Legalize Truth..

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Thank you for the reply,

I appreciate you clearing this up,

My main reason for including that message, in the beginning of the op.. Was to point out my intentions clearly before the thread even began, And to point out that if the thread became derailed in any way, That we might run the risk of violating the T&C.. And pushing another one of my threads to the trash bin..

I have had a thread in the past get pushed to the trash bin.. The thread was on Police corruption, And for some reason it was thrown to the trash bin for "not being conspiracy related".. You tell me how Police corruption is not "conspiracy related"..

That being the main reason behind the message..

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

legalization means that the FDA will regulate drug quality and purity, thus manufactured pot will have to meet "safety standards".. additionally grower permits will be issued.. so that the govt can profit from legalized pot.. but no one else can. Sound good to you?

Sounds good to me, let the bloody Gov. take their money...

Who needs profit honestly?

Legalzation means you could grow your own if you didn't want to pay for the Gov. regulated kind.

S&F

Legalize it world wide!

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by XelNaga

 

Yeah but legalizing it will only result in gov. takeover of it. Then they will make you buy a license to grow it only allowing "suitable" people to do so (corporations), and tax consumers to high hell (no pun), and regulate its quality, and regulate its seeds (strains), and regulate and regulate and regulate......

Oh, I think they will TRY... But if we pass laws saying it's ok for ANYBODY to grow it - not only will we have more oxygen on this planet (cannabis/hemp is awesome at converting CO2 into O2), they will have to chase down a heck of a lot of people...IF they can then somehow pass other laws to let them do so.

If decriminalized its "black market" worth will drop considerably because anyone and everyone can grow it themselves then. So I don't agree.

And if it's legal, people can grow it too. No control will ever happen as long as we keep growing it.

ETA:
legalization means that the FDA will regulate drug quality and purity, thus manufactured pot will have to meet "safety standards".. additionally grower permits will be issued.. so that the govt can profit from legalized pot.. but no one else can. Sound good to you?

The FDA can only regulate relative to sales. If we're all growing our own, we'll give a lot away and use what we want. Maybe some barter... But I just don't see an issue if it was freely legalized.

reply to post by TechVampyre


Oh hell. I see you got snatched into the death zone - Alt. Sub. This should be openly discussed and any personal use posts taken down.

Well. Another good try bites the dust.

reply to post by Akragon

Legalzation means you could grow your own if you didn't want to pay for the Gov. regulated kind.

No, I think it will be the opposite, but what do I know, they only do that with EVERYTHING else.

So....???

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by Akragon

 

Legalzation means you could grow your own if you didn't want to pay for the Gov. regulated kind.

No, I think it will be the opposite, but what do I know, they only do that with EVERYTHING else.

So....???

If it was legal it would be classified by something, vegetable perhaps?

Legal means free to do as you will with said Legal substance...

reply to post by Amaterasu


My point is, if they legalize it, it will not be an open policy like many of you are hoping for. It will be regulated, and no, not everyone will be able to grow it, only those that qualify. And it doesn't take a genius to know what "qualifying" will entail. If you do not have a license to grow, if you do not comply with FDA standards of regulation, if you do not buy seeds from a FDA certified company, on and on... then it will still be illegal, that is why decriminalization is better. If you don't believe me go talk to Tommy Chong or some other MJ activist.

PS. No it will never be categorized as a vegetable!

I wouldn't mind seeing it regulated as tobacco is. A little known fact is that you can grow tobacco yourself, at least in California. There's no law against it. You can do whatever you want to with your home grown tobacco plants, as long as you don't try selling cigarettes made out of them. The folks I knew who grew tobacco in their garden grew it because it kept the bugs out, and they could harvest it and make decent, all natural bug spray for their garden. (I'm also pretty sure they smoked some of it...again, totally legal as far as I know; personal consumption didn't seem problematic, the way they explained it. If they'd been willing to submit the appropriate paperwork and deal with the government, they could have sold it.) They weren't even hippies.

So legalizing the wacky weed, not just decrim, wouldn't be the ungodly evil so many people make it out to be. Decriminalization works for me, I just think that there are some communities (Mendocino & Humboldt counties, for example) that could benefit from actually taxing the plants that so many of their citizens make a living growing & selling.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

My point is, if they legalize it, it will not be an open policy like many of you are hoping for. It will be regulated, and no, not everyone will be able to grow it, only those that qualify. And it doesn't take a genius to know what "qualifying" will entail. If you do not have a license to grow, if you do not comply with FDA standards of regulation, if you do not buy seeds from a FDA certified company, on and on... then it will still be illegal, that is why decriminalization is better. If you don't believe me go talk to Tommy Chong or some other MJ activist.

PS. No it will never be categorized as a vegetable!

