A K A Stone, does the site software support a post length limit, and if so is that something you'd consider? Some idiots can't stop themselves from posting the phone book.

Stone, while you are at it, perhaps you can address ConservingFreedom's Deckard's supposed right to false speech issue. It seems the drug idiots here post several articles a day trying to sell the crap that this or that state has, or will, legalize marijuana.

For example, the thread article here has the knowingly false claim:

Massachusetts is among five states that will vote on whether to fully legalize marijuana later this year.

Is there any limits on challenging knowing and deliberate false claims?

The druggies seem to get very irritated when I respond with one of the numerous Federal court opinions documenting that a State cannot legalize anything, specifically including either medical or recreational marijuana, in direct violation of Federal law. They call me names, a micro-aggression, and hurt my feelings.

The bogus claims are made several times daily, polluting the site. When faced with proof that their claim is legal nonsense, they just go start another thread and repeat it. When faced with legal proof, now ConservingFreedom seems to complain that the Court explained it all too well and the poor child thinks you are his mommie and is crying for help because he has no valid argument.

See, for example, the Federal courts expressly stating that the druggie's claims are legal bullshit.

United States v. McIntosh, 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug 2016)

At 26:

Here, we must read § 542 with a view to its place in the overall statutory scheme for marijuana regulation, namely the CSA and the State Medical Marijuana Laws. The CSA prohibits the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of any marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844(a).[4] The State Medical Marijuana Laws are those state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. Thus, the CSA prohibits what the State Medical Marijuana Laws permit.

In light of the ordinary meaning of the terms of § 542 and the relationship between the relevant federal and state laws, we consider whether a superior authority, which prohibits certain conduct, can prevent a subordinate authority from implementing a rule that officially permits such conduct by punishing individuals who are engaged in the conduct officially permitted by the lower authority. We conclude that it can.

____________________

[4] This requires a slight caveat. Under the CSA, “the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana [is] a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c), 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a). Thus, except as part of “a strictly controlled research project,” federal law “designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose.” Raich, 545 U.S. at 24, 27.

Footnote 5 at 32-33:

[5] The prior observation should also serve as a warning. To be clear, § 542 does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses. The CSA prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime. The federal government can prosecute such offenses for up to five years after they occur. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Congress currently restricts the government from spending certain funds to prosecute certain individuals. But Congress could restore funding tomorrow, a year from now, or four years from now, and the government could then prosecute individuals who committed offenses while the government lacked funding. Moreover, a new president will be elected soon, and a new administration could shift enforcement priorities to place greater emphasis on prosecuting marijuana offenses. Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.

Or, for another example,

Wilson v. Lynch, No. 14-15700 (9th Cir. 31 Aug 2016) At 4:

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. As a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana, under federal law, is deemed to have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment[, and] [t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the . . . substance under medical supervision." Id. § 812(b)(1)(B) & (C).[1]

[...]

[1] As we recently observed: “The [Controlled Substances Act] prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime.” United States v. McIntosh, No. 15-10117, 2016 WL 4363168, at *11 n.5 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016).

And, of course, there is the U.S. Supreme Court in Raich setting the precedent:

Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) at 14:

In enacting the CSA, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. 21 U. S. C. § 812(c). This preliminary classification was based, in part, on the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of HEW “that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway.” Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment. § 812(b)(1). These three factors, in varying gradations, are also used to categorize drugs in the other four schedules. For example, Schedule II substances also have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence, but unlike Schedule I drugs, they have a currently accepted medical use. § 812(b)(2). By classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana became a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study. §§823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 490 (2001).

At 27:

First, the fact that marijuana is used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” cannot itself serve as a distinguishing factor. Id., at 1229. The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses.

The site software has a post length limit. I have never seen nolu chan come anywhere close to exceeding it. I tried to post an extra long document one time that was pertinent and was unable to do so.

