guess he never heard of Midol midol or .357, Midol or .357, MIDOL or .357!!! chose...
Posted on 12/20/2011 6:30:01 PM PST by neverdem
Surely you're not suggesting the BATFE would use a bureaucratic loophole like that to start disarming people taking prescribed pills? We can trust them on this, it's just a bunch of potheads and we don't like them.
Entitled? Is the 2nd Amendment part of the Bill of Entitlements?
>Pot is a federally proscribed drug, so possession and use negates the right to own a firearm.
Is this before a trial? Or should we just scrap the fourth & sixth amendments?
>Simple and well known, and predictable to anyone who has ever thought about the realities of sucking pot behind a "prescription."
I'm not a pot-smoker, never appealed to me, but it is absolutely intolerable what the "Ware on Drugs" has don (and is doing) to the Bill of Rights as-written and as-applied.
If I remember correctly, didn’t Ann Coulter say on the view, that stistically there is not a higher percentage of minorities in the prison population if you account for single parenting. IIRC she said that there may be a greater percentage of black/hispanics than whites, but when you accounted for single parent homes, that the number fell in line. I don’t know the exact phrase, but, I remember reading it on FR. Also, the police state targets those with the least ability to form a defense. You must remember that the conviction rate is considerably higher for minorities than whites. I can guarantee it’s not because they always get the right person when they’re a minority, and mess up on the whites. It’s because the minorities are easier targets for the racket. (Not that there isn’t a propensity to commit a larger percentage of prosecuted crimes, I addressed that above, but I would say that they are much more likely to go to prison innocently than an anglo, because financially speaking, they cannot form an adequate defense).
On another note:
Recently (here locally), there was a woman released from prison after 16 years, because she was wrongfully convicted of murder. The coroner testified (in the exoneration hearing), that police had approached him, and asked him to broaden the time that he said the victim had died. The police had no leads, and just wanted the matter closed. Several witnesses had stated that they had seen the man alive in a restaurant several hours after the police said he was dead (because it was the only time that the woman, who was framed, had no alibi). In the exoneration hearing, the state prosecution said that this could not be considered “new evidence” because they had known that the witnesses said that the man was alive, but had surpressed it from the jurors the first time around.
After the exoneration trial found her innocent the Attorney General wanted to appeal the case because he said that it would set a precedent for other people to get new trials. I have to wonder how many men and women have been political prisoners for the police state racket’s gain.
That having been said, we do need a reform to the criminal (non)justice system. Some whacko got the idea that everyone needs to be locked up. Well, it’s not true. Nor does everyone need to die. In fact, many people have been found wrongfully convicted now that we have DNA testing. So, I’d want to weed out the corruption before I would go so far as to start killing prisoners just to make room. Then, I’d be amenable to sentences that allowed for people to work off/recompense their debt (obviously you cannot pay back something like a rape, murder, etc.). This is a big issue, b ut it’s important to understand that there is no less corruption in the courts than there are in the legislature and executive branch. They are all corrupt, and are all using us to make money.
Trust me, there are plenty of laws and if the masters so desire, they will find one to make you a felon.
>>Read it carefully. Anyone “addicted” (read regularly taking) a controlled substance... Like Tylenol #3? Adderall? It doesn’t limit the proscrption to ILLEGAL drugs.
Water, everyone’s addicted to it.
And the EPA ‘controlls’ it.
Ergo, everyone should be denied the right to keep and bear arms.
Hmmm, so people actually trying to follow the rules—instead of ignoring them—get screwed. Great way to build respect for the law!
Does this rule apply to any prescription drugs? After all, I’m sure that if I asked I would be told that this is a “safety” issue. And many prescription drugs impair their user in some way.
Not that I trust the word of the FDA any more than I do any other federal agency—on any subject. Supporters of RTKBA would be wise to approach this kind of rule with caution; anti-gun nutjobs are not above using federal agencies for their own agenda (look at what they’ve done with CDC in the past).
Obamacare will do it.
Last time I checked, even Snoop Dog doesn’t need pot to stay alive.
guess he never heard of Midol midol or .357, Midol or .357, MIDOL or .357!!! chose...
I agree with you whole heartedly. Besides weeding out things that shouldn’t be felons, we also need to recognize that one reason that criminals increase the sevirty of subsequent crimes, is that many make a mistake, and they are put into a hole they can never get out of. So, after one crime (even a relatively minor one), they often can never find work for years and years. Maybe some people think that they shouldn’t, but I’m not one of them.
I know, we’re all sheep for the sheering! That having been said, there’s not much we can change until people get their head out of the sand.
Aspirin could not get approved today, too many side effects (like blood thinning). But it’s grandfathered.
You know, I don’t mind arguing with other FReepers about the drug war. I think there’s room for disagreement on the issue, and I can agree to disagree about it, even though I have a strong opinion.
However, when I see a thread like this where some FReepers are all too willing to forget the basic conservative principles about the Constitution just because they don’t like “those damned hippies”, it really saddens me.
Rights are rights, and when it comes to the big ones, like self-defense, we don’t derive them from the government, so there is no legitimate action the government can do to take them away. Any action that deprives us of such a right is by default an illegitimate use of government power. We can’t let ourselves forget that due to our subjective feelings, or we are no better than liberals.
Maybe that is the gambit, to have them regulate grandma's chamomile tea.
BTW, marijuana is mentioned by name on the form 4473.
The sheer number and volume of laws is ridiculous, and you’re spot on about their purpose as a path to the police state, whether it was intentional or not. Lawmakers get paid to make laws, they get publicity for their re-election when they pass laws, and they get more croney jobs to hand out to their buddies with every law they have to enforce. So, it doesn’t even take a conspriratioral mindset to conclude that politicians will just keep making laws until everyone is a criminal if nobody stops them, and I think we’re already pass that point.
I’m not sure what we can do about the problem, since it would be much easier to pretty much wipe the slate clean and go back to a minimal set of laws than try to hack through the morass on the books already. The average complacent voter would let the media scare them off of supporting something that radical in a few heartbeats, so I don’t think it will happen. Even if we could get a drastic reduction, we’d also have to pass reform to discourage lawmakers making new laws unnecessarily, and that would be opposed by the entire political machine, of both parties.
It’s almost as if this is a problem inherent in political systems with lawmaking bodies, and the only solution is intermittent revolutions toppling the government and redrafting the law from scratch in order to reset the cycle.
Merry Christmas
Excellent points, all. I think that the Founders recognized all of these problems (”Tree of liberty”, etc.). You are correct also, in that the average apathetic (wo)man could care less. They all of a sudden get hit by some incident (or a family member, friend, etc), and then they usually wake up.
I think that all laws in the U.S. Congress should be only one page long, and read aloud, in English, on their respective floors, before they can be passed. I also think they should have to happen between say 9-7 ET, and be televised, no 3AM nonsense. I dunno, I guess that nothing is perfect, but there has to be a better way.
And you make a valid point, intentional or unintentional, our freedoms are eroded. I don’t think every politician wants to turn us into a police state, but I have a hard time believing a lot of the current ones in power do not. They’re making sure that everything is illegal, and only the people they want get prosecuted. Compare Wesley Snipes and Barney Frank. Or Anthony Weiner and the town perv, etc. etc.
“Maybe that is the gambit, to have them regulate grandma’s chamomile tea.”
In the last few years there have been many proposals/bills regarding vitamins and supplements, it may only be a matter of time!
That's funny. The psychoactive incredient is mentioned in US Patent, #6,630,507
So, which branch of the government is lying to us? HHS or DEA?
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)
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.