United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Most Republicans Oppose Federal Interference With Marijuana Legalization
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2017/02/24/ ... licans-oppose-federal-interfer
Published: Feb 24, 2017
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2017-02-24 09:56:06 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 9598
Comments: 60
Yesterday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer suggested that the Justice Department under newly installed Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be more inclined to enforce the federal ban on marijuana in states that have legalized the drug for recreational use. A large majority of Americans, including most Republicans, think that's a bad idea, according to poll numbers released the same day as Spicer's comments. Answering a question from an Arkansas reporter wondering how the DOJ will respond to that state's new medical marijuana law, Spicer said "there's two distinct issues here: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana." He reiterated President Trump's support for laws that allow patients to use marijuana for symptom relief, which 28 states have enacted. Spicer also noted that Congress has repeatedly approved a spending rider that restrains the DOJ from taking action against medical marijuana suppliers in those states. But he said "there is a big difference between that and recreational marijuana," which eight states have legalized, and predicted there will be "greater enforcement" of the federal ban in those states under Sessions, saying "they are going to continue to enforce the laws on the books with respect to recreational marijuana." While Spicer emphasized the difference between medical and recreational marijuana, he overlooked a more important distinction: between opposing state laws that allow recreational use of marijuana and supporting federal intervention aimed at overriding them. That distinction is clear in the latest Quinnipiac University poll, which finds that 71 percent of Americans "oppose the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana." By comparison, 59 percent think marijuana "should be made legal in the United States." That means many Americans who oppose legalization nevertheless think states should be free to adopt that policy. A disproportionate number of those people are members of Trump's party: While only 35 percent of Republicans in the Quinnipiac poll supported marijuana legalization, 55 percent opposed federal interference with it. A CBS News poll conducted last April found even stronger Republican opposition to the sort of meddling Spicer predicted. Asked if "laws regarding whether the use of marijuana is legal" should be "determined by the federal government" or "left to each individual state government to decide," 70 percent of Republicans said the latter, compared to 55 percent of Democrats (who as usual were more likely to favor legalization). These results make sense to the extent that conservatives take seriously their avowed commitment to federalism, which Trump also claims to support. At the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said he favored medical marijuana but had concerns about broader legalization, a decision he nevertheless said should be left to the states. "If they vote for it, they vote for it," he said. Trump confirmed that position at a 2015 rally in Nevada: "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state by state." Sessions, a former Alabama senator, also pays lip service to federalism. After the death of William Rehnquist in 2005, Sessions gave a floor speech in which he praised the chief justice for recognizing the limits of federal power: He understood that the Federal Government, through the Commerce Clause, has broad power, but there are limits to the reach of the Commerce Clause. It does not cover every single matter the United States Senate may desire to legislate on, to the extent that the federal government controls even simple, discreet actions within a State. He reestablished a respect for state law and state sovereignty through a number of his federalism opinions. In 2013 Sessions cosponsored the Restoring the 10th Amendment Act, which would have facilitated lawsuits by state officials challenging regulations they believe exceed the powers the Constitution grants to the federal government. As the introduction to that bill explained, "The 10th Amendment assures that the people of the United States, and each sovereign State in the Union of States, have, and have always had, rights that the Federal Government may not usurp." But Sessions's support for federalism does not extend to marijuana policy. During his confirmation hearings, Sessions was hazy on his plans for marijuana enforcement. But he is an old-fashioned drug warrior who complained about the Obama administration's prosecutorial restraint in states that have legalized marijuana, saying "the Department of Justice needs to be clear" that "marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized." When the subject is marijuana, it seems, Sessions does not recognize any "limits to the reach of the Commerce Clause." In that respect Sessions outdoes one of the most famous anti-marijuana crusaders in U.S. history. Harry Anslinger, who ran the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, pushed the states and Congress to ban marijuana by claiming the plant turned people into rapists and murderers. Like Sessions, he was not a stickler for facts or logic. But even Anslinger did not go so far as to claim that the federal government had the authority to impose marijuana prohibition on recalcitrant states. "There are no Federal laws on the growth or use of marijuana, the plant being grown so easily that there is almost no interstate commerce in it," The New York Times reported in 1931. "Mr. Anslinger said the government under the Constitution cannot dictate what may be grown within individual States." The most straightforward way to stop Sessions from cracking down on state-licensed marijuana businesses, assuming Trump does not plan to keep his campaign promise, is for Congress to pass the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, which Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) reintroduced a few weeks ago. The bill, which so far has 14 cosponsors, half of them Republicans, would add a single sentence to the Controlled Substances Act: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this subchapter related to marihuana shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws relating to the production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana." Rohrabacher's bill would not be necessary if federal officials respected the Constitution. But they don't, so it is. Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist. A DOJ crackdown on state-licensed cannabusinesses would be contrary to public opinion, Trump's promises, and the Constitution.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
And we all trust the polls, right? By the way, the same poll showed: -- 62 – 31 percent against reducing taxes across the board, even if it increases the deficit; Who in the hell did they poll ... the DNC??