I have never had anything rejected for being too long. For exceedingly long documents, I use scribd. Then they complain that it chokes their computer or memory or some such. In reality, they just don't like being reminded of the fact that per Federal law and the U.S. Supreme Court, any amount of marijuana, medical or otherwise, is contraband and any possession is a Federal crime.

However, if the government show scientific study results

Obama’s Drug Czar Admits Govt Suppressed Research Showing the Benifits of Cannabis

Stone, while you are at it, perhaps you can address ConservingFreedom's Deckard's supposed right to false speech issue. It seems the drug idiots here post several articles a day trying to sell the crap that this or that state has, or will, legalize marijuana.

For example, the thread article here has the knowingly false claim:

Massachusetts is among five states that will vote on whether to fully legalize marijuana later this year.

Is there any limits on challenging knowing and deliberate false claims?

The fact is - Massachusetts as well as several other states are considering legalizing cannabis, your incessant whining to the contrary.

You can keep posting your long-winded screeds about how fed.gov can overstep the decisions of the individual states until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, it doesn't mean squat.

The more states that legalize, the sooner the the feds will realize that they are fighting a losing battle and will concede the rights of the states to make their own decisions concerning legalization.

The days of the feds running roughshod over the rights of individuals are coming to a close.

They call me names, a micro-aggression, and hurt my feelings.

Poor widdle baby...maybe you can fill out one of these.

She wasn't home.

So what? Her property was still raided.

Geesh, what a whining little twerp!

ConservingFreedom: A K A Stone, does the site software support a post length limit, and if so is that something you'd consider? Some idiots can't stop themselves from posting the phone book.

nolu chan: Stone, while you are at it, perhaps you can address ConservingFreedom's Deckard's supposed right to false speech issue. It seems the drug idiots here post several articles a day trying to sell the crap that this or that state has, or will, legalize marijuana.

I will recap:

#3. To: […] (#1)
Someone should put a bullet through his unpatriotic Paultard like cop hating forehead …
[…]
GrandIsland posted on 2016-09-01 23:10:26 ET

#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Cleanup on aisle 3 please.
This poster is going to be your downfall.
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-09-02 3:47:27 ET

#6. To: Fred Mertz (#4)
[…]
Pretty pathetic that Stone bans the good posters yet allows this repulsive tool to remain.
FireIsland is rapidly spiraling out of control.
[…]
Deckard posted on 2016-09-02 7:39:07 ET

#7. To: GrandIsland (#3)
[…]
Not a big fan of the first amendment, are you Sparky?
Or is it just those who disagree with you who you want to kill?
Deckard posted on 2016-09-02 7:45:18 ET

#8. To: GrandIsland (#3)
Suspended for obvious reasons.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-09-02 8:28:50 ET

#19. To: GrandIsland (#3)
I put you back on the roster.
This isn't the place to wish death on people.
We are a peaceful lot.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-09-17 10:43:07 ET

#18. To: Gatlin (#17)
An Oklahoma police department has received several death threats …
Let's hope that someone makes good on that threat.
[…]
Deckard posted on 2016-10-06 12:45:36 ET
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=48083&Disp=18#C18.

#19. To: Deckard, Fred Mertz, GrandIsland (#18)

      An Oklahoma police department has received several death threats …
      Deckard: Let's hope that someone makes good on that threat.

Do you ever, ever stop to think about what you are going to post before posting it?

The “death wish” you made on this Oklahoma police officer is a despicable form of extreme speech. It is far beyond the pale of civility with a gross imposition exceeding the norms in public discourse.

How can you possibly “hope” for the death of an Oklahoma police officer….how can you do that?

Fred Mertz squealed like a stuck pig to Stone about GrandIsland and got GrandIsland suspended for 15 days. Let’s see if Fred starts squealing to Stone this time. How about it, Fred?

After Stone suspended GrandIsland, Stone posted that we don’t make “death wishes” on LF as an explanation for his action against GrandIsland.

Yet here you are, Deckard, doing what Stone said “we” are not to do. Obviously you care as little about the civility on Stone’s forum as you do the life of an Oklahoma police officer. That is sad….it really is sad.

