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.

 

Make sure to thank the Trump supporters for the upcoming War on Weed

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
All they care about is weed. If their buddy gets busted for selling pot to a 12 year old they think it's the worst injustice in history.


i dont feel that way.
i guess i am the only one huh




posted on May, 7 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Don't blame the people who voted for a leader for that leader's policies, which they were fully cognizant of when voting for him? That seems reasonable...
When a president does exactly what everybody knew in advance he was going to do, then yes, the people who voted for him bear some responsibility. That's how it works.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: pteridine

While this is the general propaganda from the puffers, it is not true. People who dope do dumber things than just dope, so more than a few have died due to MJ. There is also some evidence of long term ill effects from those who have not outgrown their addiction.
.


and thats not propaganda?
so the mj caused them to die? the mj caused them to do other things that caused them to die?

and about any possible long term negatives.....so what?
wouldnt that be my problem and not yours?


No, it isn't propaganda. To claim that MJ is completely innocuous beggars belief. It is not the kiss of death that some claim nor is it a completely harmless vegetable as others imply.
As to long term negatives, "so what" is an irresponsible answer. You may not care about you but having the knowledge of effects and side effects is important to any legalization process. Remember those unintended consequences I pointed out earlier? If long term MJ use increased chances for dementia or stroke, it would be important to know for new users even if you consider yourself a write off.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

I think there is a point to what your saying but it's a bit over stated. We have a pandemic of obesity from sugar, cancer and heart disease from food addetitves, pesticides, and about 50 percent of drug trials are fabricated. I can source any of that the latter in from the NEJM.


Expecting the fda to their job is unfortunately a pipe dream. No pun intended.

Edit meant to say 50 percent are false when retried. Up 30 percent are purposely fabricated to make up research cost.
edit on 7-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

of course. any negative effects should be known.
i meant so what even if something is terrible people should be able to choose for themselves



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Wow such a long thread from so many proponents of weed. I'm amazed they can stay awake so long to argue so much.

Really though weed is a scourge and the sooner its banned the better.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pteridine

I think there is a point to what your saying but it's a bit over stated. We have a pandemic of obesity from sugar, cancer and heart disease from food addetitves, pesticides, and about 50 percent of drug trials are fabricated. I can source any of that the latter in from the NEJM.


Expecting the fda to their job is unfortunately a pipe dream. No pun intended.

Edit meant to say 50 percent are false when retried. Up 30 percent are purposely fabricated to make up research cost.


What part was overstated? I thought that it seemed reasonable.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
All they care about is weed. If their buddy gets busted for selling pot to a 12 year old they think it's the worst injustice in history.


i dont feel that way.
i guess i am the only one huh


If cannabis were legal, legal shops wouldn't legally be able to sell cannabis to a twelve year old.

The things that people come up with to smear cannabis, lol.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: FuggleHop
a reply to: luthier

No, it's true. Athletes or not. Mary Jane rotten teeth dulls ones aptitude for critcal thinking.

Thats why weed smokers beleieve so much dumb stuff.


If "weed smokers," "beleieve," so much dumb stuff - I can only imagine what it says about one who constantly says "King Obama," and references "Communist beer."

Wtf lol



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

It's reasonable. People who care do know already same as those other problems I mentioned.

I don't eat much sugar for instance.

My objection is that any of those things you mentioned should not hold up the regulation process. It sure isn't stopping soda companies pumping out soda to have studies come out on sugar.

Of coarse the info should be out there.

Drugs should be regulated by their toxicology and physical addictive nature. When you get into other areas your loosing any real scale or control. The information should be there for the public but its totally separate from regulation.

It is more than obvious Marijuana is much less harmful and less addictive than a plethora of legal things.

Just pointing out these are two separate things.

Eating bacon every day is also bad for you. That doesn't stop it from being sold. Should it?

Probably not. But the public should know first of artificially preserved bacon is a carcinogen and natural bacon is full of sodium and fat.



edit on 7-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pteridine

It's reasonable. People who care do know already same as those other problems I mentioned.

I don't eat much sugar for instance.

My objection is that any of those things you mentioned should not hold up the regulation process. It sure isn't stopping soda companies pumping out soda to have studies come out on sugar.

Of coarse the info should be out there.

Drugs should be regulated by their toxicology and physical addictive nature. When you get into other areas your loosing any real scale or control. The information should be there for the public but its totally separate from regulation.

It is more than obvious Marijuana is much less harmful and less addictive than a plethora of legal things.

Just pointing out these are two separate things.

Eating bacon every day is also bad for you. That doesn't stop it from being sold. Should it?

Probably not. But the public should know first of artificially preserved bacon is a carcinogen and natural bacon is full of sodium and fat.


Bacon may be addictive but it is not a drug. We should stick with drugs.

How about some sort of blood level regulation and a field test or physical response guidelines of some sort?

Long term R&D to be funded by MJ growers via a yearly assessment.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Drugs have been illegal since the 80's so I don't see why Trump and His supporters can get the blame for that. As a matter of fact Obama was a druggie and He sure as hell did nothing so why don't You blame Him?



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

I already mentioned that it should have the same guidelines as alcohol, tobacco, caffeine etc and what ever else you consider or can classify as a drug.

I mean if the chief editor of the nejm says half the drug company studies are false why are you so worried about marijuana.

Marijuana should require a person to be accountable for their actions just like anything else. But they also shouldn't use a piss test or assume metabolites are a cause. Their are plenty of ways to check for thc in blood and possibly the breathlizer is becoming a reality.

All of this applies to toxicology right? I already stated it very simply.

Marijuana should be treated like anything else that would cause your judgement to be altered while operating machinery. Is there a field test probably.

