View Full Version : Medical marijuana and the 2nd Amendment. Disabled Vet denied gun. IMPORTANT UPDATE!
Regardless of how you feel about marijuana and it's medicinal benefits I think this disabled veteran has some very valid points. Considering the fact that he has a prescription for the medical use of marijuana does that invalidate his right to the 2nd Amendment and the ability to defend himself and his family with a firearm? Not in my book.
Go to link to watch his video testimony.
http://anewscafe.com/2010/02/03/medical-marijuana-and-the-2nd-amendment/
Redding resident and Army veteran Sean Merritt says he’s been denied the right to purchase a firearm at a local gun shop owned by Redding Mayor Patrick Jones. The sticking point hinges on a line on a form required by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which asks: “Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana, a depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
Because he uses medical marijuana (and even though he has a legal recommendation), Merritt says he was told by Jones that he must answer “yes” on the form, which prevents him from purchasing a firearm at Jones Fort, a popular gun and pawn shop.
At last night’s City Council meeting, Merritt argued his case before the mayor. Here’s the compelling video of his appearance before the council: Go to link for video.
When he inquired about purchasing a firearm at Jones Fort, Merritt said he wanted to make sure the drugs he was on wouldn’t prohibit him.
“They had no problem with the morphine or the klonopin, but when I said ‘medical marijuana’ (the employee) said, ‘You will not be able to purchase a firearm because you will fail the background check with the FBI,’ ” Merritt said. “I said, ‘That’s impossible because my records are confidential and if the FBI wanted them, the person who gave them up would be the one to answer for breaking my confidentiality. Not only that but President Obama has given the power to the states on the medical marijuana issue.”
EzGoingKev
02-04-10, 15:37
If he has a prescription for it then he should have ignored Jones's advice and answered no.
JBecker 72
02-04-10, 15:58
"Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana"
How can you be an unlawful user if you have a prescription?
How can you be an unlawful user if you have a prescription?
A prescription doesn't make it legal to have or use Marijuana under Federal law.
We have a bunch of States with laws that invite their citizens to engage in activity that exposes them to Federal criminal liability. Instead of figuring out whether or not Marijuana in certain circumstances should be legal (entirely legal, not legal under State law but still illegal under Federal) we have this situation where the Feds are unofficially looking the other way in certain circumstances.
Alcohol is a depressant, marijuana is incapable of creating an addiction, and he had a legal prescription to marijuana. He should have answered NO.
Silly BATF and silly him. :)
"Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana"
How can you be an unlawful user if you have a prescription?
He doesn’t have a prescription for Marijuana he has a “legal recommendation”. As far as the fed is concerned there is no prescription for Marijuana.
Could he have meant prescription? A legal recommendation from a doctor is just another word for prescription from what I can tell.
Either way I do not understand the irrational reasoning as to why using marijuana through a prescription or illegally has any effect on a person's 2nd amendment rights. I thought we took Reefer Madness out of the video curriculum for new government employees long ago?
marijuana is incapable of creating an addiction,
i don't think there are any experts left that still believe marijuana isn't addictive. just because it doesn't cause the dopamine dump and endorphin receptor blockages of pure stimulants and opiates doesn't mean it doesn't cause dependence- to the contrary, there are a lot of marijuana "addicts" out there. people who can't function normally without it- physical and psychological dependence, and typical withdrawl symptoms from prolonged cessation.
i do wholly agree that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, however. and less addictive.
From all I've read on the matter its addictive properties are little different than you wanting to eat sweet foods and the withdrawal is like you ran out of twinkies. It has nowhere near the addictive qualities that cigarettes or alcohol have. Hell I think my addiction to firearms is worse than any marijuana user. You also have to think of the psychosis aspect to it. Is it really a chemical dependence or is it a conscious one? Either way I'm still waiting for the day that these controlled substances are analyzed scientifically instead of regulated according to falsehoods like from the Reefer Madness movie.
If the person had a true prescription to the drug, shouldn't he be able to purchase a firearm if he simply just says NO next time? I can't recall the pass/fail intricacies of the 4473. I failed one once but that was just due to the ATF's arbitrary decision to revive their ruling on stripped lowers and neither I nor the shop owner were aware of it.
EzGoingKev
02-04-10, 20:16
A prescription doesn't make it legal to have or use Marijuana under Federal law.
We have a bunch of States with laws that invite their citizens to engage in activity that exposes them to Federal criminal liability. Instead of figuring out whether or not Marijuana in certain circumstances should be legal (entirely legal, not legal under State law but still illegal under Federal) we have this situation where the Feds are unofficially looking the other way in certain circumstances.
He doesn’t have a prescription for Marijuana he has a “legal recommendation”. As far as the fed is concerned there is no prescription for Marijuana.
Is the form he had to fill out for the state or the federal government?
He doesn’t have a prescription for Marijuana he has a “legal recommendation”. As far as the fed is concerned there is no prescription for Marijuana.
Except in certain cases. This guy gets his 300 joints a month FROM the federal government.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2007/oct/24/this_man_receives_300_marijuana_
JBecker 72
02-04-10, 22:20
prescription or not, if he has a doctors recommendation and obtains marijuana legally through a canibus club, how is that unlawful use?
I don't consume caffeine or any other recreational drug, and refuse to take any type of prescription pain pill, so yeah I'm living in a nice glass house and not a rock in sight.
On that drug laws are f#$Fing retarded, laws should only exist to protect one individual from another, such as robbery, driving while intoxicated, assault and so on. They shouldn't exist to protect some one from themselves. If some one wants to get high on cocaine they should have the option to do so.
And before every beer drinker in here jumps on me, you're drug of choice kills more innocent people every year than gang bangers, drug addicts, rapist, and asshole combined. How many times does some one go on a domestic violence call because the husband is high on crack? Far more likely he's consumed a 12 pack of Corona and is beating the shit out of his wife in kids. And the number of people who drive intoxicated is staggering, I'm willing to bet a number reading this have one or more DUI's and they fail to understand just how dangerous they are, simply because alcohol is the accepted drug due to decades of slick marketing.
People will look down on the crack head who's doing harm only to himself but the friend who gets arrested for blowing a BAC of 1.5 is seen as a joke as long as he doesn't kill anyone and is soon forgive (if he needs forgiveness at all) while few fail to understand that the assholes driving with just a few to many beers kill more children a year than all the pedo's in North America combined.
So people need to get off their moral high horse and accept the fact that it's all dangerous none more so than the other, and it's not their right to decide what another adult will do with his/her body.
So if you can't accept the idea of people using drugs outside of booze and cigarettes but you're a user of one of the two, you need to accept the fact that you're a hypocritical douche.
This is ridiculous. The man is a vet, and has a prescription.
I agree, he should have just answered "no", as in my eyes, having a prescription (from a licensed MD) does not equate to unlawful use.
But where does the line get drawn between Fed and State? Does the 10th apply here? Is the weed grown locally, and dispensed at a local, licensed dispensary according to local laws? If so, the Fed can piss off.
A prescription doesn't make it legal to have or use Marijuana under Federal law.