Shame on you, Deckard, for that extremely disgraceful post….shame on you.

Gatlin posted on 2016-10-06 13:52:46 ET
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=48083&Disp=19#C19.

Addition to the Ping List for Post #29.

The “death wish” you made on this Oklahoma police officer is a despicable form of extreme speech. It is far beyond the pale of civility with a gross imposition exceeding the norms in public discourse.

How can you possibly “hope” for the death of an Oklahoma police officer….how can you do that?

I think this quote from the movie "Shooter" sums up what I would personally do if a crazed cop ever shot my dog.

Shoot a dog in this county on a man's land,

I'd bury you in the hill, and tell the sheriff a month or two later.

He understands.

The problem with ass-kissers like you is that you see cops as gods who can do no wrong and are exempt from criticism.

That's sickening.

The problem with ass-kissers like you is that you see cops as gods who can do no wrong and are exempt from criticism.

That's sickening.

Nah.

The problem is you, Deckard, in that your dogmatic anti-cop hatred has taken full control of your rational senses and developed into a wildly uncontrollable craze. So much so that you have become exceedingly imperious to the reasoning of civility in your arrogance and that has resulted to the point where you assertively hope for the death of an Oklahoma police officer.

I enjoy our back and forth banter and I especially delight in getting your riled up. But you really need to stop and think about how your cop-hating obsession is causing you to think in a way that is not normal. You need to realize that hoping for the death of an Oklahoma police officer because he shot a dog is not normal.

That is wrong, Deckard, flat out damned wrong….in any way a person with a rational mind can look at it.

And that is what is truly sickening …

You need to realize that hoping for the death of an Oklahoma police officer because he shot a dog is not normal.

You need to realize that a cop shooting a dog that was not a threat to him (behind a fence) and then lying about the encounter is something that only a psychopath would do.

I've posted plenty of good cop articles here queerbait.

You need to realize that a cop shooting a dog that was not a threat to him (behind a fence) and then lying about the encounter is something that only a psychopath would do.

But that is absolutely no reason a rationally sane person should hope someone would carry out a death threat on the officer…that is exactly what you did, Deckard

You speak of what a psychopath would do. Isn’t the desire and hope for the death of another person when you have developed a conscious hateful hostility something only a psychopath would do?

The Free Thought Project is a highly biased source toward liberal causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) , publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes.

Your source is completely untrustworthy and therefore there is no benefit for me to take my time to read the article.

Her property was still raided.

So? All that was taken was one illegal plant. And she wasn't there.

[Deckard #27] The fact is - Massachusetts as well as several other states are considering legalizing cannabis, your incessant whining to the contrary.

You can keep posting your long-winded screeds about how fed.gov can overstep the decisions of the individual states until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, it doesn't mean squat.

See the U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2 to document that your nonsense is directly contrary to the Constitution.

There is no such thing as a Federally Controlled Substance being "legalized" by a State law.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Nothing in law recognizes your right to unchallengeable false speech.

You obviously have no viable argument.

Federal law trumps State law.

As the Federal court stated in McIntosh,

Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits.

See the Federal courts expressly stating that your druggie claims are legal bullshit.

United States v. McIntosh, 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug 2016)

At 26:

Here, we must read § 542 with a view to its place in the overall statutory scheme for marijuana regulation, namely the CSA and the State Medical Marijuana Laws. The CSA prohibits the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of any marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844(a).[4] The State Medical Marijuana Laws are those state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. Thus, the CSA prohibits what the State Medical Marijuana Laws permit.

In light of the ordinary meaning of the terms of § 542 and the relationship between the relevant federal and state laws, we consider whether a superior authority, which prohibits certain conduct, can prevent a subordinate authority from implementing a rule that officially permits such conduct by punishing individuals who are engaged in the conduct officially permitted by the lower authority. We conclude that it can.

____________________

[4] This requires a slight caveat. Under the CSA, “the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana [is] a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c), 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a). Thus, except as part of “a strictly controlled research project,” federal law “designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose.” Raich, 545 U.S. at 24, 27.

