Posted on 12/14/2001 10:39:32 AM PST by Pay now bill Clinton
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:34:32 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON - And now, for something completely different, to borrow a phrase from Monty Python.
The three earnest young men burdened with plastic bags came to the office bearing food. Pretzels with seeds. A snack bar. An energy bar. Tortilla chips.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
What! Someone declared war on pretzels? That's it, they've gone too far now. They'll never get my bag of Rold Gold pretzels all twisted into cute little holiday shapes from me. Never.
The Freeto Bandito!
How about "Pancho Tortilla"?
No more congress...we have the alphabet soup agencies with all the power they need to make law. Congresscritters are sissies to make law anymore. They make law so general as to basically say, "Alpha agency, you go make the rules. Here is a law that allows you full discretion."
breakin' the law, breakin' the law...
heh,heh heh
What's this?
Yep. The huge amount of food product a person would need to ingest in order to have any THC effect is that the ton of food product would severely damage harm the person.
The DEA claims their proposal is valid for no other reason than "there's already a law that says we can". The DEA has absolute zero regard for the fact that it is a non-problem from the get-go. The DEA is creating a problem that need not exist. Their position if followed through will do much harm while doing zero good. I would expect that the hemp oil is a healthier choice than the alternative oils.
Somebody needs to look into what food-oil companies would benefit from the DEA's proposal. I mean, what does the DEA have to gain by outlawing hemp oil? Zero, zip, nada, nothing. Unless, certain high ranking DEA officials are holding their hands out for a payoff from one or more non-hemp oil producers.
The DEA's proposal needs not only to be shot down but their highly probable criminal collusion with private sector companies needs to be scrutinized.
Considering the integrity of businessmen and high ranking DEA officials I lay odds that it was the DEA that put the offer on the table. For an upper-management businessman it's hard to resist the DEA's rationalization for the proposal. The businessman likely figures, "well, if it's the law then I'm justified too."
Forty years ago the FDA banned saccharin. The report and test results they based that on was a complete sham. They gave rats the equivalent of 700 cans of soda that a person would have to drink for saccharin to have a harmful effect. Get this, 700 cans of water consumed by a person over that same time span would harm the person far worse than the saccharin in 700 cans of soda.
I could probably dig up hundreds more cases that the FDA used invalid test results. Why do they do it? To justify their jobs. They create a boogieman based on junk science then claim compassion for the consumer. Then ban the product or device. There's also collusion form the private business sector. Considering the integrity of each and I lay odds it was the FDA put the offers on the table most of the time.
That and...
Read the two posts #73 and #74
Sick yes. But not society. Rather an epistemology disease of the mind. Just one proof of that politicians and bureaucrats routinely compromise their honest principles. The encourage people to vote for the lesser of two "evils". People follow along and compromise their own principles by voting for the candidate they think is the less bad. That's not a choice. It's slow suicide.
Read the posts #73 and #74.
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.