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: "Drugs Will Destroy Your Life," Recinds Cole Memo On Pot Legalization

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

A) because Sessions has a president behind him too... a president that has never smoked pot so he has no personal knowledge of it.. A president that was born an Uber powerful billionaire who’s “friends” wouldn’t have gone against his wishes and smoked pot around him or brought up the fact they did...





B) The presidents memo is almost certainly not legally binding and is just his rough opinion on the situation..

Sessions is literally the most anti pot politician in office and that is who trump put in that spot..




posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Drugs Will Destroy Your Life

What a weird thing to say while protecting profit margins enjoyed by the slow-death industry we affectionately call pharmaceuticals.
Aside from that, it's obviously an opinion.

10 doctors can file a class action suit against the doj?

Sessions should choose wisely what cases can arise against the doj.

Going from accuser to defender in one fail swoop?

Pot isn't the issue- the issue is controlling who to hold responsible.

edit on (1/4/1818 by loveguy because: ha ha sorry



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: underwerks

Have you read all legislation involved with handle, distribution, and testing of controlled substances?


The majority of it, yes. I work in the cannabis industry and have dedicated a large portion of my life to it. The growing and the pharmacology. While there are a few cannabis research projects going at the moment on certain specific cannabinoids it is in no way being tested as a whole plant for safety. That remains illegal, and those are the studies that are needed for it to be made legal at a federal level.

One of the main problems pharmaceutical companies are running into is that a lot of the positives of cannabis are a product of synergy between several or more cannabinoids in the plant. They tend to lose their medical and therapeutic benefits when isolated. There's no way to standardize a dose with plant material either, so that's one more nail in the coffin if you expect the medical establishment to lead the charge.

The distribution networks are already in place, and alcohol companies have already started investing in the cannabis industry, but until the money for legalization is greater than the money spent to keep it illegal, it won't go federally legal. Which is why I believe it should remain a states rights issue. The money involved from lobbyists, etc is too big at a federal level.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Archivalist

I couldn't agree with you more, and sadly, its not exclusive to this topic either. Both "sides" perpetuate hyperbole and half truths.

Have people died from marijuana use? Well, yes. Its problematic to write it off as being "so rare it might as well be zero!"

Along the same lines, using argumentative questions like "Has anyone heard of medical benefits using heroin?" and then trying to make a case for certain compounds in Cannabis is equally problematic for what should be obvious reasons.

Cannabis is a wonderful and incredible plant, but it is not infallible nor is it a cure-all. Discrediting our own arguments for legalization and regulation with hyperbole and half-truths does little more than fuel the people who fight against it. In some cases, it can even have deleterious effects in tangentially related topics.
This.

I’m all for legalization, but pro-regulation. I’m not stupid or dumb enough to say, “meh, it’s just weed”, some people have adverse effects to it.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

There are benefits not on legalising drugs or illicit substances for which there is an hyper overpriced market but on seizing these substances by force and giving it for free to addicted people.

This is the only ethic way to fight the drug problem. It is obscene the idea that the state can profit from the destruction of the people it is bowed to protect.

To our society as a whole, drugs are only a problem because they are expensive, the price leads to crime and it is because the crime that we see the problem. Countries where drugs are distributed to the addicts population almost ended the crime associated with drugs in a very short time.
edit on 4-1-2018 by CrapAsUsual because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
a reply to: shawmanfromny

There are benefits not on legalising drugs or illicit substances for which there is an hyper overpriced market but on seizing these substances by force and giving it for free to addicted people.

This is the only ethic way to fight the drug problem. It is obscene the idea that the state can profit from the destruction of the people it is bowed to protect.

To our society as a whole, drugs are only a problem because they are expensive, the price leads to crime and it is because the crime that we see the problem. Countries where drugs are distributed to the addicts population almost ended the crime associated with drugs in a very short time.

I just believe the government has no more right to dictate what goes into my body than it does my mind.

I agree with you about drugs in general. All one has to do is look at countries where drug use is legalized to see the benefits of sensible policy. I know I've said this before on ATS, but people that are on the fence about this issue have to ask themselves, do you care more about helping people, or punishing them?

Because those aren't the same thing when talking about drug use.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy

Drugs Will Destroy Your Life

What a weird thing to say while protecting profit margins enjoyed by the slow-death industry we affectionately call pharmaceuticals.