They will not set up qualifications if we pass a law that says anyone may grow it, based on the fact that it is a plant, and anyone can choose to be a farmer - who is one who plants and raises plants. If we do that, how can they qualify it?

And, no... I would categorize it as a legume. The seeds are far more nutritious than peanuts (not a true legume), and beans of all varieties (cannabis seed has a complete protein and needs no rice).

Originally posted by nithaiah
I wouldn't mind seeing it regulated as tobacco is. A little known fact is that you can grow tobacco yourself, at least in California. There's no law against it. You can do whatever you want to with your home grown tobacco plants, as long as you don't try selling cigarettes made out of them. The folks I knew who grew tobacco in their garden grew it because it kept the bugs out, and they could harvest it and make decent, all natural bug spray for their garden. (I'm also pretty sure they smoked some of it...again, totally legal as far as I know; personal consumption didn't seem problematic, the way they explained it. If they'd been willing to submit the appropriate paperwork and deal with the government, they could have sold it.) They weren't even hippies.

I like that idea. I'm guessing, though, that unlike tobacco, because it's so easy to grow, a great number of people will be growing their own - and sharing the excess.

So legalizing the wacky weed, not just decrim, wouldn't be the ungodly evil so many people make it out to be. Decriminalization works for me, I just think that there are some communities (Mendocino & Humboldt counties, for example) that could benefit from actually taxing the plants that so many of their citizens make a living growing & selling.

I want to eliminate taxes by eliminating the need for money. A bit off topic, but imagine a world where there is no behavior motivated by money/power/energy - these "laws" against a phenomenally beneficial plant would not even be a consideration. There's only a problem now because of the threat to profit (money/power/energy) for a number of groups.

If you want to see my ideas to eliminate the need for money, I have two threads linked in my sig. The End of Entropy is the foundational piece - read first - and The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform is the structural piece. I hope you choose to read it.

reply to post by Amaterasu


I will read your posts in the morning. They are bookmarked and waiting. I'm always game for hearing solutions to the overlying problem, and morning is an excellent time to angry up the blood about what ails the world.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by TechVampyre

 

Oh hell. I see you got snatched into the death zone - Alt. Sub. This should be openly discussed and any personal use posts taken down.

Well. Another good try bites the dust.

Best part about it is..Apparently this is not a medical conspiracy..

S & F.

Dr Bob Melamede is one of my personal fav representatives on the subject and by far the one of the greatest experts when it comes to its medicinal properties.

www.uccs.edu...

There is undeniable proof of its medical properties and it amazes me how long and out of the way the gov goes to suppress it. I shouldn't say that I'm surprised tho.

reply to post by nithaiah


Good argument.

I can agree that taxation can be very beneficial to certain municipalities, and help the economy out, but say you wanted to go into this business, then you may not feel the same way about all this regulation and taxation. But good argument again.

Amaterasu:

I like what you said too!

Federal Agency Recognizes Therapeutic Benefits of Medical Marijuana

In March, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), one of 11 federal agencies under the National Institutes of Health, changed its website to include Cannabis as a Complementary Alternative Medicine (CAM), with possible benefits for people living with cancer. Specifically, the website read:

The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.

This means that Cannabis may have to be reclassified from its Schedule I status to Schedule III drug, as Schedule I drugs have 'no medical value'. But that doesn't mean the FDA (the one that counts) will change anything. The National Cancer Institute is not in the position to recommend or approve drugs for medical use.

Still, it may be a crack in the surface. I hope so.

Many of the arrests in CA of the Medical Marijuana dispensaries rely on its Schedule I status.

But it seems the federal government is all over this, trying to tone it down:

National Cancer Institute

NCI offers explanation for changes to its medical marijuana database entry
Says summaries are not treatment recommendations and not representative of federal policy
...
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the use of Cannabis as a treatment for any medical condition. To conduct clinical drug research in the United States, researchers must file an Investigational New Drug (IND) application with the FDA.

An IND application is the first step in initiating clinical trials that can lead to FDA approval of a drug. While the new sentence is certainly by no means intended to be an official endorsement of seeking FDA approval of medical marijuana, it’s interesting to note that the concept of applying for IND approval is even acknowledged. The FDA stopped discontinued IND trials of marijuana in 1991 because of the glut of people seeking legal, FDA-approved access to the drug.

Basically, the FDA has to get involved and do tests to determine that it's medically beneficial before anything happens in the federal arena. This is how I read it, anyway.

Great thread! And I agree completely with the OP.

This forum is for the discussion of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups related to the trade and trafficking of illicit drugs, and inequities in enforcement of drug-related laws. Personal use, advocacy of legalization, and related non-conspiratorial topics are not allowed.

Temporarily Closed, Pending Staff Review.