Really? Then why isn't marijuana legal? Why has it been illegal for 47 years? I'll tell you why. Because the majority of people don't want it to be legal. Simple as that. Now, when the majority of people want it to be legal, then it will be. That's how it works in this country.
As I've said before, the tide of public opinion has shifted pretty dramatically to legalization or decriminalization. Rohrabacher is no backbencher. He does have some clout and a fair number of co-sponsors. This bill would keep Sessions, ever the old Drug Warrior, out of states regulating marijuana. And it would keep the GOP from turning off the under-40 voters who support legal pot at about the same rate as they support gay marriage. Trump keeps saying he's going to enact everything he promised. Well, that is a lot of stuff. But that list never included going after the pot industry in states where it was legalized. Trump did talk a lot about legal opiate addiction and heroin and overdoses. He never campaigned similarly about legalized pot.
I don't see anything in there about keeping marijuana from crossing into the surrounding states. Can a state guarantee that? If they can't, aren't they violating the rights of other citizens? Can they also vote to pollute their air and water even if their pollution drifts into other states? How about "notwithstanding any other provision of law" allowing slavery in those states which approve it?
Illinois says the same all the time about guns coming in from Indiana. NYC says the same about other states. Would you accept their argument on that topic? I didn't think so. The law has a lot of this good-for-the-goose-good-for-the-gander crap in it.
He said something about states with legal medical marijuana. But nothing about states with legal recreational marijuana. "And it would keep the GOP from turning off the under-40 voters who support legal pot" Yeah. And we can legalize abortion to pick up those votes, too!
I accept the fact that they have a valid argument which supports my point.
Leading to a massive population population of mentally debilitated irresponsible grinning zombies. What a great step foreward that is.
I know voters that are pro-pot and antiabortion and they are Trump voters. I know a family of them, through a mutual friend. I don't imagine they represent any huge number of Trump voters though. Trump barely won with a margin of around 70,000 votes across MI/WI/PA. Otherwise, he would not be prez. Just how many votes do you think the GOP can throw away by going mad on Grumpy Old Men rampage? Look at that wacko McStain running around Europe like he was elected president and then trying to stir up more war in Syria. If Trump wants to keep the White House, he'd better consider how many voters, especially younger voters, he can afford to lose. I expect the Dems will exploit any crackdowns on pot to defeat incumbent GOP congressmen in 2018. No doubt, they will exploit that. What's wrong, isn't Trump pissing off enough people for you? I think there is a limit, even for Trump.
Single-issue pro-marijuana voters? Who's to say Trump won't pick up just as many voters in Oklahoma, Nebraska and Kansas which are suing Colorado because they legalized pot?
If Trump picks up 2 million new conservative supporters by pissing off 1 million liberals, I call that a win.
A DOJ crackdown on state-licensed but federally illegal pot stores would be right in line with public opinion, Trump's promises, and the Constitution.