Again I don't understand your concept of safety or what your consider a drug.

Is sugar a drug? Is sure alters my kids behaviour. It is toxic, is linked to many diseases, it can kill you if you eat enough... Is your goal a moral legislation or to save people lives? Or frankly to protect your own.

We have a social contract we should all abided by it. The act of Marijuana being illegal is what keeps all the regulations your talking about from happening. People in illegal states still drive wasted.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: DAVID64
Do tell me smarter-than-everyone-else David. What leader did I want?


If Trump hadn't won , who would have won? (Hillary supporters had a hard time admitting that he did win).

The big question is... Was Hillary on the record supporting the legalization of marijuana?

I am asking as a non user that supports the legalization if all drugs.


Absolutely not. She was 100% in the pockets of the pharmecuetical and prison lobbyists and would not have been the the friend of the smoker. That isn't supposition that is on the record.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508
Yup. Most of us could see it coming a long time ago. Trump and his bitch Sessions are getting ready for The War on Drugs: Redux. State's rights doesn't mean anything to Trump. The Constitution appears to be just an inconvenient relic left over from people who weren't as smart as he is. Despite some signs Sessions was going to look the other way, that apparently is anything but the administration's intentions. Seems Trump feels that limits on Presidential powers are only for other Presidents:


Trump also suggested he may ignore gender and racial preferences in some government programs as well as congressional requirements for advance notice before taking a range of foreign policy and military actions.


And on Weed:

President Donald Trump signaled he may ignore a congressional ban on interfering with state medical marijuana laws, arguing in a lengthy statement that he isn’t legally bound by a series of limits lawmakers imposed on him.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has vowed to crack down on marijuana and has dismissed arguments for its medical use as “desperate.”
“I reject the idea that we’re going to be better placed if we have more marijuana,” Sessions said in a speech to law-enforcement officials in March. “It’s not a healthy substance, particularly for young people.”


Maybe you aren't personally a supporter of legalized weed but the fact is, you all crow about the Constitution and 'State's Rights' but you've elected someone that sees himself more as a King than a president. Nice work guys. Thanks for being so discerning in your political support. What's next? Prison camps for long hair?


IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
I don't know about u I will smoke regardless.and sessions dosn't have the money in his budget especially with the heroin epidemic



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pteridine

I already mentioned that it should have the same guidelines as alcohol, tobacco, caffeine etc and what ever else you consider or can classify as a drug.

I mean if the chief editor of the nejm says half the drug company studies are false why are you so worried about marijuana.

Marijuana should require a person to be accountable for their actions just like anything else. But they also shouldn't use a piss test or assume metabolites are a cause. Their are plenty of ways to check for thc in blood and possibly the breathlizer is becoming a reality.

All of this applies to toxicology right? I already stated it very simply.

Marijuana should be treated like anything else that would cause your judgement to be altered while operating machinery. Is there a field test probably.

Again I don't understand your concept of safety or what your consider a drug.

Is sugar a drug? Is sure alters my kids behaviour. It is toxic, is linked to many diseases, it can kill you if you eat enough... Is your goal a moral legislation or to save people lives? Or frankly to protect your own.

We have a social contract we should all abided by it. The act of Marijuana being illegal is what keeps all the regulations your talking about from happening. People in illegal states still drive wasted.


Safety makes sure the users and abusers do not adversely affect the lives of others and their own, hence the requirements of some sort of limits and field testing. People drive wasted or drunk all the time but that shouldn't mean that we should condone it. Do people in legal states drive wasted? Most likely that happens.
Do legal states have tests for intoxication or any laws that would prevent incapacitated users from driving? If not, was legalization rushed through without proper preparation?
Sugar is taken as food, in quantities such that it can sustain life through metabolic processes. It does affect people, as do all foods [a heavy meal will drop blood pressure] and some foods contain physiologically active ingredients. Caffeine and demethylated derivatives are most common in coffee, tea, and chocolate.
Drugs are usually taken in small quantities to elicit specific responses. They are used in diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of disease in living organisms. Marijuana is a drug as it has no nutritive value.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

I don't buy your answers. What is a nutrient? Does it support hormones? Metabolic process, is it a catalyst for nutrients etc...

Is there a way to check for pain pill levels? Does a police officer have a codine breathalyzer?

There would literally be no drugs on the market at all if your suggestion was the case.

Why do pharmaceuticals get a pass? Including synthetic Marijuana

How many cups of coffee are too many? Is there a point you can get dizzy or angry?

Where do you draw the line?

What about smoke in your eyes while smoking and driving?

Do all the psychotropics get tested by police? How many of those creates a psychotic reaction?

My point is Marijuana has an insane standard compared to every other drug on the market. As soon as the money started rolling in the politicians came on board. Had nothing to do with safety.

The aderol all the kids got, not tested for long term effects. Fabricated drug trials etc...

So yes I agree safety should be tested.

None of that has to do with Marijuana being illegal. It is illegal for an entirely different reason.
edit on 7-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Isn't weed for bored lonely stoners? Have a beer, preferably and IPA, and chill out on the profanity. I thought stoners were supposed to be mellow.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: FuggleHop
a reply to: jtma508

Wow such a long thread from so many proponents of weed. I'm amazed they can stay awake so long to argue so much.

Really though weed is a scourge and the sooner its banned the better.



It's amazing how conservatives can claim states rights and then call down big government to take control of weeds.

It the GOP Trump... takes on medical MJ and even recreational MJ they will wind up with out jobs in 18. Believer me.

It's a winning situation for the Democrats.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   
snipped by anony.


edit on 7-5-2017 by AnonyMason because: republicans are mostly stupid



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join