We have a bunch of States with laws that invite their citizens to engage in activity that exposes them to Federal criminal liability. Instead of figuring out whether or not Marijuana in certain circumstances should be legal (entirely legal, not legal under State law but still illegal under Federal) we have this situation where the Feds are unofficially looking the other way in certain circumstances.
The Constitution was designed by the Founding Fathers to give the power to the States and have a weak, de-centralized government. The notion of an all powerful central federal government dictating from D.C is some socialist beauracrats wet dream.
The Constitution was designed by the Founding Fathers to give the power to the States and have a weak, de-centralized government. The notion of an all powerful central federal government dictating from D.C is some socialist beauracrats wet dream.
Abraham Lincoln had a lot to do with that.
On the topic at hand, the only people who are denied is the people who are honest and in this man's case he's a disabled veteran that finds the same relief through marijuana as he does multiple prescription narcotics. Given that he has a prescription, or recommendation, from a licensed Doctor I don't see any reason for him not to obtain a firearm.
rickrock305
02-05-10, 10:09
i don't think there are any experts left that still believe marijuana isn't addictive. just because it doesn't cause the dopamine dump and endorphin receptor blockages of pure stimulants and opiates doesn't mean it doesn't cause dependence- to the contrary, there are a lot of marijuana "addicts" out there. people who can't function normally without it- physical and psychological dependence, and typical withdrawl symptoms from prolonged cessation.
.
thats not really true.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_marijuana_addictive
The active ingredient in Cannibis sativa is THC (delta 1 tetrahydrocannibinol). THC is active in very low dosages. Therapeutic THC is typically delivered 5mg tid (three times a day). As addiction in the sense I mean it is a gross process, tiny dosages typically don't generate the large-scale physiological changes a true addiction needs to get revved up (neurological yes; physio no). So most people, scientists and street-users, think of marijuana as non-addictive. A recent study at Columbia University offers potentially contradictory evidence, but it's still only one study and not accepted as universal fact at this time. As such, if you say THC is not clinically addictive, most of the world will agree with you.
https://www.msu.edu/~hertlerg/stats.html
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth9.shtml
Essentially all drugs are used in "an addictive fashion" by some people. However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities.
National epidemiological surveys show that the large majority of people who have had experience with marijuana do not become regular users.
In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week.
A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month.
Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them.
There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.
When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms.
Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. Recently, at a NIDA-sponsored conference, a researcher described unpublished observations involving rats pretreated with THC and then dosed with a cannabinoid receptor-blocker. Not surprisingly, this provoked sudden withdrawal, by stripping receptors of the drug. This finding has no relevance to human users who, upon ceasing use, experience a very gradual removal of THC from receptors.
The most avid publicizers of marijuana's addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs. The increasing use of drug-detection technologies in the workplace, schools and elsewhere has also produced a group of marijuana users who identify themselves as "addicts" in order to receive treatment instead of punishment.
http://www.utmedicalgroup.com/pages/webchat_addiction.html
Web Chat on Addictions with Dr. Allen Battle, UTMG Clinical Psychologist.
Dr. Battle: No, marijuana is not addictive. It isn't addictive because the active ingredient in it, THC, does not become a part of the body chemistry. So that then, that body, would be dependent on it just as it is dependent on water or food. That is the essence of addition; it is physiological!
Marijuana is not an addictive drug because it does not become a vital part of the user's body chemistry.
pay special attention to this one.
http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.marijuanamagazine.com/toc/addictiv.htm
and this one...
http://www.mapinc.org/lib/limited.pdf
Calling B.S. on the Idea of 'Marijuana Addiction'
By Paul Armentano, AlterNet
Posted on March 22, 2008, Printed on February 5, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/80408/
The U.S. government believes that America is going to pot -- literally.
Earlier this month, the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse announced plans to spend $4 million to establish the nation's first-ever "Center on Cannabis Addiction," which will be based in La Jolla, Calif. The goal of the center, according to NIDA's press release, is to "develop novel approaches to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of marijuana addiction."
Not familiar with the notion of "marijuana addiction"? You're not alone. In fact, aside from the handful of researchers who have discovered that there are gobs of federal grant money to be had hunting for the government's latest pot boogeyman, there's little consensus that such a syndrome is clinically relevant -- if it even exists at all.
But don't try telling that to the mainstream press -- which recently published headlines worldwide alleging, "Marijuana withdrawal rivals that of nicotine." The alleged "study" behind the headlines involved all of 12 participants, each of whom were longtime users of pot and tobacco, and assessed the self-reported moods of folks after they were randomly chosen to abstain from both substances. Big surprise: they weren't happy.
And don't try telling Big Pharma -- which hopes to cash in on the much-hyped "pot and addiction" craze by touting psychoactive prescription drugs like Lithium to help hardcore smokers kick the marijuana habit.
And certainly don't try telling the drug "treatment" industry, whose spokespeople are quick to warn that marijuana "treatment" admissions have risen dramatically in recent years, but neglect to explain that this increase is due entirely to the advent of drug courts sentencing minor pot offenders to rehab in lieu of jail. According to state and national statistics, up to 70 percent of all individuals in drug treatment for marijuana are placed there by the criminal justice system. Of those in treatment, some 36 percent had not even used marijuana in the 30 days prior to their admission. These are the "addicts"?
Indeed, the concept of pot addiction is big business -- even if the evidence in support of the pseudosyndrome is flimsy at best.
And what does the science say? Well, according to the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine -- which published a multiyear, million-dollar federal study assessing marijuana and health in 1999 -- "millions of Americans have tried marijuana, but most are not regular users [and] few marijuana users become dependent on it." The investigator added, "[A]though [some] marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs."
Just how less likely? According to the Institute of Medicine's 267-page report, fewer than 10 percent of those who try cannabis ever meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of "drug dependence" (based on DSM-III-R criteria). By contrast, the IOM reported that 32 percent of tobacco users, 23 percent of heroin users, 17 percent of cocaine users and 15 percent of alcohol users meet the criteria for "drug dependence."
In short, it's the legal drugs that have Americans hooked -- not pot.
But what about the claims that ceasing marijuana smoking can trigger withdrawal symptoms similar to those associated with quitting tobacco? Once again, it's a matter of degree. According to the Institute of Medicine, pot's withdrawal symptoms, when identified, are "mild and subtle" compared with the profound physical syndromes associated with ceasing chronic alcohol use -- which can be fatal -- or those abstinence symptoms associated with daily tobacco use, which are typically severe enough to persuade individuals to reinitiate their drug-taking behavior.
The IOM report further explained, "[U]nder normal cannabis use, the long half-life and slow elimination from the body of THC prevent[s] substantial abstinence symptoms" from occurring. As a result, cannabis' withdrawal symptoms are typically limited to feelings of mild anxiety, irritability, agitation and insomnia.
Most importantly, unlike the withdrawal symptoms associated with the cessation of most other intoxicants, pot's mild after-effects do not appear to be either severe or long-lasting enough to perpetuate marijuana use in individuals who have decided to quit. This is why most marijuana smokers report voluntarily ceasing their cannabis use by age 30 with little physical or psychological difficulty. By comparison, many cigarette smokers who pick up the habit early in life continue to smoke for the rest of their lives, despite making numerous efforts to quit.