Footnote 5 at 32-33:

[5] The prior observation should also serve as a warning. To be clear, § 542 does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses. The CSA prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime. The federal government can prosecute such offenses for up to five years after they occur. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Congress currently restricts the government from spending certain funds to prosecute certain individuals. But Congress could restore funding tomorrow, a year from now, or four years from now, and the government could then prosecute individuals who committed offenses while the government lacked funding. Moreover, a new president will be elected soon, and a new administration could shift enforcement priorities to place greater emphasis on prosecuting marijuana offenses. Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.

Or, for another example,

Wilson v. Lynch, No. 14-15700 (9th Cir. 31 Aug 2016) At 4:

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. As a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana, under federal law, is deemed to have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment[, and] [t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the . . . substance under medical supervision." Id. § 812(b)(1)(B) & (C).[1]

[...]

[1] As we recently observed: “The [Controlled Substances Act] prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime.” United States v. McIntosh, No. 15-10117, 2016 WL 4363168, at *11 n.5 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016).

And, of course, there is the U.S. Supreme Court in Raich setting the precedent:

Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) at 14:

In enacting the CSA, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. 21 U. S. C. § 812(c). This preliminary classification was based, in part, on the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of HEW “that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway.” Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment. § 812(b)(1). These three factors, in varying gradations, are also used to categorize drugs in the other four schedules. For example, Schedule II substances also have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence, but unlike Schedule I drugs, they have a currently accepted medical use. § 812(b)(2). By classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana became a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study. §§823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 490 (2001).

At 27:

First, the fact that marijuana is used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” cannot itself serve as a distinguishing factor. Id., at 1229. The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses.

Your incessant, long-winded screeds shows me that you are not able to think for yourself and instead rely on the thoughts and ideas of others on which to base your very narrow-minded world view.

Whether you like it or not, the time is coming when fed.gov will be forced to back off and allow the individual states to make their own decisions on cannabis legalization.

What a sad day that will be for you.

"A K A Stone, does the site software support a post length limit, and if so is that something you'd consider? Some idiots can't stop themselves from posting the phone book."

I'm always surprised at how ALLEGED constitutional rights advocates, such as yourself, find so many reasons to ban such speech

Free speech doesn't mean a "right" to spam A K A Stone's server - and a shortened post length limit wouldn't be any kind of "ban" but only a motive to make a point instead of blindly copying and pasting.

Have you ever had an original thought in your life?

Your incessant, long-winded screeds shows me that you are not able to think for yourself and instead rely on the thoughts and ideas of others on which to base your very narrow-minded world view.

I am, not engaged in creative fiction as you are. A court opinion documenting that your claims are bullshit suffices for my non-fiction purposes.

Have you ever considered posting truthful things?

GET MARIJUANA LICENSE — LOSE FIREARMS

Wilson v. Lynch, No. 14-15700 (9th Cir. 31 Aug 2016) At 4:

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. As a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana, under federal law, is deemed to have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment[, and] [t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the . . . substance under medical supervision." Id. § 812(b)(1)(B) & (C).[1]

[...]

[1] As we recently observed: “The [Controlled Substances Act] prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime.” United States v. McIntosh, No. 15-10117, 2016 WL 4363168, at *11 n.5 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016).

[...]

At 5:

Turning to federal firearms provisions, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) no person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" may "possess . . . or . . . receive any firearm or ammunition." In addition, it is unlawful for "any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person . . . is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." Id. § 922(d)(3).

The ATF has promulgated regulations implementing § 922 and defining a person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." See 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. The ATF has also developed Form 4473, which confirms eligibility for gun ownership under § 922. Prospective purchasers of firearms fill out Form 4473 when they seek to buy a firearm. Form 4473 includes Question 11.e., which asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

The Free Thought Project is a highly biased source toward liberal causes.

Liar.