I'll reiterate my sentiment that the idea that pot is recreation was promoted by forces inimical to the well being of our nation. Further I'd say that pot is the thin edge of a wedge that admits the abuse of much worse sorts of toxins. Somebody's laughing on the way to the vault. I'm talking about the guys with the keys to the bank. Be that as it may, I've heard some grumpy liberal female social workers complain about the kids they have to deal with: the rootless, the underparented, the homeless. Kids that have problems. Kids whose problems are made much more acute and intractable because of the stuff that they habitually abuse. The more pot that is in circulation for whatever purpose, recreational, medical or whatever, the higher the probability is that this stuff gets into the hands of young people. The average potency of marijuana that is trafficked now is much higher than it used to be which also adds to the problem. There will continue to be a sober body of opinion that pot is a problem. That includes a large number of people that far exceeds some grumpy old white guys that hammer on keyboards on their favorite forum. I just pray that we as a nation gravitate toward a center of gravity that begins to inch away from the hedonistic mindset that has become almost a cultural norm. All dope is a weapon in the hands of those that hate this country.
I can't imagine those voters exist in those numbers in states that matter.
Year in, year out, the numbers just don't seem to show that. It seems to me that this kind of polling, being non-political, is more likely to be accurate than the polls that predicted Xlinton's win or Trump's defeat. On sodomy marriage and legal pot, younger GOP voters have moved a long way from their older counterparts (who are, due to age, dying off). Both the Cold Warriors and the Drug Warriors are dying off and there are few converts anywhere among the younger generation. Legal prescription drugs, opiates, tobacco and alcohol are widely perceived to be far more dangerous to all age groups than legal pot.
So you totally missed my point because I used numbers that, to you, were unimaginable? Wow. Well then, does a light go on if were to say, "If Trump picks up two new conservative supporters for every liberal he pisses off, I call that a win"? Get it? 2:1? That's a win?
Get it? 2:1? That's a win? I see no signs of rising support. Not yet. You recall how unpopular Reagan was until the economy caught fire in '83. We won't see mush-headed indy voters and others moving toward Trump until we see a broad revival of jobs that pay decently for middle and working class people. Until then, Trump has those who supported him in the election. The only support he's picked up are the NeverTrumpers who have relented since they saw his cabinet picks and Gorsuch. Those are the only supporters he's picked up and probably the only ones he will pick up until the economy perks up.
BTW, fresh polling FWIW. HotAir: Quinnipiac poll: 71% oppose enforcing federal marijuana laws in states where the drug is legal The key stat (note how it splits by age):
Pot is a disease.
Fake polls.
You and sneakypete were pretty hostile to Trump. I'm sure that has been happening with millions across the country.
Alcoholism is a disease. Lung cancer from tobacco is a disease. Yet we love to tax them and let people ruin their lives and die from them decade after decade. Pot is demonstrably far less harmful, yet it is considered same-as-heroin.
I live in one of the Reddest states. Overall, 60-40 for Trump in 2016. In my area of the state, 70-30. So I can be no more than an overvote for Trump in terms of the electoral college. And the popular vote is a consolation prize for the loser. In 2020, as in 2016, Trump will lose at least 45 states before he has to worry about losing my state. At least, that is the historical voting record going back to the Sixties. I think Pete is living in a 2016 Trump state that was very close. So his vote might actually matter in 2020, assuming he's interested in voting for Trump then. However you do give pete plenty of reasons here to consider not voting for Trump as a form of revenge on you, Stone. The one vote on this entire forum that is in a vital state for Trump and you do your best to piss him off and give him reasons to hold a grudge against you (and your candidate). Not so smart IMO.
So how are the people who support medical marijuana -- but not recreational marijuana -- supposed to respond in that survey? How about a poll that simply asks the question, "Do you support the nationwide legalization of recreational marijuana?" Why do they always have to couch it in conditional and contradictory terms? Well, we know why.
Not near as many as pete is giving others the reason to vote FOR Trump.