So let's review.
Marijuana is widely accepted by the National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and others to lack the severe physical and psychological dependence liability associated with most other intoxicants, including alcohol and tobacco. Further, pot lacks the profound abstinence symptoms associated with most legal intoxicants, including caffeine.
That's not to say that some marijuana smokers don't find quitting difficult. Naturally, a handful of folks do, though this subpopulation is hardly large enough to warrant pot's legal classification (along with heroin) as an illicit substance with a "high potential for abuse." Nor does this fact justify the continued arrest of more than 800,000 Americans annually for pot violations any more than such concerns would warrant the criminalization of booze or nicotine.
Now if I can only get NIDA to fork me over that $4 million check.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#addictive
Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.
United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral. 2002. June 24 2005.
Johnson, L.D., et al. “National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and Young Adults.” Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.
Kandel, D.B., et al. “Prevalence and demographic correlates of symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in the U.S. population.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44 (1997):11-29.
Stephens, R.S., et al. “Adult marijuana users seeking treatment.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.
prescription or not, if he has a doctors recommendation and obtains marijuana legally through a canibus club, how is that unlawful use?
Again, the short answer is what he is doing is legal under California state law but illegal under Federal law, therefore he is still an unlawful user of marijuana.
We did a drug legalization thread awhile ago. There's little here likely to be new.
Supremacy clause seems to apply here.
Form 4473 doesn't differentiate between being an unlawful user under state or federal law. It is a federally regulated process, and federal law would applies. He has no prescription issued or recognized by DEA. He has a "legal recommendation", which appears to have meaning only under CA law, if it even means squat. He must answer yes on 4473.
He does his own case harm by looking like he does. The legalization folks do this to themselves with great frequency. Why not shave, clean up, wear sleeves, look decent, and take your hat off when you appear before a body of government to make your case? He has a very compelling argument. There's a better way to make it, though.
The medical marijuana debate is an interesting one, with good arguments on both sides. I'm not sure what the answer is.
Pretty much dead on->
i don't think there are any experts left that still believe marijuana isn't addictive. just because it doesn't cause the dopamine dump and endorphin receptor blockages of pure stimulants and opiates doesn't mean it doesn't cause dependence- to the contrary, there are a lot of marijuana "addicts" out there. people who can't function normally without it- physical and psychological dependence, and typical withdrawl symptoms from prolonged cessation.
i do wholly agree that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, however. and less addictive.
From the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana4.html
Is marijuana use addictive?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they use the drug compulsively even though it often interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities. According to the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 21.6 million Americans aged 12 or older were classified with substance dependence or abuse (9.1 percent of the total population). Of the estimated 6.9 million Americans classified with dependence on or abuse of illicit drugs, 4.2 million were dependent on or abused marijuana.57 In 2002, 15 percent of people entering drug abuse treatment programs reported that marijuana was their primary drug of abuse.58
Along with craving, withdrawal symptoms can make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop using the drug.49 People trying to quit report irritability, difficulty sleeping, and anxiety.59,60 They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately 1 week after they last used the drug.61
In addition to its addictive liability, research indicates that early exposure to marijuana can increase the likelihood of a lifetime of subsequent drug problems. A recent study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs, who differed on whether or not they used marijuana before the age of 17, found that those who had used marijuana early had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twins, who did not use marijuana before age 17. This study re-emphasizes the importance of primary prevention by showing that early drug initiation is associated with increased risk of later drug problems, and it provides more evidence for why preventing marijuana experimentation during adolescence could have an impact on preventing addiction.62
You can't trust the government to provide any sort of unbiased evaluation of a narcotic.
LockenLoad
02-05-10, 15:10
From the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana4.html
looks like to me cigarettes and alcohol are worse, they do the same thing
looks like to me cigarettes and alcohol are worse, they do the same thing
Yet you're not prevented from purchasing a firearm for using either substance and I'm pretty sure no Dr. in recent history would recommend smoking cigarettes for health reasons.
If he has a prescription for it then he should have ignored Jones's advice and answered no.
+1 and MJ isn't physically addictive anyway.:rolleyes:
all id like to add is that MJ has never "in recorded history" killed anyone. EVER
This from the second highest DUI county in the nation, booze kills more, and does more harm to families, than all illegal drugs combined,yet the liquor lobby has all of the state govts.in their pockets. Federal too I suspect.
I'm sorry but I don't buy that marijuana isn't addictive, maybe to some it isn't but neither is alcohol but certain people most defiantly become physically addicted to marijuana. Is their a great risk, probably not. But why does it even matter if it's addictive or not? Coffee is addictive, what does that matter as far as legality?
Regardless of how you feel about marijuana and it's medicinal benefits I think this disabled veteran has some very valid points. Considering the fact that he has a prescription for the medical use of marijuana does that invalidate his right to the 2nd Amendment and the ability to defend himself and his family with a firearm? Not in my book.
Not in mine either. That sucks.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/oregon_gun_ruling_a_victory_fo.html
Oregon's 32,929 medical marijuana users can't be denied concealed handgun licenses, despite the efforts of at least two sheriffs who want to keep concealed weapons out of those hands.
The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled this week that Washington County Sheriff Rob Gordon and Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters were mistaken in their interpretation of the federal Gun Control Act. The act states that "an unlawful user ... of any controlled substance" can't own a gun, and the sheriffs contended the federal act trumps Oregon's medical marijuana law. Though federal law prohibits marijuana, Oregon's 12-year-old law legalizes pot possession for patients with qualifying ailments and a doctor's approval.
Share Leland Berger, who represented four medical marijuana users who were denied concealed handgun licenses, was relieved by the Court of Appeals decision. He sees the sheriffs' denial of licenses as discrimination against patients who use cannabis to treat debilitating health problems -- including cancer, glaucoma, seizures, nausea and severe pain.
"They are opposed to the law generally, and this is how they express their opposition to the law," Berger said, adding that fighting the cases was expensive for the counties. "The downside is it's a huge waste of taxpayer resources."
Elmer Dickens, who argued the case for the Washington County sheriff, took offense at Berger's characterization.
"We absolutely don't think this has anything to do with discrimination," Dickens said. "And frankly, he's impugning the integrity of every sheriff in the state."
Dickens said Washington County was the first in the state to ask applicants seeking concealed gun licenses whether they use medical marijuana and to deny those who said yes. He said sheriffs in many other counties -- including Coos and Douglas -- followed, seeing Washington County's logic: that sheriffs are sworn to enforce the law and federal law forbids pot smokers from possessing guns.
Multnomah County asks applicants the same question, but a sheriff's employee who handles applications said medical marijuana users aren't denied licenses. Clackamas County doesn't ask. State law doesn't direct counties to do so.
Washington County hasn't decided whether to appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. Sheriff Gordon is on vacation and couldn't be reached for comment. Douglas County Sheriff Winters also couldn't be reached for comment.