Selected not Elected — Rothschilds Hold $100,000 a Plate Dinner Fundraiser for Guess Who

Clinton Campaign Busted Using Child Actor at Town Hall Event — Corporate Media Spreads the Lie Anyway

BREAKING: Docs Expose Obama Administration for Concealing Email Scandal to Protect Clinton Campaign

Have you ever considered posting truthful things?

I truly believe that his pot-scorched brain is so mentally impaired that he is totally incapable of doing that.

His libertarian anti-government and cop-hating obsession has warped his thinking to the point that he really does not know what truth is….seriously!

I truly believe that his pot-scorched brain

I haven't used any illegal drugs for decades, you pontificating poltroon.

I notice you conveniently ignored my previous post that put the kibosh on your claim that Free Thought Project is a liberal site.

The problem with you is that you still desperately cling to the false left-right paradigm.

His libertarian anti-government and cop-hating obsession...

I HATE corrupt, tyrannical government, which begs the question - why don't you.

And I HATE crooked, murderous fascist cops, the ones who are never held accountable for their actions - not the good ones.

Why are you always kneeling down to lick the boots of these thugs?

I HATE corrupt, tyrannical government ...

And I HATE crooked, murderous fascist cops

You have decided that you can solely decide when the government is tyrannical and when the action by a cop is crooked and murderous fascist.

You think you are attempting to act like you are GOD with the judgment power to destroy the things you do not approve of.

But all you are doing in RANTING …

You have decided that you can solely decide when the government is tyrannical

Good grief man - wake the fuck up! Read something other than the MSM rags you parrot.

I'm not the only one who sees it.

I haven't used any illegal drugs for decades, you pontificating poltroon.

Of course not. In your mind they are all legal.

Police hit the home by helicopter — to take a plant used for an elderly woman’s arthritis.

The helicopter did a fly by and detected the pot in plain sight. The raid was carried out by people who arrived in cars or trucks. They came for the illegal contraband.

And the two middle age kids were just having a late lunch.

http://www.gazettenet.com/MarijuanaRaid-HG-100116-5074664

Raid! National Guard, State Police descend on 81-year-old’s property to seize single pot plant

By Scott Merzbach
Daily Hampshire Gazette
Staff Writer
Friday, September 30, 2016

Holcomb said he was at his mother’s home eating a late lunch with his sister when they heard whirring blades and looked up to see a military-style helicopter circling the property, with two men crouching in an open door and holding a device that he suspects was a thermal imager to detect marijuana plants.

Margaret Holcomb was not home at the time.

Within 10 minutes of the helicopter departing, several vehicles arrived at the home, including a pickup truck with a bed filled with marijuana plants seized at other locations, and several State Police troopers, including one who flashed his badge.

“He asked me if I knew there was a marijuana plant growing on the property. I didn’t answer the question. I asked, ‘What are you doing here?’” Holcomb recalled.

Holcomb said he was told that as long as he did not demand that a warrant be provided to enter the property or otherwise escalate the situation, authorities would file no criminal charges.

“‘We just want the illegal contraband,’” Holcomb recalled the officer saying. Margaret Holcomb does not have a medical card authorizing her to grow or possess marijuana.

[...]

The seizures included an additional 21 plants in Amherst, with 16 on Montague Road and five on Potwine Lane; two plants on Cross Path Road in Northampton; and 20 in Hadley, with 10 plants on Honey Pot Road, eight on River Road and two on Pine Hill Road.

Such enforcement actions have become commonplace since the 2012 law that made medical marijuana legal in Massachusetts, according to Northampton attorney Michael Cutler.

“The exact same stuff happened last year,” said Cutler, who specializes in helping clients understand the state’s medical marijuana law and recently participated in drafting the language of the Nov. 8 ballot initiative that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

The latest enforcement push comes almost exactly a year after prominent medical marijuana proponent Ezra Parzybok was prosecuted after a Massachusetts National Guard helicopter observed plants growing in his backyard in Northampton. State police seized 67 marijuana plants, 20 one-gallon bags of marijuana, 59 jars of hash oil, three scales, a heat sealer, numerous ledgers and receipts and $1,640 in cash.