Well those aren't the profits he is protecting. He is protecting the profits for private prisons, which he is heavily invested in. He needs bodies to fill those cells and guess what works well to do that? Pot.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
This thread is gaining on the other one.
REF: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a horse race!



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Almsot forgot, but while watching the white house press conference a little while ago when asked about the marijuana issue Sarah Sanders said that Trump is committed to upholding federal law above all else.

Make of that what you will.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I don't think the AG can do anything about Obama's "hands off" policy. I may be wrong. Sessions is wrong. Totally wrong.

Go after the pill farms and turncoat doctors over prescribing "legal" drugs. Stop the US from copaying for all opiods except the ones for terminal patients. That would a great "drug policy".

And lets do this right! Hemp And Marijuana Are Not The Same! HAMANTS. Stop classifying hemp as a schedule 1 drug and maybe I will begin to believe in real reform.

Keeping pot on the same schedule as h_eroin is dumb. A waste of money (unless you are a lawyer). Or part of Big Pharma.

First step, nationwide, HAMANTS. Second step, take pot off the schedule 1 list. As a matter of fact, take it off the schedule altogether because it does have medicinal value. Then we can remove Sessions' head from his rear and start CPR!!

"Oxycodone will destroy your life" is what he should be saying. What happened to that "state of emergency" over that epidemic?


edit on 4-1-2018 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: spelling



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Ok, but what do I do about the dead kids? Sober up buddy, come back and read my posts tomorrow.


You do nothing. Why would you?
So like 10 people in the history of the world had an acute reaction and died so that's why the other 300 million can't enjoy it?

Is that your argument?

Pretty #ing stupid my friend



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Ok, but what do I do about the dead kids? Sober up buddy, come back and read my posts tomorrow.


You do nothing. Why would you?
So like 10 people in the history of the world had an acute reaction and died so that's why the other 300 million can't enjoy it?

Is that your argument?

Pretty #ing stupid my friend



Kind of like when I fly I can't get peanuts because 1 person might be allergic.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Archivalist

First I’ve heard of this, mind providing a source? How did pot kill three whole people.


I just read his claim again and it's bull#. Pretty sure I know what he is talking about. There was a thread not too long ago and I was arguing it. Of course when you read the entire article and you grasp English it is pretty easy to tell it's bull# and the 2 docs that authored the paper did not say what he is claiming.
Again I could be wrong but I don't think so.
Leaving work soon
Gonna go home and get into the thing I am not supposed to cause 3 people may have died and then I will check it out and link what I am talking about



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Ok, but what do I do about the dead kids? Sober up buddy, come back and read my posts tomorrow.


You do nothing. Why would you?
So like 10 people in the history of the world had an acute reaction and died so that's why the other 300 million can't enjoy it?

Is that your argument?

Pretty #ing stupid my friend



Kind of like when I fly I can't get peanuts because 1 person might be allergic.


More so if only 3 people in the history of the world have ever been allergic.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Oh. It's definitely bull#. There has never been a death due to THC od.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Sessions can go # himself.


This is not Sessions alone, this is Trump dogma.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
To lighten the mood a bit, I will quote the great Bill Hicks:




To make marijuana against the law is like saying that God made a mistake. Like on the seventh day God looked down, "There it is. My Creation, perfect and holy in all ways. Now I can rest. [Gives shocked expression] Oh my Me! I left #in' pot everywhere. I should never have smoked that joint on the third day. Hehe, that was the day I created the possum. Still gives me a chuckle. But if I leave pot everywhere, that's gonna give people the impression they're supposed to … use it. Now I have to create Republicans." " … and God wept"


now, for my personal thoughts. I believe marijuana should not only be legal, but for some people it should be mandatory



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinySickTears

Oh. It's definitely bull#. There has never been a death due to THC od.


I can't from my phone but if you search you will see what he is talking about.
Bull#
Even if it wasn't. Even if grass has killed a million people it's still not just to disallow adults to enjoy it when booze and ciggs are legal.
Then on the medical side it is not just to disallow it for medicine when opiates can be had by all



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Still waiting for these dinosaurs to die off.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   
A good cash crop that can create jobs, tax revenue and lower the demand from cartels.

Of course that is wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join