Posted on 10/23/2014 10:51:04 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom
The U.S. government claims marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug with no medical benefits. But that claim will be up for debate Monday in California when a federal judge is scheduled to hear testimony from doctors that conclude the opposite.
Doctors Carl Hart, Associate Professor of Psychology at Columbia University, retired physician Phillip Denny, and Greg Carter, Medical Director of St. Luke’s Rehabilitation Institute in Spokane, Washington will testify Monday that marijuana — real name, “cannabis” — is not the demon drug the federal government makes it out to be. Accepted science does not justify the listing of cannabis as a dangerous “Schedule I” substance, many say.
“[I]t is my considered opinion that including marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is counter to all the scientific evidence in a society that uses and values empirical evidence,” Dr. Hart declared. “After two decades of intense scientific inquiry in this area, it has become apparent the current scheduling of cannabis has no footing in the realities of science and neurobiology.” [...]
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.sfgate.com ...
Overturn Wickard v Filburn.
Nixon's hand-picked commission told them the same thing forty years ago.
The War on Drugs is big-government liberalism.
I’m getting close to saying forget it all! The world is getting worse and worse. Any and every law that has a moral standing is beginning to fall. What’s the point any more? Really? A judge can come in a rule anything and everything “unconstitutional” and use any means of legal jargon to justify it over the will of the people. It’s terrible.
I’m going to keep praying, working, and voting because I don’t have it in my to do otherwise. But I am really getting discouraged.
the ‘pot makes you mellow’ argument was shot down with the henderson thug though - its one of the bs lines they will have to give up
Except that they regulate almost everything you put into your body so your point is moot.
Some laws really are unconstitutional - the federal nati-drug laws being just one example.
Is that a conservative policy?
Irrelevant to whether it meets the Schedule I criterion of having "no accepted medical use."
was shot down with the henderson thug though
Nobody ever claimed that pot always makes every user mellow.
It’s a fact of life.
“The federal government has absolutely no authority under Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate what people put into their own bodies.”
So how’s that working out for you?
greg gutfeld does it all the time
you sure seem to have a vested interest in this
you a pothead?
Obviously penned for a republic whose people still valued liberty.
For an electorate that twice abetted the coup of a marxist traitor møngrel, its provision may just as well state that 'everyone deserves a unicorn' . . .
Actually I don't think it was all that expensive. It was sold to Congress as a simple tax on production. Hemp was still a commodity crop back then. Making the stamps expensive would have cause opposition from members that represented agricultural regions. They didn't tell Congress the farmers wouldn't actually be able to buy the tax stamps and that it was effectively a ban on growing hemp. They needed to make it sound as innocuous as possible to get it passed, and setting a high price on the tax stamps wouldn't have helped that. It didn't really matter what they set the price at since they didn't have any intention of ever selling any.
Yeah. Richard (Dick) "I am not a crook" Nixon. `Nuff said.
Once-Secret "Nixon Tapes" Show Why the U.S. Outlawed Pot
He (Nixon) made a bizarre distinction between marijuana and alcohol, saying people use marijuana "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun."
Is that a conservative policy?
It’s a fact of life.
Nonresponsive.
The federal government has absolutely no authority under Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate what people put into their own bodies.
So how’s that working out for you?
Violations of the Constitution work out badly for Americans.
“given current brain scans of long term users and the fact that we know in large enough recreational uses it does in fact cause hallucinations, these doctors have no credibility.”
Long term users of legal alcohol, legal prescription pain meds, also show several debilitating concerns.
But the doctor or the individual make the choice the benefits outweigh the risks.
I’m almost 67; first smoked some weed about 50 years ago. Stopped in my 20s, but continued drinking into my 40s before quitting that, too.
The point is I have seen recreational drinkers and drug users over a long time, and I don’t see societal risks of marijuana to be greater than alcohol.
Abusers will abuse, if legal or if illegal.
Why spend the LE resources on a “war” on marijuana?
Wouldn't that be called, 'abuse', not 'use.'
Saying that the abuse of a substance warrants its illegality is stupid. If I drink enough water I can die. Should we ban water because people can die by abusing it?
As a real conservative I have an interest in freedom.
you a pothead?
No - you a DEA shill?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.