Parzybok was charged with possession of marijuana and hash oil with intent to distribute. Last November, he admitted to sufficient facts to support a guilty finding and was placed on 90 days probation, allowing him to emerge without a criminal record if he abided by the law during that period.

I haven't used any illegal drugs for decades, you pontificating poltroon.

Of course not. In your mind they are all legal.

I'll rephrase that for the terminally ignorant - I have not used any form of cannabis or any other mind-altering drug.

Of course you and the other nanny-staters here will soon call for call Red Bull to be banned as well as caffeine since they have been shown to be mood altering, which just shows the depths of your "Reefer Madness" insanity.

In other words, go fuck yourself, I stand by my statement.

One does not need to be a "druggie" to oppose your holy jihad on marijuana and laugh at your worship of fed.gov.

I have not used any form of cannabis or any other mind-altering drug.

Memory loss. Bad sign.

fed.gov

State Police

Moron

Obama’s Drug Czar Admits Govt Suppressed Research Showing the Benifits of Cannabis

Gatlin #35

Your link leads to an article by The Free Thought Project.

The Free Thought Project is a highly biased source toward liberal causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) , publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes.

Your source is completely untrustworthy and therefore there is no benefit for me to take my time to read the article.

Deckard's bullshit sources are outrageous. The article is of some use, if only to demonstrate that the source is bullshit and outrageous.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/obamas-drug-czar-govt-suppress-marijuana/

Botticelli confirmed suspicions that the feds have purposefully kept marijuana from being thoroughly researched for positive health benefits when he said, “I do think it’s a somewhat fair criticism that the government hasn’t wholly supported research to really investigate what’s the potential therapeutic value.”

The Drug Czar then claimed the Obama administration and the DEA have done “a number of things to promote good scientific research” and “diminish some of the barriers (to research) of cannabis, although he did not specify what those things were.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Botticelli_(civil_servant)

Michael Botticelli (civil servant)

Botticelli was raised in Waterford, New York, in a family with a history of alcoholism. He received a Bachelor's degree in psychology from Siena College and a Masters in Education from St. Lawrence University. He has no formal professional educational credentials in addiction medicine, mental health, or public health.

Of course, The Free Thought Project gives yet another bullshit title, and fails to deliver. The actual status of marijuana research, as given by those tasked and qualified to give it, is that it is not scientifically possible to perform an acceptable test of inhaled marijuana.

81 FR 53700 (12 Aug 2016)

Status of Research Into the Medical Uses for Marijuana

[...]

Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994)) upheld the Administrator of DEA’s application of the five-part test to determine whether a drug has a ‘‘currently accepted medical use.’’ The following describes the five elements that characterize ‘‘currently accepted medical use’’ for a drug: 10

i. the drug’s chemistry must be known and reproducible.

‘‘The substance’s chemistry must be scientifically established to permit it to be reproduced into dosages which can be standardized. The listing of the substance in a current edition of one of the official compendia, as defined by section 201 G) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 321G), is sufficient to meet this requirement.’’

[...]

Marijuana does not meet any of the five elements necessary for a drug to have a ‘‘currently accepted medical use.’’

Firstly, the chemistry of marijuana, as defined in the petition, is not reproducible in terms of creating a standardized dose. The petition defines marijuana as including all Cannabis cultivated strains. Different marijuana samples derived from various cultivated strains may have very different chemical constituents including delta9-THC and other cannabinoids (Appendino et al., 2011). As a consequence, marijuana products from different strains will have different safety, biological, pharmacological, and toxicological profiles. Thus, when considering all Cannabis strains together, because of the varying chemical constituents, reproducing consistent standardized doses is not possible. Additionally, smoking marijuana currently has not been shown to allow delivery of consistent and reproducible doses.

I have not used any form of cannabis or any other mind-altering drug.

Memory loss. Bad sign.

Long term memory hit. Bad sign also.

Previous research suggests smoking marijuana daily may affect short-term memory and that even casual use of marijuana can lead to brain changes. Now, another study shows that teenagers who smoke regularly but then kick the habit in a couple of years may see their long-term memory take a hit too.

