Posted on 03/26/2014 9:58:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Not a cure so much as a mild sedative.
IMHO, a lot of people, government or average joes and janes alike, don’t see the plurality of potential uses any given substance can have. Hemp fibers can be used to make rope, hemp oil can be used to cook. You can even make tea using leaves of the stuff. Think marijuana tea is bad, well, then ask why we even have sodas or coffee anyways. Even if we were to discuss tobacco, nicotine solution makes for a good pesticide. The problem is that people often don’t think about the many uses for a given substance when they legalize/illegalize it. Even if someone didn’t smoke weed, the same plant could still have some other uses besides inhaling smoke.
Those in war on drugs often ignore the effects of numerous prescription drugs. Many of which are extremely dangerous when taken outside the proper dosage. In fact, the danger from legal painkillers is statistically far greater than heroin or cocaine.
Exactly, those who try to sell it in large quantities will be the ones to get taxed. But then again, I guess there’s some weed equivalent of moonshining.
Easy there, kid.
Not everyone buys the 'reefer madness' bullshit.
You could always move to a country that exerts complete control over every detail of their citizens' lives, such as Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
Its a good thing FDR, that constitutional champion, ended prohibition because our country has been getting better ever since.
And, it was so much worse before the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment were enacted.
Three cheers for your heroes, Henry J. Anslinger and William Randolph Hurst for opening our eyes to the evils of Marihuana.
Hurray for Richard Nixon and the creation of the DEA. They are as conscientious about protecting civil rights as the BATFE, TSA and DHS. (The last two created by another of your heroes, George W. Bush who put us into Afghanistan to protect opium growing operations)
You know, we could emphasize the richness of Cannabis for the sake of making rope or cooking oil. Those are legit uses. We could also emphasize using nicotine solution as a natural pesticide, how people could get so narrow-minded, I have no idea.
Weren’t Jefferson and Washington inveterate potheads? Smoking the rope?
I’ll take all those men over Barney Frank, Obama, Woody Harrelson, and Eric Holder.
demshateGod is for keeping marijuana illegal, therefore demshateGod is for the government exerting control over every detail of a person’s life. This is a great example of a false syllogism. In fact, all of your retorts (if you can call them that) are likewise classic cases.
Would America be better or worse, if everything stayed the same except the status of marijuana?
Smoking tobacco was totally fashionable in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it was learned from the Native American tribes who used it for that purpose. Nicotine, in decent concentrations as a solution is a strong and effective pesticide. But now they’ve illegalized nicotine in favor of other synthetics, in fact, had we used nicotine solution instead of DDT, we would have seen a vastly different world. But here’s the problem, all that plenty of people can see in tobacco is smoking the cigarette, very narrow minded. With hemp, which is similar but not even identical to marijuana, people did derive clothing and rope fibers from it, people derived cooking oil from hemp as well. Yes, it was grown for fiber and cooking oil (hemp, anyways, by George Washington on his plantation. Even with marijuana, well, you can also derive fibers from the stuff, make some tea with it, make cooking oil with it, and so on. But the DEA is so narrow-minded as to figure, hey, let’s illegalize it to protect people from smoking it, when the real practical solution for a substance is to actually make note of the substance, note the side effects, and leave people to it, and the consequences of what they do with it. But that’s the real problem, no one wants to take the consequences of foolishness either. I’m all for ending the narrowmindedness, bring back nicotine as an organic pesticide, and just redo all the drug laws entirely.
As are yours.
You don't know when marijuana was banned or who lead the movement.
You just know it's bad. Why? Because the government says so.
Stuff your accusations where the sun doesn't shine, and pound sand in after them.
If it needs to be under federal authority then we need to get an amendment. If they think we can abuse the Commerce Clause without unintended consequences they're pissing into the wind.
16 posted on 3/26/2014 10:15:02 AM by tacticalogic
=====
To: tacticalogic
Remember that abortion and gay marriage in the military and for federal employees, and in immigration, and homosexuals in the military, are all federal.
We need to select candidates who are against liberalism at all levels, from city hall to the state, to the Senate and Presidency, whether negotiating with a County union, or state legislation on gay marriage or abortion, or marriage recognition and abortion in the military, and not let them exist as leaders who support the lefts causes, by pretending that they are forced to support the lefts agenda.
27 posted on 3/26/2014 10:29:15 AM by ansel12
if you want to keep your CCW in commierado you don’t buy it or even hang out with any who does pot, medicinal or otherwise.
You going to spam the thread now?
Actually, my replies are really good because they cut through all the theory and abstractions. I want to live in a good country. Legalization will make it worse.
It’s quite possible I know more about the destructive nature of pot than you think. My knowledge was certainly gained independent of government. I don’t know what that has to do with my question though. Has your argument evolved from a liberty question to a question of pot’s goodness? Are you saying it’s not bad so it shouldn’t be banned?
Would you be fore legalizing all drugs? If so, the question about the goodness or badness of pot is irrelevant because we know meth and crack are bad. You then have an position based on personal liberty. Purely abstract, not based on America’s livability. If not, someone who you respect could convince you that pot should stay illegal. Is that correct?
Here’s a good example of theoretical position I hold based on personal liberty. I believe ex cons should not be denied their second amendment rights. If they’re a danger to society, they shouldn’t be out of prison and getting a gun won’t be difficult for them anyway. If they’re not a danger, they’ve payed their debt, why can’t they protect themselves. However, I would accept the argument that reinstating excons 2A rights, given our current legal system, would have horrible consequences. I would put the issue to the back of the line.
Spam it with what?
You need to review Article V. Presidents have nothing to do with constitutional amendments.
The same thing, over and over again. That's why they call it "spam".
It's the "dog in the manger tactic". If I won't let someone change the subject, then they crap all over the thread until it gets moved to the Smokey Backroom. If they can't have it, then nobody is going to.
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.