At the center of the case is Steve Schwerdt, who used marijuana and other medications for debilitating back and knee pain that is so bad he sometimes can't walk. Washington County denied him a concealed handgun renewal, he fought it, and in 2005 Circuit Judge Marco Hernandez ruled in his favor -- a county attorney says because he couldn't prove Schwerdt actually owned a gun. Washington County later pulled Schwerdt's license, Schwerdt went to court again, and Circuit Judge Steven Price ruled in favor of Schwerdt and two other cannabis cardholders.
The county turned to the Court of Appeals.
"I'm getting tired of having to go through this over and over again," Schwerdt said.
Schwerdt said he feels as if the sheriff has put him in the same category as heroin addicts.
"The first time around I sat there and felt like I was a junkie," Schwerdt said. "They treat you like you're something that you're not -- a criminal and the sort. And I'm not."
Although medical marijuana users who practice the Second Amendment celebrated the appellate ruling, their legal standing remains unclear.
In April, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that medical marijuana users can be fired for drug use. Specifically, in overturning a Court of Appeals ruling, the high court said federal law requiring employers to accommodate disabled workers doesn't cover medical marijuana users.
Adding to the murkiness, the Obama administration last year told federal authorities not to arrest or prosecute medical marijuana users. A tally at the time showed 14 states, including Washington and California, allowed some medical marijuana use.
The Oregon Firearms Federation has no problem with medical marijuana cardholders carrying concealed weapons -- or for that matter, any law-abiding citizen, said federation director Kevin Starrett.
rickrock305
06-18-10, 11:59
From the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana4.html
the amount of misinformation from the government on marijuana is astounding. any information obtained from official government sources is likely misleading if not outright false. they do have an agenda to continue to justify the war on drugs.
all id like to add is that MJ has never "in recorded history" killed anyone. EVER
Umm yeah it has. It's just that the numbers are insignificant when you take into account the number of users. LSD and ecstasy are safer than marijuana. Now mix the other two drugs with alcohol or something else and they become very dangerous, also many drugs are sold as the two above but are bad shit and can kill you.
thopkins22
06-18-10, 13:38
The medical marijuana issue is so incredibly simple to me that I'm amazed otherwise rational people have trouble coming to the correct conclusion.
In health care debates I often cite my Canadian neighbor's story and how when diagnosed with colon cancer while visiting family in Canada was told that it would be at least six weeks before he could begin treatment. When he mentioned he had insurance in the US the Doctors there asked him what he was waiting for, so he came to MD Anderson in Houston the next day and began treatment the day after that.
Anyone who has dealt with cancer probably knows MD Anderson is one of the best if not the best places in the world. When he was having trouble with the pain and having trouble eating, literally all of his doctors explained that it was a dirty shame he was not able to legally consume pot in the state of TX.
Is it a mind-altering drug? Sure, but a relatively harmless one. But hell, I'm of the opinion that an individual should have the right to inject heroine as long as I'm not expected to pay for the consequences.
Umm yeah it has.
Name one.
Name one.
I can't find it, but I recall a few years ago at least 2 people in this country died from what was described as an overdose. Not every person has the same chemistry and react differently to things. I've seen people get really pissed when they're high, I mean ragging asshole pissed. While most just sleep.
Also some people have allergic reactions and die as well, not to leave out people who kill people while under the influence (car crashes, work accidents etc)
Again the numbers for death by marijuana aren't significant, but just pointing out it does kill people.
rickrock305
06-18-10, 14:08
Umm yeah it has.
no, it hasn't. not ONE proven case.
LSD and ecstasy are safer than marijuana.
no, they are not. ecstasy, for example, has proven to cause brain damage with excessive use. the same cannot be said for marijuana.
no, it hasn't. not ONE proven case.
no, they are not. ecstasy, for example, has proven to cause brain damage with excessive use. the same cannot be said for marijuana.
Marijuana doesn't cause cancers? Shocking. I guess all that "resin" that makes its way into the lungs is healthy for you.
Most E sold on the streets isn't pharmaceutical grade MDMA, a number of chemicals induce the same shit. MDMA is safe when given in proper amounts and monitored by a trained physician. They're using it to treat PTSD as a matter of fact.
EDIT:
What you're thinking of probably as E, is PMA/PMMA it's one of the many that's sold as MDMA but has killed a number of people, and can cause body temperatures to sky rocket.
For the record, I'm against the war on drugs, and all for people having freedom in their homes to do what they wish, just as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others by doing so.
rickrock305
06-18-10, 14:41
Marijuana doesn't cause cancers? Shocking. I guess all that "resin" that makes its way into the lungs is healthy for you.
not when eaten, smoked with a vaporizer or water bong.
again, there has been ZERO cases of overdose. its impossible, they've tried.
MDMA is safe when given in proper amounts and monitored by a trained physician.
sure, so is pretty much anything. but thats not really what we're talking about here is it?
not when eaten, smoked with a vaporizer or water bong.
again, there has been ZERO cases of overdose. its impossible, they've tried.
sure, so is pretty much anything. but thats not really what we're talking about here is it?
Find me one case of a death from MDMA with out any other drugs involved.
As far as marijuana deaths, http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/marijuana-said-trigger-heart-attacks :p Old hippies beware. :D
When I find the doc that had the deaths I'll post it.
not when eaten, smoked with a vaporizer or water bong.
again, there has been ZERO cases of overdose. its impossible, they've tried.
sure, so is pretty much anything. but thats not really what we're talking about here is it?
will you shut the **** up, please? i seriously doubt there's anyone in this entire thread that's simply opposed to marijuana in general. being the types that we are- oppressed members of society, i think we all related to, and despise, oppression/restriction of any freedom.
but you have to be realistic, and stop trying to make marijuana out to be mana from God.
FACTS:
marijuana DOES kill people, through accidents or stomach/lung/throat/mouth cancer.
marijuana IS habit-forming, and millions of Americans are dependent on it for normal functioning
marijuana DOES "make you stupid"- THC builds up in the form of plaque in the synapse of neurons, inhibiting neurotransmission- if neurons aren't fired, the brain kills them off as energy leaches. marijuana causes brain damage.
denying any of this is just going to bog you down in retarded, pointless, never ending debate. just accept that marijuana, though almost harmless when you put it up next to other drugs, DOES still do some harm all on it's on. then debate the points that actually build a case for you, like the fact that a man has a damn God-given right to conduct himself in any matter he sees fit, so long as his actions are peaceful within the borders of our beloved nation.
variablebinary
06-18-10, 15:10
Dont smoke pot. Problem solved
I grew up in a shitty neighborhood where pot use was common. Nothing good comes from it. Pot users get dumber after every use
All pot growers and sellers should be rounded up and thrown in prison on any and all federal drug violations as possible.
All pot growers and sellers should be rounded up and thrown in prison on any and all federal drug violations as possible.
do you think this is a new concept? i'm pretty sure we've been trying, very unsuccessfully, to do exactly this for about 60 something years now.
billions of wasted dollars, and probably millions of wasted man-hours. un-told numbers, unknowable numbers.
pot users, dealers, and growers are the dirt-bags that they are, BECAUSE pot is illegal. engaging in this behavior is a criminal act, therefor only criminals do so. i think you're confusing the cause with the effect.
rickrock305
06-18-10, 15:37
All pot growers and sellers should be rounded up and thrown in prison on any and all federal drug violations as possible.
thats worked out well so far hasn't it?
and in the very next breath you'll complain about raising taxes I'm sure.
thopkins22
06-18-10, 15:42
Pot users get dumber after every use.
