U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should marijuana be legal, federal level.
Yes, I am liberal. 25 17.01%
No, I am liberal. 1 0.68%
Yes, I am conservative. 36 24.49%
No, I am conservative. 10 6.80%
Yes, I do not identify as liberal or conservative. 63 42.86%
No, I do not identify as liberal or conservative. 12 8.16%
Voters: 147. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-27-2016, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Secure, Undisclosed
1,984 posts, read 1,293,385 times
Reputation: 3702

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phxone View Post
As a committed drug warrior that brags about their years of experience, you should know that marijuana's status as a Schedule I drug prevents the exact kind of trials that you claim are required to prove that marijuana has a legitimate medical purpose. I guess old habits die hard, drug warriors have been lying and deceiving people for so long that it is just second nature.

Drug warrior? Not really. I just used to teach classes on how drugs get approved at the federal level. May interest those who have been so critical that I frankly don't care if it is legalized - I don't have a dog in the fight. I was just trying to answer the OP's question about why it isn't legal (yet) and explain what some of the issues are.

For example, somebody on the proceding page made reference to a drug product approved for an indication overseas should or could be allowed in the US because it is all the same drug. No, it isn't. Various forms of marijuana have varying levels of THC and, depending upon how it is cultivated and processed, varying forms and levels of impurities. When you get a drug approved here in the US, it has to be the exact same drug each and every time a dosage unit is produced. Part of the approval is inspecting your process of turning out identical doses each and every batch. So what was approved in the UK may very well not be the same thing that you seek approval for in the US.

I know marijuana is a schedule I drug; I also know that there have been studies done in the US on humans to see if it is safe and effective for a given indication. (FDA can issue waivers - does it all the time. In fact, every single new drug is illegal all the way through the clinical trial process - until it is approved. The NDA is the legal exception that allows the article to travel in IC for the purpose of clinical trials.)

So please put away the hatred. Learn the difference between someone arguing with you and someone trying to educate you. If you want to remain in a deep state of ignorance, simply don't reply to the post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2016, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Secure, Undisclosed
1,984 posts, read 1,293,385 times
Reputation: 3702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo View Post
...

Originally Posted by Rescue3

Finally, and this is really ironic, it has increased the black market in drug dealing. The reaon is that local law enforcement will no longer pursue local marijuana dealers who are not licensed. To their mind, if you legalize marijuana in a store, then the guy selling it on the corner is just evading a tax scheme - not a cop's job.


I had to re-quote this one because it is so far off base that I wanted to use it as an example of how you are making things up. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The cops now have more time to find illegal grows and stamp them out. Check out Pueblo West, it is a daily occurrence there. If it is a big grow operation, the Feds will be asked to help out, and they do. I assure you, if someone if selling pot on the street outside a dispensary and the owner calls the cops, the illegal seller will be arrested. The counties and the state are keenly aware that every black market sale now directly affects tax revenues, so the cops are being told to aggressively target black market growers and sellers. The results are a state that is much better off than a state like California, a state that is still having to live with and fight the consequences of prohibition (but those days are numbered, fortunately).

Also, you think the black market has expanded, but you are wrong again. Yes, there is plenty of cannabis leaving this state for the black market, and there has been for a long time. Legalization has caused the surrounding states to more vigorously stop cars leaving the state, which might make it appear the black market has grown, but it is only because more violators leaving the state are getting caught.

The truth is that the black market is taking a hit, and the hit will get bigger as more states legalize. I personally have not put any money in the black market for several decades, and there are many millions of people across this country that will stop funding the black market as soon as it is legal in their state.
It's actually the topic of a documentary on NPR. Complete with interviews of both street dealers and local cops. If it is not true, please contact NPR. Looked pretty real to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2016, 05:02 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
11,200 posts, read 6,517,126 times
Reputation: 10785
It's situational. If you don't drive or have a job that impacts public safety then I have no issue with it. You should also have to waive health insurance coverage for any respiratory, cardiac, or psychological illnesses you develop while or after smoking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2016, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Sarasota, FL
2,636 posts, read 1,545,905 times
Reputation: 5005
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h View Post
Glad to see the NO voters can't even crack 20% - see folks, there are things all sides can agree on. This one is a no brainer really... well, except for 19% of us

Its about the only time I've seen Cons and Libs on CD come close to agreeing on anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2016, 05:30 PM
 
5,277 posts, read 2,704,661 times
Reputation: 5149
I agree with the other posters. WHAT RIGHT DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE to tell you what you can put into your body? If you are not harming anyone in public or around you. What the hell does it matter ? It's a big joke and is one of the many reasons why this country is not FREE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2016, 05:30 PM
 
3,144 posts, read 886,294 times
Reputation: 2472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rescue3 View Post
Drug warrior? Not really. I just used to teach classes on how drugs get approved at the federal level. May interest those who have been so critical that I frankly don't care if it is legalized - I don't have a dog in the fight. I was just trying to answer the OP's question about why it isn't legal (yet) and explain what some of the issues are.

For example, somebody on the proceding page made reference to a drug product approved for an indication overseas should or could be allowed in the US because it is all the same drug. No, it isn't. Various forms of marijuana have varying levels of THC and, depending upon how it is cultivated and processed, varying forms and levels of impurities. When you get a drug approved here in the US, it has to be the exact same drug each and every time a dosage unit is produced. Part of the approval is inspecting your process of turning out identical doses each and every batch. So what was approved in the UK may very well not be the same thing that you seek approval for in the US.

