Posted on 03/02/2017 5:15:18 AM PST by HomerBohn
Look at the adverse effects of alcohol vs weed. Just because alcohol is legal doesn’t make it the better of the two.
Look at the adverse effects of alcohol vs weed. Just because alcohol is legal doesn’t make it the better of the two.
“Amazing how many freeper pot heads, huh?”
Cracks me up how prohibitionists in FR talk about other Freepers so disparagingly about something they never really want to take the time to understand.
When all cannabis users = “pot heads” then you’re no better than the progressive who calls all white people racist.
I stand by my written statement, lol. Go back to the bong.
Well, they did mention Willie Nelson, who, of course, hasn’t taken a bath in 40 years but who’s counting?
Claims It Causes “Violence”
It will cause violence if they take recreational pothead’s weed away.
Remember how the argument use to be the medical uses for pot and how denying people was cruel.
Now taking recreational pot away from people is cruel?
We’ve come a long way baby.
“I stand by my written statement, lol. Go back to the bong.”
And there you go again with another disparaging comment based on sheer ignorance. I pray one day you will be more charitable to people.
I pray you don’t drive high!
“I pray you don’t drive high!”
I never drive while medicated, period. I was prescribed Ativan & refused to drive while under it’s influence. Didn’t drive while taking some of the stronger mood stabilizers as well or the few times in my life when I had to take pain meds after surgery or an injury. I would never drive while medicated with cannabis. If I have to be some place while medicated my awesome wife does the driving.
It’s called being responsible. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept. :)
With God all things are possible - although even He is looking at this one and sighing as He rolls up His sleeves.
God IS Good always :)
I’ll ignore the personal slight to get you up to speed.
Peyote is illegal for use under all conditions - Federally and in all States and territories; including growing it, unless you are a standing member of Native American Church, solely. (Native American Church of New York v United States (1979); Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990); People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716)
Cocaine is made from drying the leaves of the coca plant. It is a simple drying, crushing process. Just like making weed capable of being smoked. It’s not some magical process.
Heroin is derived from the resin (milk) of the poppy plant. There is no secret chemical process to it. It’s perfectly natural.
I would imagine you have no issues with making Hash or pot brownies, or pot “candies,” etc. or the modified hybrid marijuana grades? All are refined versions of weed that are less natural than straight cocaine, or heroin.
Yes, you are a hypocrite if you are in favor of legalizing one plant for recreational drug use and not the others.
What is your argument against legalizing cocaine and heroin?
I’m dying to know. Keep it simple though. I’m a moron.
How does it turn into a white powder? Just curious.
Specifically, cocaine has no color - it is transparent.
It looks white via refraction and reflection of light off of the tiny powder grains (i.e., table salt).
Light also reflects/refracts off of the coca leaves, but they contain a green pigment called chlorophyll.
Why isn’t it green? Notes from a drug ID class I had a little while back: “Pigments differ from the majority of chemicals in that they reflect just a certain part of the visible spectrum of light and absorb the rest - or everything, like pure black absorbs all light. Chlorophyll reflects green light, which is in the middle of the visible spectrum and absorbs red and blue light, which is needed for the photosynthesis process that sustains all plants. All visible light is a combination of red, green and blue light.
But chlorophyll just makes up a small part of the chemicals that plants consist of. Most of them have no color at all on their own, and cocaine is no exception.”
Hey, Stick. I hope you’re doing great.
Rhetorical question, bear with me: If we agree that marijuana is a “drug” that has a chemical effect on the body that can be both mental and physical (not talking about “good” or “bad,” not referring to any of that stuff...)
And if the advocacy of legalizing Marijuana is putting forth the idea that a “drug” does not need any federal oversight....
Does the FDA have any role or regulatory responsibility in overseeing the safety or consistency of legal marijuana sales?
And if it does not, then why would it have a role over ANY drug and/or medication (say, Xanax)?
In short, should the FDA play a role in making sure that the marijuana that is sold to the public be “safe for consumption and consistently standardized?”
And if not, why not?
“And if the advocacy of legalizing Marijuana is putting forth the idea that a “drug” does not need any federal oversight....” etc.
Thanks for the questions. I’ll do my best if you keep in mind I’m just a musician who uses cannabis as medicine vs being a policy wonk or a lawyer.
I think it’s reasonable to think the FDA could have some oversight as long as they couldn’t maintain the prohibition stance it has maintained these many decades. Do I have a clue as to how much & what would be appropriate? Thats way out of my wheelhouse. I haven’t researched it or given it much thought.
The issue that makes this a really hard question to answer beyond my ignorance of the FDA in general is because under current federal law no one can actually do unbiased, scientific studies on what all the risks/benefits in detail are-—how could the FDA make a scientifically based assessment on whether cannabis falls under their jurisdiction? They don’t have real data from which to operate from currently because the feds won’t allow extensive research for them to be able to come to a scientific determination.
Keep in mind, the commission Nixon appointed determined there was no significant harm to using cannabis. The Nixon administration made it a schedule 1 drug against the commission’s recommendation IIRCC. That’s part of what makes the prohibition of cannabis all the more non-sensical to me. Cannabis was used for 1000’s of years as medicine & was legal to purchase for medicinal use in the early 1900’s. A classic case of the gov’t nanny state over-reach, IMO.
Pretty good point, actually. I’m no FDA pro myself.
Though I would assume that if the Feds will not enforce the marijuana laws as they are then the FDA is going to be forced to get involved in some manner. If a product is being sold for ingestion then it has to be reviewed for “harmful effects, side effects, etc.”
Currently, 1oz. of federally “legal” weed for purely research purposes goes for around $25,000 (if I remember correctly) which is why a good deal of the research into it has gone by the way-side. (Cost / benefit)
Interesting side note; “Bath salts” or synthetic marijuana was created by chemist John Huffman, specifically because of this issue. In order to do research on weed, but be cost-effective, he created a series of molecules that were effectively THC, but legally and chemically different (and legal).
It was only a matter of time before people would use it to get high, but that wasn’t it’s intended purpose.
And if it does not, then why would it have a role over ANY drug and/or medication (say, Xanax)?
No agency of the federal government has the Constitutional authority to regulate anything that doesn't cross state lines: marijuana, Xanax, you name it. If the makers of Xanax were to set up a manufacturing facility in each of the 50 states so that Xanax never crossed state lines, the federal government would have no Constitutional authority to regulate any of it.
Can’t comment on your intellect, but your reading comprehension needs a bit of work.
Nowhere in this thread have I made a single comment favorable to recreational drug use.
Thank you for making my point though,regarding peyote. It’s the use as a drug that is outlawed and not the plant itself.
Anyway, don’t strain yourself with the virtue-signaling....
-Hugh the hypocrite.
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.