Someone should tell Richard Branson and the wiz kids in silicon valley. Hell, tell that to lots of kids in my engineering school that are working on incredibly complex stuff while walking the halls in norml shirts. I'm not saying it's indicative of good judgment, I for one am not too keen on doing something that could easily land me in handcuffs.
Some people are natural born **** ups. As a society we have a problem with telling them that they are stupid and weren't going to amount to anything anyway so we blame schools, drugs, television, music, video games, and whatever else happens to be the current buzzword.
That, and the fact that Bill Buckley can't be too wrong. http://old.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200406291207.asp :p
Back on topic, I think that anyone who has a prescription, or Dr's referral, for marijuana should not be denied the right to defend themselves and their loved ones.
variablebinary
06-18-10, 15:43
thats worked out well so far hasn't it?
and in the very next breath you'll complain about raising taxes I'm sure.
It's worked out better than allowing down-syndrome like pot heads to have free reign.
It's worked out better than allowing down-syndrome like pot heads to have free reign.
I enjoy reading a lot of your posts but your ignorance about marijuana and the people who use it medicinally, or simply for pleasure, is way off base.
rickrock305
06-18-10, 15:46
marijuana DOES kill people, through accidents or stomach/lung/throat/mouth cancer.
Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.
*
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box.” New York. (1995): 36.
*
Turner, Carlton E. The Marijuana Controversy. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1981.
*
Nahas, Gabriel G. and Nicholas A. Pace. Letter. “Marijuana as Chemotherapy Aid Poses Hazards.” New York Times 4 December 1993: A20.
*
Inaba, Darryl S. and William E. Cohen. Uppers, Downers, All-Arounders: Physical and Mental Effects of Psychoactive Drugs. 2nd ed. Ashland: CNS Productions, 1995. 174.
Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents. Like alcohol, marijuana impairs psychomotor function and decreases driving ability. If marijuana use increases, an increase in of traffic fatalities is inevitable.
Fact: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.
*
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box”. New York. (1995):36.
*
Swan, Neil. “A Look at Marijuana’s Harmful Effects.” NIDA Notes. 9.2 (1994): 14.
*
Moskowitz, Herbert and Robert Petersen. Marijuana and Driving: A Review. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1982. 7.
*
Mann, Peggy. Marijuana Alert. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985. 265.
marijuana IS habit-forming, and millions of Americans are dependent on it for normal functioning
Myth: Marijuana is Highly Addictive. Long term marijuana users experience physical dependence and withdrawal, and often need professional drug treatment to break their marijuana habits.
Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.
*
United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral. 2002. June 24 2005.
*
Johnson, L.D., et al. “National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and Young Adults.” Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.
*
Kandel, D.B., et al. “Prevalence and demographic correlates of symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in the U.S. population.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44 (1997):11-29.
*
Stephens, R.S., et al. “Adult marijuana users seeking treatment.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.
marijuana DOES "make you stupid"- THC builds up in the form of plaque in the synapse of neurons, inhibiting neurotransmission- if neurons aren't fired, the brain kills them off as energy leaches. marijuana causes brain damage.
Myth: Marijuana's Active Ingredient, THC, Gets Trapped in Body Fat. Because THC is released from fat cells slowly, psychoactive effects may last for days or weeks following use. THC's long persistence in the body damages organs that are high in fat content, the brain in particular.
Fact: Many active drugs enter the body's fat cells. What is different (but not unique) about THC is that it exits fat cells slowly. As a result, traces of marijuana can be found in the body for days or weeks following ingestion. However, within a few hours of smoking marijuana, the amount of THC in the brain falls below the concentration required for detectable psychoactivity. The fat cells in which THC lingers are not harmed by the drug's presence, nor is the brain or other organs. The most important consequence of marijuana's slow excretion is that it can be detected in blood, urine, and tissue long after it is used, and long after its psychoactivity has ended.
*
Committees of Correspondence. Drug Abuse Newsletter 16 (March 1984).
*
Mann, Peggy. Marijuana Alert. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1985. 184.
*
Nahas, Gabriel. "When Friends of Patients Ask About Marihuana." Journal of the American Medical Association 233 (1979): 79.
*
DuPont, Robert. Getting Tough on Gateway Drugs. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1984. 68.
Myth: Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness. Among adolescents, even occasional marijuana use may cause psychological damage. During intoxication, marijuana users become irrational and often behave erratically.
Fact: There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.
*
Iverson, Leslie. “Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis.” Current Opinion in Pharmacology 5(2005): 69-72.
*
Weiser and Noy. “Interpreting the association between cannabis use and increased risk of schizophrenia.” Dialogues in Clincal Neuroscience 1(2005): 81-85.
*
"Cannabis use will impair but not damage mental health." London Telegraph. 23 January 2006.
*
Andreasson, S. et al. “Cannabis and Schizophrenia: A Longitudinal study of Swedish Conscripts,” The Lancet 2 (1987): 1483-86.
*
Degenhardt, Louisa, Wayne Hall and Michael Lynskey. “Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 71 (2003): 42-4.
*
Weil, A. “Adverse Reactions to Marijuana: Classification and Suggested Treatment.” New England Journal of Medicine 282 (1970): 997-1000.
Myth: Marijuana Impairs Memory and Cognition. Under the influence of marijuana, people are unable to think rationally and intelligently. Chronic marijuana use causes permanent mental impairment.
Fact: Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions.
*
Wetzel, C.D. et al., “Remote Memory During Marijuana Intoxication,” Psychopharmacology 76 (1982): 278-81.
*
Deadwyler, S.A. et al., “The Effects of Delta-9-THC on Mechanisms of Learning and Memory.” Neurobiology of Drug Abuse: Learning and Memory. Ed. L. Erinoff. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse 1990. 79-83.
*
Block, R.I. et al., “Acute Effects of Marijuana on Cognition: Relationships to Chronic Effects and Smoking Techniques.” Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 43 (1992): 907-917.
Myth: Marijuana Kills Brain Cells. Used over time, marijuana permanently alters brain structure and function, causing memory loss, cognitive impairment, personality deterioration, and reduced productivity.
Fact: None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.
*
Heath, R.G., et al. “Cannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function and Ultrastructure in Rhesus Monkeys.” Biological Psychiatry 15 (1980): 657-690.
*
Ali, S.F., et al. “Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey IV: Neurochemical Effects and Comparison to Acute and Chronic Exposure to Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in Rats.” Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 40 (1991): 677-82.
Myth: Marijuana's Harms Have Been Proved Scientifically. In the 1960s and 1970s, many people believed that marijuana was harmless. Today we know that marijuana is much more dangerous than previously believed.