I know marijuana is a schedule I drug; I also know that there have been studies done in the US on humans to see if it is safe and effective for a given indication. (FDA can issue waivers - does it all the time. In fact, every single new drug is illegal all the way through the clinical trial process - until it is approved. The NDA is the legal exception that allows the article to travel in IC for the purpose of clinical trials.)

So please put away the hatred. Learn the difference between someone arguing with you and someone trying to educate you. If you want to remain in a deep state of ignorance, simply don't reply to the post.
It isn't hatred, I am just trying to do the same thing as you -- educate you. I realize that isn't possible, so I promise I will beat my head against a brick wall once for each keystroke I waste here. And regardless of your pedigree, I want you to know that I have 45 years of direct, daily experience with the plant, with 20 years of research under my belt to boot.

You are so locked into your view that you can't see the gridlock. You are trying to educate us on how a drug gets FDA approval. We get that. But every drug that has ever been studied and approved was NOT a federally banned Schedule I substance! And while you say you realize that, you still seem to think the only way it will be legalized (taken off of Schedule I) is through the normal FDA process. Unbelievable.

The good news is that the DEA is already in the process of getting it rescheduled, which will make this part of our discussion moot anyway. My personal opinion is that the DEA will get it rescheduled before Obama leaves office. We'll see.

The other point in which we have contention is that you still seem believe that cannabis truly has no medical properties simply because there are no US-based studies that have been submitted and approved by the US government. We have already determined that is an impossible feat until it is removed from Schedule I, so are you saying that despite unmistakable proof otherwise from offshore research, that you still stand by that statement?

There may be a fundamental disagreement we have that will make all these wasted keystrokes even more wasted. That is the fact that once it is legalized, Big Pharma can of course come out with and market their own products, but in reality, most people that have a condition that can be treated by cannabis will find a strain that works for them, then grow their own. Big Pharma knows billions will be lost in prescription sales because of this, with absolutely nothing they can do about it. Big Money from Big Pharma (and other Big Industries) is the main reason the government locked the lid down so tightly on research, decades ago.

If you do not believe that Big Money from Big Industry has been the main motivation behind the government's over-zealous demonizing of this plant, including draconian punishment and an air-tight lid on research, for the last 40 years, then we have reached an impasse that makes it impossible to proceed with our discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2016, 05:41 PM
 
Location: zooland 1
3,744 posts, read 3,419,216 times
Reputation: 5516
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey View Post
It's situational. If you don't drive or have a job that impacts public safety then I have no issue with it. You should also have to waive health insurance coverage for any respiratory, cardiac, or psychological illnesses you develop while or after smoking.
God I wish . . The pro dope folks want us to pay for their mj... They want no drug testing or positive thc tests not to be used for employment...and employers having no right to fire for cause.

The only thing I will say having been on the front lines of marijuana legislation EVERY promise made by the pro mj crowd hasnt been kept...every one

How about people stop using drugs.. marijuana included. And stop the death destruction environmental harm caused by it...

Absent that make it real medicine if it is...and dispense it as such
Absent that give it to Monsanto and con Agra and take it out of the hands of street dealers and growers...

Put laws in place to control it's use...harsh ones for giving to youth..driving under the influence..illegal sales..

Again as I stated elsewhere in this thread.. decriminalize...I could be ok with that if all the other options are worked out first...not the hopscotch we have

If you use drugs you are a part of a problem for all of us... This is your personal responsibility and cannot be obviated by any excuse..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2016, 06:09 PM
 
2,612 posts, read 1,115,691 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer View Post
Granny twelve plant... maybe..if we can get compliance under control
Full scale FDA testing ..yes
Reschedule...yes
Full legalization... Maybe..but only with appropriate controls.. over the next twenty years...tied to FDA testing...
Duid roadside test vetted... absolutely..with national 2 ngm limit..or zero tolerance

Welfare benefits and drug testing tied
Absolute right of employers to reject users with testing

There's more..begin there
I agree with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer View Post
Reschedule...yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer View Post
Absolute right of employers to reject users with testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer View Post
Duid roadside test vetted (Don't agree with the proposed limits of the poster)
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer View Post
Full legalization
No idea what "granny twelve plant" means, so I can't comment. I even googled the term and nothing came up.

Last edited by jburress; 07-27-2016 at 07:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2016, 06:53 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,167,700 times
Reputation: 1335
Anyone using, possessing, manufacturing "drugs" is innocent of any "crime" until their actions initiate force (cause harm) upon another. "Criminalizing" drugs is as rational as criminalizing any act which in and of itself is not an initiation of force upon another. In reality, a "law" which makes a "victimless" action a "crime" is a real crime against free human beings. Tyrants and thugs who impose their personal will and beliefs upon others by government aggression are the real criminals of society.

When someone doing "drugs" initiates force upon another, then they are a criminal. Doing "drugs" in and of itself is not an initiation of force upon anyone else. It is no more moral to tell others not to do drugs than it is to tell others not to eat sugar. (Which kills and does far more harm to people and the economy than "drugs".)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2016, 07:25 PM
 
26,160 posts, read 15,365,968 times
Reputation: 17235
Thumbs up  

Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
Of course. Who the hell is the government to come into your home and tell you what you can and cannot put into your body? That's silly..
Quite an excellent reply mate!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top