Should marijuana be legalized?

[Cheshire Cat]

The representatives of those wolves have passed some laws that are blatantly unconstitutional and are against property rights. The asset forfeiture laws spring to mind as a great example. Just when the sheep will wake up and see what has happened remains to be seen.

There has been no law passed against trans fats that I'm aware of, but some information has come to light that would discourage its consumption.

Now, the sheep did pass a law against smoking in public places, at least in California. That law was passed as a ballot iniative against the strenuous objections of the wolves, ie, the nicotine pushers. There have been a number of California state laws passed by the will of the majority that could serve as examples of the inadvisability of pure majority rule, but this isn't one of them.

Remember, your freedom ends where my nose begins? The anti smoking laws are a literal example of applying that rule.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-04-trans-fat-ban_x.htm
That link is for your education about trans-fat bans. NY city was only the first, there have been others.

As far as CA banning smoking of tobacco, I find it quite odd that cities that ban smoking cigarettes allow marijuana. I say it is more about trying to punish business, than trying to be health conscious. After all, one can always choose to not go to a restaurant that allows smoking. But, if you are a restaurant owner in CA, you can't choose to allow what happens on your own property. That my friend is a violation of civil rights.

 

[PLC1]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-04-trans-fat-ban_x.htm
That link is for your education about trans-fat bans. NY city was only the first, there have been others.

As far as CA banning smoking of tobacco, I find it quite odd that cities that ban smoking cigarettes allow marijuana. I say it is more about trying to punish business, than trying to be health conscious. After all, one can always choose to not go to a restaurant that allows smoking. But, if you are a restaurant owner in CA, you can't choose to allow what happens on your own property. That my friend is a violation of civil rights.

I didn't know about the ban on trans fats in restaurants in New York, and have mixed feelings about it. It is a public health issue, to be sure, but it is also a freedom to choose issue. Maybe allowing the marketplace to decide would be better, just let some of the restaurants make lack of trans fats a selling point. On the other hand, food free of salmonella and e coli is also a public health issue. Who is ready to stop health departments from inspecting restaurants for food safety issues?


Banning smoking of tobacco is another health issue, but with a twist: If you choose to eat unhealthful food, it doesn't affect my health. Second hand smoke, on the other hand, does affect my health. Tobacco is not illegal, just smoking in certain places. You can still smoke, if you so choose, but have to do it outside where it doesn't impinge on my freedoms.

As for smoking pot, that is a federal law. No city can legalize marijuana on its own, but many probably would if the feds would allow it.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I didn't know about the ban on trans fats in restaurants in New York, and have mixed feelings about it. It is a public health issue, to be sure, but it is also a freedom to choose issue. Maybe allowing the marketplace to decide would be better, just let some of the restaurants make lack of trans fats a selling point. On the other hand, food free of salmonella and e coli is also a public health issue. Who is ready to stop health departments from inspecting restaurants for food safety issues?


Banning smoking of tobacco is another health issue, but with a twist: If you choose to eat unhealthful food, it doesn't affect my health. Second hand smoke, on the other hand, does affect my health. Tobacco is not illegal, just smoking in certain places. You can still smoke, if you so choose, but have to do it outside where it doesn't impinge on my freedoms.

As for smoking pot, that is a federal law. No city can legalize marijuana on its own, but many probably would if the feds would allow it.

Like I said, you can choose whether or not to enter a restaurant that allows smoking, so it really isn't affecting you a single bit.

Just as you were uninformed about trans fat bans you are just as uninformed about legal marijuana use. It is prescribed, sold and purchased legally in many cities in CA as a medicine. Numerous other state allow it also.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htm
<snip>

Since 1996, eleven states have legalized medical marijuana use: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ME, NV, OR, RI, VT and WA. Eight of the ten did so through the initiative process, Hawaii's law was enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2000, Vermont's was enacted by the legislature and passed into law without the governor's signature in May 2004, and Rhode Island's was enacted overriding the governor's veto in January 2006.

Do I have to educate you about everything? Geez man, do a google search once in a while. Or at least read some news.

 

[PLC1]

Like I said, you can choose whether or not to enter a restaurant that allows smoking, so it really isn't affecting you a single bit.