I think there are a lot of fake polls and that poll quality has dropped sharply. The rise on online/Facebook polling, the party bias in selecting pollees, the liberal bias of the big media outlets who pay for these polls and want them to make Happy Thoughts for their lib subscribers, fear by conservatives that any poll answer could come back to haunt them, etc. But on a question like this, I think it is more accurate overall. It is far less high stakes. And a variety of polls have shown pretty similar results in recent years. I just don't see that much obsessing over pot among conservatives, compared to immigration or sodomy marriage or out-of-control federal agencies or a whole range of other issues. And I do live in a state that is unhappy to border one of these legal recreational pot states so it does get some attention. And a lot of yawns from the public overall. You mostly hear things like, "I don't want to pay to jail all these people passing through our state with their little stashes". At $30K/year for each conviction, it isn't hard to understand that they don't want to lock up hundreds of people a day. We would be sunk entirely if we tried such enforcement measures. Our gov and legislature are still unhappy but the state isn't up in arms at all. Around here, people are a lot more hot about the ongoing meth epidemic among a surprising number of the younger people. In the end, people here just don't consider pot as dangerous as oxycodone and other legal opiates or meth or even alcohol or tobacco. I think that is true across the country. This polling conforms to that. And no one wants to pay to lock up pot users or even the growers and pot shop people. Even if you, for instance, raid every pot shop in Colorado and arrest all staff and all the growers, what will be the result? Supplying pot will result in gang wars over drug turf, the Mexican cartels will profit from dominating the market again (since their product is now second-rate pot and has to be smuggled). And you'd be adding tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people to the federal prison systems and a lot more to state prison systems. Given the sorry financial condition of the states generally and of the federal government with its $20T debt, just how much Prohibition do you think you can afford? We've crossed that Rubicon. And we are not going back. So sit back and light a doobie and enjoy the apocalypse in style. This country (and this administration) have much bigger fish to fry than starting another doomed war on Reefer Madness.
In the end, there really is little difference between the two. The potheads will all get prescriptions and become small-time dealers for their buds. Beyond that, much of the medical marijuana is consumed for recreational purposes. You can't exactly separate the two. The exception would be the Charlotte's Web variety which is used to treat severe children's epilepsy. If you think the Ninth Circus make a mockery of Trump's executive order on immigration, just wait for the fight if Sessions goes nuts on pot laws.
Uh-huh. And it is still 1955 in your world, isn't it? I'm not sure why I bother to respond. This matter is being settled actuarially, actually has already been settled in that way. Most LF posters (which is only a handful of regulars anyway) are well over 70. I bet you could count on one hand the number of under-60 posters here. I'm one. redleg and Stone and probably Neil are. I'm trying to think of any others who aren't well into Geezerville. Isn't it time for you to go outside and yell at those darn kids to get off your lawn?
It has been demonstrated that ounce for ounce, pot has four times the tar and twice the carcinogens as tobacco. It has been demonstrated that pot is smoked unfiltered, drawn deep into the lungs, and held there. It has been demontrated that joints are smoked down to the last chemically-soaked nanometer. It has been demonstrated that street marijuana can contain aspergillus fungus, salmonella bacteria, and other drugs unknown to the buyer. Marijuana "safety" studies have not even been done -- much less completed and published -- for you to make a definitive statement like that.
And when the people wake up to that well-stated fact, they will turn against medical marijuana also.
Blah-blah-blah, blah-blah. You are living in the Fifties. You don't know anything about the modern pot industry. People are eating consumables, using vape pens with hash oil, using electric pipes that don't ignite the pot. No ignition, no stinky clothes or stinky houses, very little or no residue in pipes, etc. Smoking of any kind is pretty unpopular with the young people. And only redneck kids still smoke cigarettes, at least around here. The other remaining smokers here are all over 40 and are just the holdouts.
No, they haven't. It's been going on already for some time. Most such "prescriptions" are anything but. And that is priced into this issue with the voters already.
Exactly. Now, I'm not for keeping weed illegal. It's a waste of time policing it... but let's be honest, for the most part, medical weed is bullshit. A foot in the door for the potheads to get recreational weed passed. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
If a patient has a verifiable condition like epilepsy, cancer, MS, etc., I am supportive of their treating physician writing an actual prescription for the use of marijuana cannabinoids to alleviate their symptoms. Unfortunately, 90% of the "patients" are existing pot users who get their "recommendation" from some quack in order to treat their "pain" by smoking dope. Their actions make a joke of the program, a mockery of the rule of law, and are an affront to the kind-hearted people who support it.
That's all it ever was, and they even admit it. You can't find one medical organization that supports smoked marijuana as medicine. Not. One. At best, they say more research is needed.
I agree. And they probably account for 5% of all users.
