Legalize Marijuana in Texas? (Houston, Howe: for sale, crimes, buying)

[danielpalos]

Originally Posted by AlGreen

Having a problem with the law is no excuse to break it. Nudists want the ability to walk around everywhere naked, but they can't, so they don't. And just because you don't see anything immoral about smoking weed doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong with it.

That's the point I was trying to make. Smoking weed is wrong because it breaks the law, now, should it become legal, well that's a whole other thread.

The point was that our elected representatives to government do not have any Constitutional power to make the acquisition and possession of forms of private property illegal to begin with, but under the influence of hypocrisy and repugnancy to our own State supreme Law of the Land.

In other words, simply making a law against the acquisition and possession of private property illegal could be considered illegal in itself.

Who is worse, a pot smoker exercising their natural right to smoke pot or an elected representative to government who doesn't believe in bearing true witness to our own State supreme Law of the Land; even with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge allegiance to our own republic?

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

How can we be grateful to Almighty God for our freedom if it is being denied and disparaged to us?

[AlGreen]

Originally Posted by danielpalos

The point was that our elected representatives to government do not have any Constitutional power to make the acquisition and possession of forms of private property illegal to begin with, but under the influence of hypocrisy and repugnancy to our own State supreme Law of the Land.

In other words, simply making a law against the acquisition and possession of private property illegal could be considered illegal in itself.

Who is worse, a pot smoker exercising their natural right to smoke pot or an elected representative to government who doesn't believe in bearing true witness to our own State supreme Law of the Land; even with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge allegiance to our own republic?



How can we be grateful to Almighty God for our freedom if it is being denied and disparaged to us?

Okay, but this is marijuana we're talking about. Not a DVD player. This is "property" that is outlawed. It's an illegal substance. Plus, weed is traded illegally, so you don't even have the right to obtain in the first place. Unless, of course, a dime bag falls out of the sky into your hand, then I guess you could claim that you have the right to posess it.

[kenshi]

Originally Posted by AlGreen

Okay, but this is marijuana we're talking about. Not a DVD player. This is "property" that is outlawed. It's an illegal substance. Plus, weed is traded illegally, so you don't even have the right to obtain in the first place. Unless, of course, a dime bag falls out of the sky into your hand, then I guess you could claim that you have the right to posess it.

The whole point is that the laws against it are unconstitutional and therefore illegal. It's based on the interstate commerce clause which was intended to allow the federal government to regulate merchandise being transferred from one state to another. Their take on it was that drugs (along with everything else really) could possibly be transferred across state lines, so whether it actually is or not, they can make it illegal. That's bull****. And that's in addition to what I said in my post earlier. Drugs can't be made illegal in a free country.

[danielpalos]

Originally Posted by AlGreen

Okay, but this is marijuana we're talking about. Not a DVD player. This is "property" that is outlawed. It's an illegal substance. Plus, weed is traded illegally, so you don't even have the right to obtain in the first place. Unless, of course, a dime bag falls out of the sky into your hand, then I guess you could claim that you have the right to posess it.

You must not be aware of the Dred Scott decision concerning inalienable rights to controversial forms of private property; it was decided for the owner of that controversial form of private property. Why do you believe that such a juridical decision should be any less valid for a plant? If you believe in the moral persuasion of being legal to the law, then I am not sure I understand your inconsistency to the rule of law.

[Stone1]

Just got back to this topic and yes I was serious about the half life of weed being 8 days. The level of impairment will vary in the 8 days but it is still in your system. Part of why the level of impairment would not be known is weed ranges from 3% THC up to higher limits of 26%.

A question was asked about why Marinol would be any different than smoking weed. Marinol is made in a very controlled setting. Weed? who knows what was dumped on it. Most lab tested home grown stuff has some type of feces mixed in it. Smoking MJ has also been determined to be about 4 times more like to lead to cancer so it seems the pill for would be safer in that respect.

Lets not forget that males are more likely to become sterile from regular use of MJ but that may not be the worst thing as it could then be a form of birth control.

We do have enough problems with Alcohol (Jack Daniels is my preferred beverage), it is legal, so simply making other drugs legal will not lead to less problems. It would likely give the perception that it must be ok, it is legal.

DRE's are good at their job but there are not many out there yet. It is amazing how accurately they can determine what type of drug you are using.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by Stone1

Just got back to this topic and yes I was serious about the half life of weed being 8 days. The level of impairment will vary in the 8 days but it is still in your system. Part of why the level of impairment would not be known is weed ranges from 3% THC up to higher limits of 26%.

