term effects of smoking pot like there is with tobacco. What are the parameters defining short term and long term pot use anyways?


Speaking of cherry picking: Rely on agenda leaning studies paid for by lobbyist that are against marijuana or you can look into neutral studies.

Marijuana is not carcinogenic to the lungs.

There are more than the studies as studies and there are studies that are ongoing, many vary apparently when it come to long term and short term.
Don't you mean relying on pro mj lobbyist paid for by Soros? Who else would be a lobbyist ?


You make big claims without presenting anything to back them up.

By the way, you're begging the question. That's called a logical fallacy.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: RomeByFire

Who is telling falsehoods? George Soros is pushing legalization. One has to wonder why, when it's been known for decades that it affects short term memory and DNA. THC accumulates in the fatty tissues of the brain. Soros wants the dumbing down of the populace to make them more passive and pliable forbtakwovee by the NWO.


What does it matter to you, what consenting adults do with their body, in their time, with their resources, in their own home?

If it bothers you that much, perhaps you should move to a more authoritarian nation.
Well seems I hit a nerve. I don't give a darn what people do .... if you want to do that fine... but I'm just commenting on the reasons why someone like Soros is pushing legalization. Why do you not say this about something like heroin? Also others on this thread said a somewhat similar thing about dumbing down the populace.


Ahh the tried and true method of comparing cannabis legalization to heroin legalization.

You clearly didn't bother to read the thread. How educated are you on CBD's and which ones, specifically?

Because you clearly must know that the majority of them are non-psychoactive, meaning they don't the user "high," or even "buzzed."

If you seriously expect me to defend your inane comments regarding why I also don't support heroin legalization - you're delusional.

Our populace is already dumbed down. Dumbed down to the point where others think they have the audacity to dictate how free adults get to live their lives.

You're living in the wrong country. America, at some point, was about freedom and personal responsibility.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join