You're correct in many of the observations you've brought to bear on this topic. It's always an education to read your posts. Lots of bad habits are more than just bad habits. They are destructive not just on an individual basis. They're also immensely costly when multiplied in the millions. My beef is the way we've been sold on yet another bad idea, as if we weren't already beset with a whole bunch of them. There is a faction abroad that is bent on selling us really bad ideas, and that faction is quite good at it. Pot smoking and the use of associated psychoactive stuff is a problem that, not very long ago, we didn't have to face. At least at any significant level. I've known quite a lot of people growing up that started out with this practice who've ended up badly. They started out with herb and got into more serious kinds of abuse. Some of them are not with us any more. I could tell you a lot of stories, but I'll spare you that. I'm sure that most of us here could fill in the blanks. It seems to me that pot is a problem without a solution. There may be a sort of resolution however where we try to divorce pot use from more destructive habits by ending prohibition. But, like alcohol, it will still be a problem. In short, I'm not good with it. I always discourage pot when I talk to kids.
We have so many bigger fish to fry. Legal opiates like oxycontin, the heroin and fetanyl epidemic, the ongoing meth crisis, molly, anabolic steroids, etc. Not to mention all the designer drugs by renegade chemists waiting in the wings. You outlaw one, they just release the next one to sell legally. We need sensible priorities. It's shocking how many people are dying from opiates or running up massive hospital costs from overdoses. In some parts of the country, more people are dying from that than car wrecks or gun-related deaths (homicides and suicides). I think a lot of police do have a perspective like yours. They certainly don't like pot use but they know we have much bigger fish to fry and a crisis in enforcement on many more important issues.
You would be very surprised, I think. Unlike you, I know some of these people personally. Here's a stealth unit for hash oil that disguises as an asthma inhaler. They also have little vape pens (1/4" diameter, 5" long with battery. Here's are the most popular units for vaporizing pot without burning it. There's a bunch of these around. They are all very small, very portable. No burning, no tars or other chemicals from burning, no stinky clothes or house. Even the old dirty hippies have given up on joints and pipes. Those are yesteryear's pot smokers. These electrics are the future 'cause the young people hate smoking of any kind. YouBoob is chock full of similar videos.
Sure. And alcohol and tobacco? How about dangerous sports? Does liberty top your agenda or safety? As with tobacco and alcohol, the single best solution is to educate against them at a young age. Going back to the failed War On Drugs is no solution. It never worked. And it has only gotten worse. Pot doesn't even register when compared to opiates (legal and illegal) or to alcohol or tobacco.
Comments (41 - 60) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"... according to poll numbers released the same day as Spicer's comments."
-- 51 – 38 percent against restarting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines;
-- 60 – 37 percent against building the wall on the Mexican border
-- 65 – 33 percent against the wall if the U.S. must pay for it;
-- 76 – 18 percent against lowering taxes on the wealthy;
-- 50 – 43 percent against lowering taxes on businesses and corporations;
-- 54 – 34 percent against removing regulations on businesses and co corporations< corporations
-- 63 – 27 percent against removing specific regulations intended to combat climate change;
-- 54 – 43 percent against repealing the Affordable Care Act.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
"Most Republicans Oppose Federal Interference With Marijuana Legalization"
#3. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#0)
While Spicer emphasized the difference between medical and recreational marijuana, he overlooked a more important distinction: between opposing state laws that allow recreational use of marijuana and supporting federal intervention aimed at overriding them. That distinction is clear in the latest Quinnipiac University poll, which finds that 71 percent of Americans "oppose the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana." By comparison, 59 percent think marijuana "should be made legal in the United States." That means many Americans who oppose legalization nevertheless think states should be free to adopt that policy. A disproportionate number of those people are members of Trump's party: While only 35 percent of Republicans in the Quinnipiac poll supported marijuana legalization, 55 percent opposed federal interference with it.
The most straightforward way to stop Sessions from cracking down on state-licensed marijuana businesses, assuming Trump does not plan to keep his campaign promise, is for Congress to pass the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, which Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) reintroduced a few weeks ago. The bill, which so far has 14 cosponsors, half of them Republicans, would add a single sentence to the Controlled Substances Act: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this subchapter related to marihuana shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws relating to the production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana."
#4. To: Tooconservative (#3)
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this subchapter related to marihuana shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws relating to the production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana."