Fact: In 1972, after reviewing the scientific evidence, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that while marijuana was not entirely safe, its dangers had been grossly overstated. Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies of humans, animals, and cell cultures. None reveal any findings dramatically different from those described by the National Commission in 1972. In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
*
United States. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Marihuana: A signal of misunderstanding. Shafer Commission Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
*
“Deglamorising Cannabis.” Editorial. The Lancet 356:11(1995): 1241.
thopkins22
06-18-10, 15:48
It's worked out better than allowing down-syndrome like pot heads to have free reign.
If you'll read Bill Buckley's article I linked, he notes that the percentage of users is quite similar here where we have strict laws as it is in The Netherlands. Only we spend billions of dollars to achieve that. And as a function of it being a black market item, a far higher percentage of children use it.
snip...{bullshit pro-marijuana propaganda written by the small minority of pro-marijuana pothead researchers you're sure to find in an industry of hundreds of thousands of people}...snip
oh damn, i guess marijuana really IS mana from God!
my bad.
:rolleyes:
I find the Sheriffs' claims about needing to enforce Federal pot laws a little hollow. Why don't they enforce Federal Immigration Laws?
The laws of the Market predict that making pot illegal will only increase the usage of it since it becomes worth the investment to advertise and market it (on the street corners of the schools etc).
I find the Sheriffs' claims about needing to enforce Federal pot laws a little hollow. Why don't they enforce Federal Immigration Laws?
sheriffs are county officials, and elected officials. you can easily make the claim that local LE are also responsible for enforcing federal laws, but i find it hard to respect a man who puts more stock into bullshit written 3,000 miles away than his OWN voters/employers. just my opinion.
variablebinary
06-18-10, 16:03
I enjoy reading a lot of your posts but your ignorance about marijuana and the people who use it medicinally, or simply for pleasure, is way off base.
I am vehemently anti illegal drugs, and refuse to be "progressive" on this issue.
My concerns also extend to the overall "medicating" of the masses.
sheriffs are county officials, and elected officials. you can easily make the claim that local LE are also responsible for enforcing federal laws, but i find it hard to respect a man who puts more stock into bullshit written 3,000 miles away than his OWN voters/employers. just my opinion.
I agree with you on the second part. I am not following you on the first part. Whenever federal immigration laws come up the local LEs say they cannot do anything as that is not their job. Which is why places like AZ make it their job with state laws. But all of a sudden, with this MJ business, they are all pro-federal law enforcement by their office. So any claim by them that they are just following the law rings hollow and BS.
I am vehemently anti illegal drugs, and refuse to be "progressive" on this issue.
My concerns also extend to the overall "medicating" of the masses.
So if the law were to be changed so that MJ was not illegal, you would not be opposed to it? (Not saying that you would use it yourself)
variablebinary
06-18-10, 16:15
So if the law were to be changed so that MJ was not illegal, you would not be opposed to it? (Not saying that you would use it yourself)
I'd still be opposed to it, in the same way I am opposed to abortion and any other perverted act sanctioned by modern and progressive values.
thopkins22
06-18-10, 16:17
I'd still be opposed to it, in the same way I am opposed to abortion and any other perverted act sanctioned by modern and progressive values.
Sure. Because violence and abusing one's own body are very similar.
ETA:We're way off topic here. Just like religion and the internet, drug policy and the internet don't mix well.
To me it's an issue because I'm willing to bet that of those here that drink alcohol, the vast majority are chemically dependent(at least as it's clinically defined,) and therefor should not be able to legally own firearms under federal law.
I'd still be opposed to it, in the same way I am opposed to abortion and any other perverted act sanctioned by modern and progressive values.
Uhh, MJ is illegal due to progressives. Back before the progressive movement, there was not the plethora of laws trying to make us virtuous.
I am against people taking drugs. I am not for making them illegal.
Big Boy Rules.
There is no comparison to abortion with drug use. One is a conscious act against another being who has no choice in the matter. One is messing up your own life and being responsible for the consequences.
Nathan_Bell
06-18-10, 16:24
I'd still be opposed to it, in the same way I am opposed to abortion and any other perverted act sanctioned by modern and progressive values.
Your argument is severely lacking in the internal consistency department.
You want to use the force of the government to change a person's behavior. An idea that is at the core of the progressives' belief system, but yet you are opposed to all things that have come about by way of the progressives.
ETA:We're way off topic here. Just like religion and the internet, drug policy and the internet don't mix well.
I think a certain amount of thread drift is going to happen with something like this. As long as people keep it civil I don't see much harm in open, honest debate on the subject.
My personal stance is very open minded and I think people should have the freedom to ingest into their own bodies what they choose. The prohibition of drugs does nothing to discourage drug use and only encourages bad people to engage in illegal activity to make a profit. If you choose to drink alcohol, smoke pot or do blow I could care less as long as you don't infringe on another person's self or property in the process.
I also think most people have already made up their minds either way so a lot of debate is kind of pointless as well. In my mind you have people who love freedom, true freedom, and on the other hand those who love government and it's meddling into people's private lives.
variablebinary
06-18-10, 16:31
Your argument is severely lacking in the internal consistency department.
You want to use the force of the government to change a person's behavior. An idea that is at the core of the progressives' belief system, but yet you are opposed to all things that have come about by way of the progressives.
There is no inconsistency. Perverts have infected the political system and want to remake the country with perverted values with more stupefied druggies, promiscuity, abortion, welfare and illegals.
I also think most people have already made up their minds either way so a lot of debate is kind of pointless as well. In my mind you have people who love freedom, true freedom, and on the other hand those who love government and it's meddling into people's private lives.
word. i don't think i've ever seen anyone's mind changed mid-debate on any of these ultra-divisive issues. these debates are never anything more than trying to score points for your side, not changing minds.
thopkins22
06-18-10, 16:43
There is no inconsistency. Perverts have infected the political system and want to remake the country with perverted values with more stupefied druggies, promiscuity, abortion, welfare and illegals.
I'm against the drug war(but nor am I in favor of drug abuse,) against abortion(but against federal laws against it, as violence is something generally covered by state law,) 100% against all form of state sponsored welfare, against illegal immigration(though if we didn't pay Americans to not work, it wouldn't be much of an issue,) and for all forms of responsible promiscuity.:p
The issue is whether or not the government should be involved in enforcing morality(much less capable of enforcing morality.) I also urge you to reconsider the notion that crummy politicians is something new. In fact as long as there have been politicians the vast majority of them have been crummy.
Nathan_Bell
06-18-10, 16:44
There is no inconsistency. Perverts have infected the political system and want to remake the country with perverted values with more stupefied druggies, promiscuity, abortion, welfare and illegals.
The use of the government as a vehicle to change people's behavior is a Progressive core belief. Their conceit is that a creation of man is powerful enough to change human nature, this is also called the unconstrained view. As they belief that humanity can be shaped into anything.
Opposing this is the constrained view, which is basically the Judeo-Christian view that man is flawed and action must be taken to protect others from his failing, but let him fall if he chooses this path.
Which approach is closer to your attempt at social engineering by way of wanting to jail all drug users?
variablebinary
06-18-10, 16:47
The issue is whether or not the government should be involved in enforcing morality
That is if you regard rampant drug use as merely a morality issue.
thopkins22
06-18-10, 16:57
That is if you regard rampant drug use as merely a morality issue.