Yes, I might just concede that you have a point, except for one thing: Before smoking was banned by the voters in California, there were no non smoking restaurants here, none, zero, zip. After the ban in California, there began to be restaurants in other states that opted to ban smoking in their establishments. Someone had to prove that customers would come despite, or perhaps because of, banning smoking. If it weren't for that, I would agree with you that it should be left up to the restaurant owners. Perhaps today it could be.

Just as you were uninformed about trans fat bans you are just as uninformed about legal marijuana use. It is prescribed, sold and purchased legally in many cities in CA as a medicine. Numerous other state allow it also.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htm
<snip>


Do I have to educate you about everything? Geez man, do a google search once in a while. Or at least read some news.

Before you do any "informing", you need to update your own information. This one is about medical marijuana, the last desperate attempt to make its use legal:

Last Updated April 10, 2006

Medical marijuana has strong support from voters and health organizations. The federal government, however, has resisted any change to marijuana's illegal status at the federal level. The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 in Raich v. Gonzales that the federal government can prosecute medical marijuana patients, even in states with compassionate use laws, and several medical marijuana dispensaries in California have since been subject to Drug Enforcement Administration raids.

Some states and municipalities have legalized pot, but the federal government stepped in and put a stop to it. Your information is about a year out of date.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Before you do any "informing", you need to update your own information. This one is about medical marijuana, the last desperate attempt to make its use legal:

Some states and municipalities have legalized pot, but the federal government stepped in and put a stop to it. Your information is about a year out of date.

Ever been to Santa Cruz CA? It cost's about $100 to get a legal prescription for medical marijuana.

 

[Abraxis Axis]

Squares like me. Tell me little girl, where did you set up camp at woodstock? You shouldn't call names when you don't have any idea what the hell you are talking about.
Kettle meet pot.....pot meet kettle again Paleriders Hypocrisy surfaces in this thread


If you had read the thread rather than just jump to the end to put in your 2cents, you would have seen that the stuff that roker was posting to prove that pot is harmless was 20, 30, 40 years old and some was even older than that. Modern studies are showing that pot has some pretty serious physical, physiological, and psychological side effects. Hard science is not rehetoric.

You have yet to prove ANY of it wrong though have you ?Roker posted MOSTLY information that shows the conspiracy, and the Prohibition of marijuana as a product. .Had you bothered to read what he presented you you would have known that. Some information that goes back all those years, is related to the HISTORY of Hemp and Cannabis as well as the Lies that were created to wipe out an industry.

while some of what Roker presented was directed at the harmlessness of smoking that was NOT the main Gist of what he was telling you. Had you read what he presented you of course would know that all scientific and medicinal studies of the plant were outlawed in 1976

It is completly obvious that you have only bothered to read parts of what he presented and apparently have investigated None of what you did read..your off mark and frankly wrong at almost every turn here in my opinion

And you have YET to prove ANY of the Data wrong ..even when you were in the middle of a childish argument with Roker over your supposedly proving things wrong one of your members challenged you to simply produce a copy of the e-mail transcript

that post sat unanswered for quite some time. and you have YET to do so?

we have to wonder why?

 

[top gun]

I could honestly care less about the entire issue, but this is one argument that I never understood "Oh well alcohol is legal, so pot should be be legal."

I think the crux of the argument is the abuse potential and the damage to society any particular substance causes.

Alcohol has a drug component. Pot has a drug component. I think anyone that honestly and unbiasedly were to weigh (if both legal) the negative effects that these 2 mood altering substances have compared to each other alcohol would clearly be seen as much more dangerous to the user and to society.

Hence I believe the reason for the above argument.

 

[palerider]

You have yet to prove ANY of it wrong though have you ?Roker posted MOSTLY information that shows the conspiracy, and the Prohibition of marijuana as a product. .

Yeah roker I proved your crap wrong. Your conspiracy theories are best addressed by a tin foil hat and your "science" (if that is what you like to call it) was mostly 40 years out of date and some of it more than that.

