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.
there are 1001 uses for hemp (cannabis ) not counting getting high
democrats are the ones who made hemp illegal in 1937
everyone should be for the freedom of hemp, yet its the liberals that want to REGULATE it..as always liberals are anti-freedom
Wrong. That may be your belief but right now, it's primarily Republicans standing in the way of legalization. Democrats though are also dragging their feet. They just are typically more open to it than Republicans, likely because they don't have the religious faction that wants to keep it illegal to "protect the moral fabric of society."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Would it be a good idea for Democrats to officially embrace marijuana legalization?
You mean you actually found a Democrat who didn't already embrace it?
Obama. He should have been more proactive on this issue especially at the end of his second term.
That entire "proposal" can be replaced by 4 words: Always Follow the Money.
The rest of that is just fluff, smoke, and mirrors. It will NOT be legalized federally until the prohibitionists are beginning to lose their seats. Then it will quickly turn into a cascade of pivoting politicians.
If you think that proposal turns the issue into a dead horse, or somehow represents the final word on federal legalization, well, that's just wishful thinking on your part.
That entire "proposal" can be replaced by 4 words: Always Follow the Money.
The rest of that is garbage. It will NOT be legalized federally until the prohibitionists are beginning to lose their seats. Then it will quickly turn into a cascade of politicians POPing.
If you think that proposal turns the issue into a dead horse, or somehow represents the final word on federal legalization, well, that's just wishful thinking on your part.
The final word on federal legislation rests with Republicans.
The federal government cannot force any state to legalize marijuana. So all this talk I hear from the college age crowd about "it's going to be legal everywhere" is nonsense.
Marijuana will remain a controlled substance. There is no legislation proposed to change that.
The final word on federal legislation rests with Republicans.
The federal government cannot force any state to legalize marijuana. So all this talk I hear from the college age crowd about "it's going to be legal everywhere" is nonsense.
Marijuana will remain a controlled substance. There is no legislation proposed to change that.
I think as far as being legal everywhere...that will happen after 2040 or maybe even 2050. The older generation of white evangelicals currently the most opposed to it will have to fade out of the voter base before full legalization will come to Alabama and Oklahoma. I do think it will be legalized federally under the next Democratic administration. Democrats are more open to it than Republicans are currently. By 2030 most states will have legalized. There will be a few in the South eg. Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, etc where it will still be illegal.
The final word on federal legislation rests with Republicans.
The federal government cannot force any state to legalize marijuana. So all this talk I hear from the college age crowd about "it's going to be legal everywhere" is nonsense.
Marijuana will remain a controlled substance. There is no legislation proposed to change that.
Forcing states to legalize is not the issue, and never was. It is just like when alcohol prohibition was repealed: States will retain the right to prohibit it on a state, county, or city level (the modern day version of wet/dry states).
So when those college age kids with heads full of mush say "its going to be legal everywhere" what they really mean is that federal prohibition will be overturned, and that it will be removed from Schedule I.
It is absolutely freaking embarrassing that it is still Schedule I. Schedule I means "There is no medicinal value whatsoever". Most US citizens, not to mention the rest of the world, knows that is absolute garbage. Yet it embarrassingly remains in place. Why? Money, money, and more money. So much of it that suffering through international embarrassment is no problem at all.
BTW, I am obviously 100% for legalization, and I am not a college age kid. I am 61 years young.
Democrats embrace all manner of depravity but pot is far down the list of importance.
What does the Chairman Mao handbook say on the issue ?
Pot is depraved? Interesting idea. It's been used for thousands of years, by all kinds of people. I don't think it's a Democratic vs Republican issue. Alcohol is poison, pot is not poison.
I hope they do. It would give me another reason to disagree with them.
Actually, I only have a problem with marijuana smoke. I don’t have a problem with the extracts (THC and CBD). I can’t figure out why libs oppose cigarettes but support marijuana.
I hope they do. It would give me another reason to disagree with them.
Actually, I only have a problem with marijuana smoke. I don’t have a problem with the extracts (THC and CBD). I can’t figure out why libs oppose cigarettes but support marijuana.
Maybe that is because they bear very little resemblance to each other.
In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors.
I hope they do. It would give me another reason to disagree with them.
Actually, I only have a problem with marijuana smoke. I don’t have a problem with the extracts (THC and CBD). I can’t figure out why libs oppose cigarettes but support marijuana.
Fail.
I don't think I've ever heard any Democrats call for a complete ban on cigarettes. Taxing tobacco and banning its use in public is not the same as banning it entirely. Public smoking bans surely would also apply to marijuana.
Why is it that Republicans think keeping marijuana illegal works and is necessary to protect the children and the moral fabric of society yet refuse to even consider tighter gun regulations?
Why is it that Republicans think keeping marijuana illegal works and is necessary to protect the children and the moral fabric of society yet refuse to even consider tighter gun regulations?
That has been answered several times in this thread:
Money.
Regardless, guns and marijuana have nothing to do with each other.
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.