Honestly, I view the annual imprisonment of 700,000 non violent people as much more immoral than the usage that landed them there.
I could care less what somebody chooses to do to themselves. If they steal to feed their habit, prosecute them. If they hurt someone while under the influence, prosecute them. If they sit at home and don't do jack? Well then I'll take their job...without welfare they wouldn't be able to do that for long.
That is if you regard rampant drug use as merely a morality issue.
And making drugs illegal has curbed this rampant drug use exactly how?
More likely it has increased it. Wherever you have money (and making drugs illegal drives up their value) you have an incentive to push your product.
Look at cannabis use in countries that have decriminalized it. They have lower use of cannabis by teenagers in Holland, for example.
There is no inconsistency. Perverts have infected the political system and want to remake the country with perverted values with more stupefied druggies, promiscuity, abortion, welfare and illegals.
So you want a political system that restricts personal freedoms according to your values and ideals. You want to restrict what someone puts in their body even though it does not affect you. You want to restrict who someone has sex with, sorry none of your business. Outlaw abortion so it forces people onto welfare, and then bitch about welfare. You have a great plan there.
I am sure you will be the first to complain when someone else wants to remove some of your freedoms, simply because they do not agree with them.
You want to restrict who someone has sex with, sorry none of your business.
did i miss something?
Outlaw abortion so it forces people onto welfare, and then bitch about welfare. You have a great plan there.
banning abortion will force people to go on something that doesn't exist anymore? i'm not following your logic.
word. i don't think i've ever seen anyone's mind changed mid-debate on any of these ultra-divisive issues. these debates are never anything more than trying to score points for your side, not changing minds.
I'm totally biased on the topic...i view this no different that prohibition #2. Al Capone was the narco of booze if you need to review a history lesson.
I want my home safe again and would love to see legalization and put ALL the narcos out of business. Sigh...Too many folks making money on trying to stop a never ending demand for that to happen.
I've never done drugs. Not ever.
That said, I don't see a problem with decriminalizing marijuana. Yes, we'd still have the social problems of drugs but we already have those now--might as well make some profit from taxation and save some money lost to incarceration. We might be able to better focus our efforts on more dangerous drugs like meth, which has been plaguing us for years.
One of my LEO friends who is very much pro-legalization told me that he thought if there were an equivalent breathalyzer test for marijuana it would have been legalized long ago.
Much like gun control laws, marijuana restriction holds its roots in Jim Crow and other racist law. If marijuana were, 'the white mans drug' and alcohol was, 'the black mans drug' we'd probably see a complete reversal.
I think he should have just checked, 'No' in the box and went on with his business.
Other notes:
I know a guy who has a medicinal marijuana prescription in California due to his brain trauma and PTSD he got from Iraq. I can only say that it has been a blessing for him because prior to the prescription, he was drinking literally more than a fifth a night just to get some sleep. Smoking a joint or two and then going to bed was far more beneficial to him than drinking himself to death and losing it every night.
I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that marijuana has no drawbacks or is good for you (is chemotherapy, 'good' for you?) but it's a much better alternative than some other methods of treatment.
I will say that it's hard to prescribe marijuana, as how much THC one intakes is variable depending on the strain etc. Marinol appears to be a better choice as Mg's can be easily determined but I've heard arguments that Marinol is not as beneficial as straight MJ. I'd be getting out of my element if I talked any more on that path though so I'll just leave it there.
thopkins22
06-18-10, 19:30
banning abortion will force people to go on something that doesn't exist anymore? i'm not following your logic.
Then what is TANF? Certainly health care for all isn't a welfare program...or is it? There are a lot of things that may not be "Welfare" as it was before '96, but are certainly welfare programs.
did i miss something?
banning abortion will force people to go on something that doesn't exist anymore? i'm not following your logic.
I guess you missed the part about promiscuity.
Welfare totally exists, it just isnt called welfare anymore. Childcare assistance, food stamps, government funded healthcare for children, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families all looks like welfare to me.
So you want a political system that restricts personal freedoms according to your values and ideals. You want to restrict what someone puts in their body even though it does not affect you. You want to restrict who someone has sex with, sorry none of your business. Outlaw abortion so it forces people onto welfare, and then bitch about welfare. You have a great plan there.
I am sure you will be the first to complain when someone else wants to remove some of your freedoms, simply because they do not agree with them.
I agree with your sentiment on freedom but snuffing out another's life in the name of freedom?
rickrock305
06-18-10, 20:35
oh damn, i guess marijuana really IS mana from God!
my bad.
:rolleyes:
noone is saying that. grow up and realize i'm trying to shed some light on your misinformation and backing it up with studies, research, facts. generally thats how arguments are made, not with statements like
will you shut the **** up, please?
:rolleyes:
I guess you missed the part about promiscuity.
Welfare totally exists, it just isnt called welfare anymore. Childcare assistance, food stamps, government funded healthcare for children, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families all looks like welfare to me.
i'm still not seeing people being "forced" into public assistance if abortion, which didn't exist until '72, were banned.
don't bother to answer, though- i already know nobody will be forced into public assistance if abortion is banned.
noone is saying that. grow up and realize i'm trying to shed some light on your misinformation and backing it up with studies, research, facts. generally thats how arguments are made, not with statements like
:rolleyes:
you're shedding incorrect light. i know it, you know it- marijuana is harmful. it only weakens your argument to try to pretend its not. for every BS pro-marijuana study you can pull off the internet, i could find 10 that refute yours. and when you really get right down to it, who knows, and who cares? it's ALL bullshit, and totally beside the point- the POINT is that prohibiting peaceful activity, regardless of roundabout arguments against it, is totally contrary to what this country is supposed to be about. i wish you potheads would try to focus on that. nobody buys that it's somehow good, or even not harmful, and it just strips any credibility you might have.
i see the same bullshit from the pro-abortion camp. i even heard some stupid twit "researcher" or "doctor" or whoever the **** she was, state that women who have had abortions not only dont suffer any psychological harm, but tend to be better adjusted people than women who haven't had them. are you ****ing kidding me? abortion beneficial?? ludicrous.
abortion, which didn't exist until '72, were banned.
LOL nice fact you made up there.
LOL nice fact you made up there.
you're right.. it was '73. my bad.
you're right.. it was '73. my bad.
Yah, abortion was invented in 1973.. :rolleyes:
rickrock305
06-18-10, 21:10
you're shedding incorrect light. i know it, you know it- marijuana is harmful. it only weakens your argument to try to pretend its not. for every BS pro-marijuana study you can pull off the internet, i could find 10 that refute yours. and when you really get right down to it, who knows, and who cares?
sorry, but the science is there. i've shown it and backed up my argument which is more than you can say for yourself. its been proven to be pretty much harmless.
it's ALL bullshit, and totally beside the point- the POINT is that prohibiting peaceful activity, regardless of roundabout arguments against it, is totally contrary to what this country is supposed to be about.
but the roundabout arguments are whats used to keep it illegal. its not beside the point at all, it IS the point.
i wish you potheads would try to focus on that. nobody buys that it's somehow good, or even not harmful, and it just strips any credibility you might have.
sorry, not a pothead here. i don't do any drugs, smoke, drink, or anything else. worst drug i'm on is my morning coffee.
thopkins22
06-18-10, 21:38
it's ALL bullshit, and totally beside the point- the POINT is that prohibiting peaceful activity, regardless of roundabout arguments against it, is totally contrary to what this country is supposed to be about.