#5. To: misterwhite (#4)
I don't see anything in there about keeping marijuana from crossing into the surrounding states. Can a state guarantee that? If they can't, aren't they violating the rights of other citizens?
#6. To: Tooconservative (#3)
"But that list never included going after the pot industry in states where it was legalized."
#7. To: Tooconservative (#5)
"Would you accept their argument on that topic?"
#8. To: Deckard (#0)
Most Republicans Oppose Federal Interference With Marijuana Legalization
#9. To: misterwhite (#6)
Yeah. And we can legalize abortion to pick up those votes, too!
#10. To: Tooconservative (#9)
"If Trump wants to keep the White House, he'd better consider how many voters, especially younger voters, he can afford to lose."
#11. To: Tooconservative (#9)
"What's wrong, isn't Trump pissing off enough people for you?"
#12. To: Deckard (#0)
"A DOJ crackdown on state-licensed cannabusinesses would be contrary to public opinion, Trump's promises, and the Constitution."
#13. To: Tooconservative (#9)
going mad on Grumpy Old Men rampage
#14. To: misterwhite (#11)
If Trump picks up 2 million new conservative supporters by pissing off 1 million liberals, I call that a win.
#15. To: randge (#13)
There will continue to be a sober body of opinion that pot is a problem. That includes a large number of people that far exceeds some grumpy old white guys that hammer on keyboards on their favorite forum.
#16. To: Tooconservative (#14)
"I can't imagine those voters exist in those numbers in states that matter."
#17. To: misterwhite (#16)
(Edited)
Well then, does a light go on if were to say, "If Trump picks up two new conservative supporters for every liberal he pisses off, I call that a win"?
#18. To: misterwhite (#16)
#19. To: Tooconservative (#15)
#20. To: Tooconservative (#18)
#21. To: Tooconservative (#17)
I see no signs of rising support. Not yet.
#22. To: randge (#19)
Pot is a disease.
#23. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#21)
You and sneakypete were pretty hostile to Trump. I'm sure that has been happening with millions across the country.
#24. To: Tooconservative (#18)
#25. To: Tooconservative (#23)
"However you do give pete plenty of reasons here to consider not voting for Trump"
#26. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#20)
Fake polls.
#27. To: misterwhite (#24)
So how are the people who support medical marijuana -- but not recreational marijuana -- supposed to respond in that survey?
#28. To: misterwhite (#25)
Not near as many as pete is giving others the reason to vote FOR Trump.
#29. To: Tooconservative (#22)
"Pot is demonstrably far less harmful ..."
#30. To: Tooconservative (#27)
"The potheads will all get prescriptions and become small-time dealers for their buds."
#31. To: misterwhite (#29)
It has been demonstrated that ounce for ounce, pot has four times the tar and twice the carcinogens as tobacco.
#32. To: misterwhite (#30)
And when the people wake up to that well-stated fact, they will turn against medical marijuana also.
#33. To: Tooconservative (#27)
Beyond that, much of the medical marijuana is consumed for recreational purposes. You can't exactly separate the two.
#34. To: Tooconservative (#27)
"The exception would be the Charlotte's Web variety which is used to treat severe children's epilepsy."
#35. To: GrandIsland (#33)
"A foot in the door for the potheads to get recreational weed passed."
#36. To: Tooconservative (#31)
(Edited)
"People are eating consumables, using vape pens with hash oil, using electric pipes that don't ignite the pot. No ignition, no stinky clothes or stinky houses, very little or no residue in pipes, etc."
#37. To: Tooconservative (#22)
#38. To: GrandIsland (#33)
Now, I'm not for keeping weed illegal. It's a waste of time policing it... but let's be honest, for the most part, medical weed is bullshit. A foot in the door for the potheads to get recreational weed passed.
#39. To: misterwhite (#36)
I agree. And they probably account for 5% of all users.
#40. To: randge (#37)
I've known quite a lot of people growing up that started out with this practice who've ended up badly. They started out with herb and got into more serious kinds of abuse. Some of them are not with us any more. I could tell you a lot of stories, but I'll spare you that. I'm sure that most of us here could fill in the blanks.
It seems to me that pot is a problem without a solution. There may be a sort of resolution however where we try to divorce pot use from more destructive habits by ending prohibition. But, like alcohol, it will still be a problem.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]