So have another shot of Sterno you drunken sot.

One does not need to be a "druggie" to oppose your holy jihad on marijuana and laugh at your worship of fed.gov.

Here's a story about some of your "hero" drug warrior cops in Chicago.

Code Of Silence Took Ugly Turn In Chicago Police Corruption Case

Guess what - it's not from the Free Thought Project either.

Here's a story about some of your "hero" drug warrior cops in Chicago.
Code Of Silence Took Ugly Turn In Chicago Police Corruption Case.
Guess what - it's not from the Free Thought Project either.

Your link is to a post by ConservingFreedom ConservingFreedom posted on 2016- 10-07 16:30:53 ET

I am, not engaged in creative fiction as you are.

lol

Decktard is a criminal cock sucker.

I am, not engaged in creative fiction as you are.

lol

Decktard is a criminal cock sucker.

LOL ...

In other words, go fuck yourself, I stand by my statement.

One does not need to be a "druggie" to oppose your holy jihad on marijuana and laugh at your worship of fed.gov.

Of course you do. You stand with your head up your ass.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48095&Disp=41#C41

You do have to be quite a drugged out idiot to think that accepting a pregnant woman into a state-sponsored shooting gallery to shoot up with heroin could ever be better for the child than taking her into custody.

You would really facilitate a pregnant woman using heroin rather than do something about the child/fetus endangerment?

Decktard is a criminal cock sucker.

I thought he only sucked legal medical dick.

Here's a story about some of your "hero" drug warrior cops in Chicago. Code Of Silence Took Ugly Turn In Chicago Police Corruption Case. Guess what - it's not from the Free Thought Project either.

Guess what, stupid – it’s not to a story about some drug warrior cops in Chicago….either.

Good grief, aren't you the petty and shrill little prick this evening.

The link goes to the story.

Sorry you're too fucking stupid to scroll up the page and be able to figure that out.

You know what? I was all set to put aside my animosity towards you for one night and attempt to have a civil discussion with you but I see now that will never be possible because you are too much of a self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou perfectionist who has a pathologically inflated sense of self worth.

You call yourself a "truthseeker"?

What a fucking joke. You dismiss an exhaustive four part expose on police corruption in Chicago, why - because you have already decided it's bullshit due to your long-standing belief that cops are gods and would never be involved in any corruption.

You, nolu spam, misterwhite, the infant Roscoe - all the same repulsive little badge kissers and boot lickers.

You do have to be quite a drugged out idiot to think that accepting a pregnant woman into a state-sponsored shooting gallery

WTF is wrong with you?

I never made that claim and furthermore I never made any comment on that thread.

And you claim I'm the one who's stoned?

Keep guzzling that Sterno you drooling sot.

The link goes to the story.

Nope! It did NOT!!!

The link goes to the story.

Nope! It did NOT!!!

geesh you fucking idiot, scroll up the page.

Oh - so fucking sorry the link went to the comment instead of to the top of the page.

I'll take your room temperature IQ into consideration with future posts.

Oh - so fucking sorry the link went to the comment instead of to the top of the page.

That;s right....you made a stupid mistake and now you are trying spin your way out of it.

you made a stupid mistake

Oh - I almost forgot who I am dealing with here - the almighty (in his own mind) Gatlin who never has made a mistake in his life.

What a pompous, arrogant blowhard.

Oh - I almost forgot who I am dealing with here - the almighty (in his own mind) Gatlin who never has made a mistake in his life.

Pot use definitely causes poor memory, so I will cut you some slack this time

But, don’t you ever forget it again….EVER, you hear?

Pot use definitely causes poor memory

My memory is fine queerbait.

Guzzle down another quart of Sterno.

Pot use definitely causes poor memory

My memory is fine

Then why did you post: "Oh - I almost forgot who I am dealing with here - "

That;s right....you (Decktard) made a stupid mistake and now you are trying spin your way out of it.

What's new.