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.
because the people voted for representatives and they voted to pass laws allowing and ones disallowing like anything else. All are bad habits and more and more are rejecting them.
<sucking sound> "Wow ... hey, man." <sucking sound> "Like what's happenin' dude?" <sucking sound> "Got me some good weed here, man." <sucking sound> "Far out, dude." <sucking sound>
Any questions?
Obama can't legalize "weed." He doesn't have the authority. That would have to be an act of Congress. Not likely to happen.
You might want to study the Constitution.
Actually, he can. The Attorney General and the DEA work for Obama and they determine Schedule 1 drugs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary role for FDA under the CSA is to provide the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Service (DHHS) with our scientific and medical evaluation of drugs. FDA's consultative role stems from the provisions of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (Act) of 1970. Pub. L. 91-512 (October 27, 1970). Such a role is consistent with FDA's mission of public health protection. Under the Act, the Secretary of DHHS is charged with evaluating certain medical and scientific factors and making recommendations to the Attorney General as to whether the substance under review should be managed as a controlled substance, or removed from control, and the appropriate level of control. Title II of the Act, now fully incorporated into the CSA, establishes the factors and findings determinative for control. The factors set forth under 21 U.S.C. § 811 allow the Attorney General and, by delegation, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), to schedule a drug if she finds that the drug has a potential for abuse.
because the people voted for representatives and they voted to pass laws allowing and ones disallowing like anything else. All are bad habits and more and more are rejecting them.
Pot became illegal because a process was being developed to efficiently create paper and other textiles out of hemp. Mass production of hemp based paper would have threatened W. H. Hearst's timber and newspaper empire, as well as Dupont, which had just invented nylon and wanted it to replace hemp in rope. (Which totally happened. Nylon is also in a lot of our other clothing and textiles, and not hemp, because of this agenda.) So they indeed set about a propaganda campaign about the evils of "marihuana" and indeed they linked it to Mexicans and Black jazz musicians. Even to the point where a man testified in front of Congress that marihuana cigarettes make white women want to run off with black men.
Greed drove the first steps into prohibition. Fear fueled it.
And greed keeps it going now. And ignorant fear keeps people supporting it.
Nowadays it isn't just timber, paper, and textiles that are threatened by hemp, we have the highest percentage of our population in prison of any nation on earth, and those prisons are largely "for profit." They have the inmates do work and/or pay huge sums of money for the privilege of being incarcerated. Not to mention all of the costs of going through court, not to mention the asset forfeiture (legal robbery by police, which is justified by "I was looking for drugs.") Alcohol, tobacco, and Pharma also have no reason to want pot legal. Police and their unions don't want pot legal. Lawyers don't want pot legal. The list goes on.
I will not trust any doctor, pompously claiming, "I am a physician!" and declaring weed to bear all of the same dangers of tobacco. That is false. No one has developed cancer or died because of weed. And it can be consumed in ways that don't involve inhalation of smoke. Some of those methods are becoming very popular here in Colorado. And just as I don't trust studies funded by agencies with a financial interest in "science" done to the specific end of propping up their desired result, so I also don't trust anyone who has a vested interest in pushing prescriptions. No thanks, Doc.
The many of us that fooled around with it in high school or college and then outgrew the interest in doing it when we grew up into our adult responsibilities are testament to the fact that it really is not addictive. The addictiveness is probably the single greatest evil of tobacco. Quitting pot is easy. You just stop. At worst you'll be irritable for maybe a week. Quitting tobacco is torture, and the desire to relapse continues for years, if not for life. I smoked quite a bit as a teenager. I do regret it somewhat, it made me lazy and demotivated. I'm not a supporter that will act like it's a miracle plant with no possible drawbacks. I wasted a couple of years. But I still graduated by the skin of my teeth and went on to do very well. At one point, I decided I had to stop and I simply stopped. I've done it ONCE since then (in 17 years)...I tried it with my husband when it became legal. It made me throw up. So I was like, "OK. Well that's that I guess." Tobacco...I know it's probably killing me, and it does me no good, and costs me a lot of money, yet I continue to smoke cigarettes. The very thought of quitting fills me with a panicky desire to go smoke right now.
And this is not a Liberal pet project! That is hilarious! Sure there are many Libs who support legal weed. But many of the Liberal leaders don't. They don't want to shoot that cash cow in the head! Taxes from weed aren't nearly what they get from the industries lobbying to keep it prohibited, and tax money has to be used for pesky things like public infrastructure. Democrats only pretend to serve the interests of their constituents in many cases, under the skin they are still just politicians. And many Conservatives here in Colorado support legal pot! Why? Because they hate big government! The more Libertarian minded and States' Rights supporting ones are all over this issue. Of course the Republican leaders don't want prohibition to go away any more than the Democrats do. Which is why their sponsored media outlets will tell you that the Tea Party types are all crazybats, don't listen to any of those people! A party that was supposed to be for small government is instead standing on its head, legislating religion and morality. And most of the people flying the banner of the Tea Party aren't really Libertarians anyways.
A proper Libertarian wants people to have both the freedom and the accountability for their own choices.
A Socialist wants people to have neither.
And a Conservative or a Liberal wants people to have some freedoms but not others, and more or less accountability in various respects. EDIT: But as the largest parties in the US, ours are bought and paid for, and generally do the will of their corporate masters rather than the will of the people anyways.
Colorado didn't vote yes on Amd. 64 because we are a bunch of hippie liberals. We did, because we are (as we are known to be) very "live and let live." And the sky has not fallen.
Back in the early 1900's politicians would pass **** regardless of what people thought about it. Hell they did this much later too and still do it today. They think they know better than us. Remember the 55 speed limit crap? Media propaganda and racism led to pot being criminalized. They used blacks as a way to get public support against it. Big corporate interests such as the cotton and paper industries did not want hemp as competition. It was a variety of factors.
Big pharma also did not want the competition... though they don't care AS much anymore about that since we have so many other pharmaceutical drugs to choose from these days and they can even sell their own version of THC under prescription along with many other vitamins and overcharge for them.
Why is the Right so adamantly afraid that Obama will legalize weed, when alcohol and smoking are incalculably more dangerous and still legal?
How is the War on Drugs any different from Prohibition?
Historical tradition-
I personally do not care whether someone smokes weed or not, as long as they are not driving or attempting to work in a situation which sacrificing attentiveness could harm someone else (a surgeon operating while stoned).
If you want to get stoned and waste your life escaping from reality, be my guest.
If you want to get stoned and waste your life escaping from reality, be my guest.
I smoke weed. A lot.
I didn't waste my life. I have a life most people dream of.
Want to compare resumes and income, with proof attached via screen shots?
Losers have no problem admitting they smoke weed bc they have nothing to lose. Those are the people wearing pot flag t-shirts in public.
But a huge percentage of the people you invariably defer to in positions of respect in your community smoke weed sometimes.
As they should. A harmless way to achieve a different perspective on the absurdity of modern life? You're crazy if you don't smoke weed, at least once and a while.
Comparing it to alcohol is for the ignorant. Marijuana is a tool for high-functioning people. Alcohol is fun, but it's a fun crutch. A burden.
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.
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.