 

[vyo476]

while some of what Roker presented was directed at the harmlessness of smoking that was NOT the main Gist of what he was telling you. Had you read what he presented you of course would know that all scientific and medicinal studies of the plant were outlawed in 1976

It is completly obvious that you have only bothered to read parts of what he presented and apparently have investigated None of what you did read..your off mark and frankly wrong at almost every turn here in my opinion

Quite recently, OJ Simpson hired a ghost writer and "wrote" a book entitled, "If I Had Done It, This Is How It Would Have Happened," detailing a "fictional" account of the murders he was put on trial for in the mid-90s.

That's kind of what this, and every other, post by Abraxis reminds me of: "If I Was Rokerijdude11, This Is What I Would Say."

Clearly OJ really was guilty and the account in the book was simply a sweetening up of the tale. Clearly Abraxis really is Roker, and all of his attempts to dissuade us from thinking so are bull.

 

[PLC1]

Ever been to Santa Cruz CA? It cost's about $100 to get a legal prescription for medical marijuana.

Yes, I've been to Santa Cruz. The beach boardwalk is a lot of fun. I've never tried to get a medical marijuana prescription, but I suppose it might be possible. Now, just where would you go to fill that prescription again? The local Walgreens perhaps?

I'm sure that Santa Cruz would allow medical marijuana, and probably recreatiional pot as well. The problem isn't with the municipality, but with the all powerful federal bureaucracy. Did you read my link?

 

[9sublime]

Yes, I've been to Santa Cruz. The beach boardwalk is a lot of fun. I've never tried to get a medical marijuana prescription, but I suppose it might be possible. Now, just where would you go to fill that prescription again? The local Walgreens perhaps?

I'm sure that Santa Cruz would allow medical marijuana, and probably recreatiional pot as well. The problem isn't with the municipality, but with the all powerful federal bureaucracy. Did you read my link?

Is medical skunk good?

Also Palerider, you have to accept that after 'reefer madness' and various other lies such as THC levels have gone up 30 fold since the 60's, you can understand why people don't believe the government.

 

[Kelly]

"Yeah roker I proved your crap wrong. Your conspiracy theories are best addressed by a tin foil hat and your "science" (if that is what you like to call it) was mostly 40 years out of date and some of it more than that."
--Man! That's pretty low-down. When we all get sent on a camping trip to REX 84, I don't think you'll be cracking 'tin foil hat' jokes!!!

 

[Kelly]

"Is medical skunk good?"
--Yes my friend. The govt. keeps the good stash for themselves...lol. A band I used to play in toured around with this band from Cali. One of the members had some of the govt. stuff for his 'prescription.' It was unreal. However, I tried smoking a 'turnip' with some of your mates in the U.K. and that was just about as good.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Quite recently, OJ Simpson hired a ghost writer and "wrote" a book entitled, "If I Had Done It, This Is How It Would Have Happened," detailing a "fictional" account of the murders he was put on trial for in the mid-90s.

That's kind of what this, and every other, post by Abraxis reminds me of: "If I Was Rokerijdude11, This Is What I Would Say."

Clearly OJ really was guilty and the account in the book was simply a sweetening up of the tale. Clearly Abraxis really is Roker, and all of his attempts to dissuade us from thinking so are bull.

Yeah, really, Roker you aren't fooling anyone.

 

[Abraxis Axis]

Yes, I've been to Santa Cruz. The beach boardwalk is a lot of fun. I've never tried to get a medical marijuana prescription, but I suppose it might be possible. Now, just where would you go to fill that prescription again? The local Walgreens perhaps?

I'm sure that Santa Cruz would allow medical marijuana, and probably recreatiional pot as well. The problem isn't with the municipality, but with the all powerful federal bureaucracy. Did you read my link?

Proposition 214 in California allows medical cargivers to grow certain amounts of marijuana which is then brought to distribution facilities for paitients to pick it up .
While california law allowed for this tolerant situation, the Federal Government did NOT! and that is when HARSH mandatory federal sentancing was imposed in the United States .

The federal government was superceeding the will of the people of california, who had voted into law medicinal marijuana ,and caregivers being allowed to grow .The feds came crashing in and shuttered many of the distribution facilities . the California law will overrule the process though

The federal Government only issued a few handfuls of prescriptions legally, and the number is down to 7 people left in that experimental government project .Recently England has been at the forefront of Medicinal marijuana studies, developing a spray and losenges that contain the active ingredient THC currently trials are being done in england