"Pot Never Should Have Been Illegal In The First Place"

[crossfire]

If it keeps people from getting addicted to opioids, I'm all for it.

 

[Vinayaka]

I've seen the effect on users. May the smart survive.

Did they up their consumption?

 

[Revoltingest]

Under what legal reasoning could the fed have made it illegal anyway?

 

[Father Heathen]

You're right. Playing dumb about it all would best serve the assessment that these issues don't exist.

So you're going to make some vague, cryptic remarks and then get pissy and pouty when asked to elaborate? I suspect you have some sort of emotional, irrational hang-up regarding cannabis and your posts were just a knee-jerk reaction. That would explain why your posts lacked any depth or substance. Did I hit the nail on the head? I suspect that you don't drink alcohol, otherwise you would be a massive hypocrite.

 

[Curious George]

Under what legal reasoning could the fed have made it illegal anyway?

Commerce clause. Yeah i think it is b.s. too, but there it is

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you're going to make some vague, cryptic remarks and then get pissy and pouty when asked to elaborate? I suspect you have some sort of emotional, irrational hang-up regarding cannabis and your posts were just a knee-jerk reaction. That would explain why your posts lacked any depth or substance. Did I hit the nail on the head? I suspect that you don't drink alcohol, otherwise you would be a massive hypocrite.

Defended quite well like some crazed meth addict pounding at the doors of a detox facility to get that fix.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why not. Let's add people high on recreational drugs to the list and let em' loose on society.

What's the worst thing they're going to do?
Spend copious amounts of money on Cheetos, go home and eat them on the couch and watch TV until they fall asleep? Ohh scary!

 

[Father Heathen]

Defended quite well like some crazed meth addict pounding at the doors of a detox facility to get that fix.

So I did indeed hit the nail on the head. One, I don't smoke cannabis. I don't even drink or use tobacco. Two, methamphetamine and cannabis aren't even remotely comparable. It's adorable that you've kept a dog-eared 1980's D.A.R.E. pamphlet close to your heart, though. BTW, I assume you support bringing back the prohibition of alcohol, right? It is after all far more dangerous, unhealthy, and addictive than cannabis. Or are you just a nanny state loving, freedom hating hypocrite?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe that there is a huge difference between those who use cannabis recreationally and those who abuse it, just like alcohol. All drugs can becabused....even prescription drugs that kill more people each year than all illicit drugs put together.

But for those who need it medicinally, it does not involve smoking it. Medicinal cannabis comes in a variety of applications and it helps with so many conditions. There are edibles, oils, and vaping. Chronic pain and many neurological conditions can be treated with MC, without harmful side effects.

It has been used for thousands of years as a medicine. It was banned for very sinister reasons.

Now that it's legal for all purposes here in Canada, I've discovered it in tea form. I drink a nice CBD tea to ease my back pain. It really helps.

 

[Deeje]

I'm all for the use of cannabis as a medicine. It can already be made in pill form where the THC is taken out.

I believe that it would be helpful if people could do their research more thoroughly. Cannabis is whole plant medicine. It has what is called the enterage effect, which means that breaking up its multiple components will undermine much of its overall benefits. THC is the part of cannabis that get you high, but it is also beneficial in treating neurological disorders. Many presecrption drugs can also get people high.

CBD is good for other conditions.....it isn't one plant, it has so many varieties with different levels of its medicinal compounds. This is why we need cannabis experts to prescribe the correct variety for the specific medical condition. Don't let big pharma get their grubby hands on it or it will be genetically modified to be completely useless. They don't want to cure anyone....they make their fortunes by keeping people sick. That way, just putting a lid on symptoms without fixing the underlying condition, they have guaranteed customers for life....usually a miserable life battling side effects. There are no side effects with medicinal cannabis.
Have you heard about Charlotte Figi?

You won't get high from it or anything but you will get all the benefits medicinally that would help people out with their respective health issue.

Do you see how limited your view is. Please do some decent research. Israel is leading the world in this.

This video will explain why countries like the US and Australia have such a lot of government red tape.

 

[Revoltingest]

Commerce clause. Yeah i think it is b.s. too, but there it is

How is pot grown & smoked in one state "interstate commerce"?

 

[Curious George]

How is pot grown & smoked in one state "interstate commerce"?

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

 

[Deeje]

Now that it's legal for all purposes here in Canada, I've discovered it in tea form. I drink a nice CBD tea to ease my back pain. It really helps.

I am envious. As one who also suffers with back pain, I would like to have the option to at least try it. They cannot give us a valid reason for withholding it. The more that the overseas research is published, the more it is revealed how corrupt it is to keep this harmless plant inaccessible to the ones who need it.

Parents here in Australia have had their children taken off them because they were successfully treating their epileptic kids with Cannabis Oil. The children had returned to an almost seizure free state, but when taken from their parents, the CO was withheld, they put them back on the prescription medicine, and their seizures returned along with the awful side effects. Now that is the epitome of wicked and willful ignorance, coupled with pressure from the drug companies to continue to peddle their poison.

How do these people sleep at night?.....no conscience.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

Your summary please?

 

[Curious George]

Your summary please?

Lazy, *cough, cough.

It is legal for the federal government to regulate even products that are not put into interstate commerce because production and use can still impact interstate commerce.

 

[Curious George]

Your summary please?

Btw, as a libertarian , if you ever want your gears ground, read that opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lazy, *cough, cough.

It is legal for the federal government to regulate even products that are not put into interstate commerce because production and use can still impact interstate commerce.

That's their mischievous basis to federalize all things.
The Constitution gives them authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Not to regulate anything which might involve or affect it.
By their specious rationalization, is there then anything they cannot regulate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Btw, as a libertarian , if you ever want your gears ground, read that opinion.

I've read such things.
Yes....gears get ground, bacon gets burned, & rassin gets frassin.

 

[Curious George]

That's their mischievous basis to federalize all things.
The Constitution gives them authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Not to regulate anything which might involve or affect it.
By their specious rationalization, is there then anything they cannot regulate.

Lol, well the commerce clause seems to offer plenary power. Yet there have been some decisions that suggest that it does have some limits. Not very many though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol, well the commerce clause seems to offer plenary power. Yet there have been some decisions that suggest that it does have some limits. Not very many though.

As I recall, the Clinton administration tried to argue to the USSC that
the fed had the power to ban guns within some distance of a school.
The argument was something about nearness of guns would reduce
learning ability, thereby affecting relative earning power of people who
were educated at the school, which meant the state would be slightly
less competitive than other states. The USSC didn't buy it.

If you plan a crime with a friend, all within one state, did you know it
could be federal because electricity used came from a different state?
There's virtually no limit to what the feds can claim jurisdiction over
when strict constructionists & originalists are in the minority on the court.