A question was asked about why Marinol would be any different than smoking weed. Marinol is made in a very controlled setting. Weed? who knows what was dumped on it. Most lab tested home grown stuff has some type of feces mixed in it. Smoking MJ has also been determined to be about 4 times more like to lead to cancer so it seems the pill for would be safer in that respect.

Lets not forget that males are more likely to become sterile from regular use of MJ but that may not be the worst thing as it could then be a form of birth control.

Do you know how many chemicals are in things like Marinol and other pills? Pills are worse, IMO. My doctor told a friend I had that he could mix his depression and insomnia medicine and be fine. My friend did and died. What if someone takes a pill of Marinol and does not feel an effect? How many more would they take? With smoking, or vape, one can smoke until they feel high, and then put out the joint. It's impossible to overdose on marijuana (you'd have to smoke hundreds of joints in five minutes, and you would die from smoke inhalation first, not the weed). I haven't heard of the less sterile thing before either.

As far as it leading to cancer, no studies have proven that. Marijuana HAS been proven to kill cancerous cells in the body though.

We do have enough problems with Alcohol (Jack Daniels is my preferred beverage), it is legal, so simply making other drugs legal will not lead to less problems. It would likely give the perception that it must be ok, it is legal.

DRE's are good at their job but there are not many out there yet. It is amazing how accurately they can determine what type of drug you are using.

But they are okay. They were legal in this country until 1937. People are really to blinded by the American government. A lot of people seem to think America is the only country in the world, and because drugs like marijuana are banned here, they must be banned everywhere. And places they are not banned, those places must have high crime, etc. Legalizing them would take out the Black market, and put all that money into the American economy. Not to mention companies like Frito-Lay would be ecstatic. If it became legal, I wonder how many food companies would begin making cannabis edible versions of their food and selling them to dispensaries?

[DanielWayne]

It's not hard to find studies on the internet that point to the fact that pot LIKELY causes cancer. You can also find the same for impotence. As for pot killing cancerous cells, that was in a controlled study. But the point remains it wasn't just a bunch of hungry dudes smoking in the laboratory. They were isolating the main chemical and administering that. And it just killed some cancer cells. It didn't get rid of the tumors. No way shape or form is it proven to be a cancer cure. Now as for relieving suffering for chemo patients - that is a different story. Still a bad idea to legalize. Now as for controlled medical usage - possibly.

[danielpalos]

Why is it any worse to legalize pot than any other drug which is already legal? Are you claiming the denial and disparagement to individual liberty is worth the price of keeping it illegal? I think that is a worse idea than simply Regulating that form of Commerce among the several States well.

[kenshi]

Originally Posted by Stone1

Just got back to this topic and yes I was serious about the half life of weed being 8 days.

Cite? I find it hard to believe that the active ingredient lasts that long when the high only lasts a few hours at most.

A question was asked about why Marinol would be any different than smoking weed. Marinol is made in a very controlled setting. Weed? who knows what was dumped on it.

Well if it was legal and regulated, we would know exactly what was dumped on it, if anything.

We do have enough problems with Alcohol (Jack Daniels is my preferred beverage), it is legal, so simply making other drugs legal will not lead to less problems. It would likely give the perception that it must be ok, it is legal.

This is just absurd. We had far more problems with alcohol when it was prohibited just as we do with other drugs, and why would anyone think smoking crack was a good idea if it was legal? There's just no evidence to support this claim.

Originally Posted by DanielWayne

It's not hard to find studies on the internet that point to the fact that pot LIKELY causes cancer. You can also find the same for impotence. As for pot killing cancerous cells, that was in a controlled study. But the point remains it wasn't just a bunch of hungry dudes smoking in the laboratory. They were isolating the main chemical and administering that. And it just killed some cancer cells. It didn't get rid of the tumors. No way shape or form is it proven to be a cancer cure. Now as for relieving suffering for chemo patients - that is a different story. Still a bad idea to legalize. Now as for controlled medical usage - possibly.

Marijuana smoke is carcinogenic as is any smoke, but it's not as bad as cigarette smoke. And as was already pointed out, if it was legal, there would be vaporizers just as with cigarettes.

[texan55]

i think stone1 is just pretending. he/she can't be serious.