Well put.
As a side note, abortion has existed for hundreds of years. In fact the first laws in this country regulating abortion date back to the 1820's. Was it very safe then? Of course not, but abortions were successfully performed long before then.
Well put.
As a side note, abortion has existed for hundreds of years. In fact the first laws in this country regulating abortion date back to the 1820's. Was it very safe then? Of course not, but abortions were successfully performed long before then.
they were dangerous, expensive, and very far and few between. my point to perna is that they were very rare before '73, and yet the USA did not live on public assistance.
Please define what you consider very rare.
In the 1890s, doctors estimated that there were two million abortions a year in the U.S. (compared with one and a half million today).
In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result.
I do not consider that rare at all. Now considering the amount of people getting public assistance today, think how much worse it would be if you add 1-2 million more babies per year.
you guys seriously need to quit pulling "statistics" off the internet. that's about what the birth-rate was in 1890. you seriously believe half of pregnancies ended in abortion?
this is why i generally stay the hell out of GD piss-fests. totally pointless.
have fun, i'm done.
you guys seriously need to quit pulling "statistics" off the internet. that's about what the birth-rate was in 1890. you seriously believe half of pregnancies ended in abortion?
this is why i generally stay the hell out of GD piss-fests. totally pointless.
have fun, i'm done.
You seriously need to quit making up "statistics" to support your arguments.
Knock off the bullshit and keep this on track or I'll lock it down tighter than Ft. Knox.
Again, the short answer is what he is doing is legal under California state law but illegal under Federal law, therefore he is still an unlawful user of marijuana.
that is the way it is set up:rolleyes: ATF is Federal so in their eyes ,even though legal in California ,still a No no in the feds Eyes.he should find another shop and answer NO on that question
I was at FT KNOX and it is truly Locked down tight LOL
that is the way it is set up:rolleyes: ATF is Federal so in their eyes ,even though legal in California ,still a No no in the feds Eyes.he should find another shop and answer NO on that question
I was at FT KNOX and it is truly Locked down tight LOL
But when the DEA is told not to arrest those people it makes the law pointless.
But when the DEA is told not to arrest those people it makes the law pointless.
I agree with that it is Pointless.I was watching a show the other day that is call "Super High Me" Like the super size me test.and the Feds Raided five Medical Pot places in Cali sezied the Pot But did Not arrest One Person or charge them But they did Keep the Patient Records, after all was said and done they still where able to re-open ,so what is the point?? Makes no sense to me. they had permits from the City for there Business and the City went out of there way to Help the Shops open back up so what Good did the Raids do other than spend Taxpayers Money and Accomplish Nothing.
And the sage continues but this time with a different person... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/16/MN561IPH36.DTL Now waiting on the Oregon Supreme Court to make it's ruling.
And the sage continues but this time with a different person... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/16/MN561IPH36.DTL Now waiting on the Oregon Supreme Court to make it's ruling.
I thought the Oregon Supreme Court had already ruled on this issue. Or was that an appellate court decision and now several cases have been put together and appealed by the state up to the Supreme Court?
I thought the Oregon Supreme Court had already ruled on this issue. Or was that an appellate court decision and now several cases have been put together and appealed by the state up to the Supreme Court?
Check out post #30 in this thread. The Court of Appeals had said they're good to go and now it's advanced to the Supreme Court of Oregon and awaiting on their decision.
Check out post #30 in this thread. The Court of Appeals had said they're good to go and now it's advanced to the Supreme Court of Oregon and awaiting on their decision.
They should not have appealed the decision of the Appeals Court. What a waste of tax dollars. Talk about a tempest in a teapot. I believe the Oregon Supreme Court will probably arrive at the same decision.
The concealed carry permit in OR isn't even used to bypass NICS like it does in some states, which means the statement that they are providing a firearm to somebody they know can't have it legally under federal law isn't true.
Regardless of how you feel about marijuana and it's medicinal benefits I think this disabled veteran has some very valid points. Considering the fact that he has a prescription for the medical use of marijuana does that invalidate his right to the 2nd Amendment and the ability to defend himself and his family with a firearm? Not in my book.
Go to link to watch his video testimony.
http://anewscafe.com/2010/02/03/medical-marijuana-and-the-2nd-amendment/
This thread, as listed in the quoted OP, is about the 2nd Amendment and people who are prescription marijuana users. This thread is NOT about the pros or cons of the use of the drug like most of the posts in this thread.
This is a new related story about the ATF stating that medical marijuana users are not entitled to the 2nd Amendment protections of the United States Constitution. The story can be read here (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/6/medical-pot-users-fuming-over-atfs-gun-sale-ban/).
You can have your gun, or you can have your medical marijuana. But the Obama administration now says you can’t have both.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in the crosshairs for a recent memo prohibiting gun merchants from selling firearms to anyone who uses marijuana, including those with state-issued medical-marijuana cards.
An open letter dated Sept. 21 from Arthur Herbert, ATF assistant director for Enforcement Programs and Services, said that, “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”
Your opinion about the usage of marijuana is irrelevant to this topic. This topic is about the constitutionality of restricting people's rights due to a medicine they're prescribed. To the best of my knowledge no other prescribed medicine limits or restricts a person from purchasing or possessing a firearm including highly addictive and dangerous narcotics.
If a person has a prescription for the medical use of marijuana does that invalidate his right to the 2nd Amendment and the ability to defend himself and his family with a firearm?
Magic_Salad0892
10-07-11, 16:19
Well. In California I would support the law based on how violent the potheads are down there, letting a lot of Californians have guns anyway is pretty stupid.
IMHO, opiates are what should disable your ability to own a gun.
Well. In California I would support the law based on how violent the potheads are down there, letting a lot of Californians have guns anyway is pretty stupid.
You're using a pretty broad brush. ;) NORML estimates there could be as many as 750k to 1.1 million people with prescriptions for medical marijuana in California: http://www.canorml.org/news/cbcsurvey2011.html CA patients are no longer required to register and that's the reason for the estimates rather than hard numbers.
Would you support a law that restricts blacks and Mexicans from owning guns as well? If you look at statistics and prison population percentages than it would follow the same logic.
SW-Shooter
10-07-11, 22:31
After I was injured I was prescribed Fentanyl, Oxycodone, Clonazepam and a myriad of other pretty hardcore drugs. During that time I purchased several firearms. Was I in violation, are they gonna shoot my dags now?
Seriously, I have kids and I teach them drugs are bad. But I would have rather smoked MJ daily than take the shit I was prescribed. Coming off of major opiates is a proverbial bitch, it was the worst thing I ever experienced.
Either legalize it or outlaw it, no middle ground. Each state needs the same enforcement or not. The fact that the federal government doesn't like MJ or it's byproducts is about as stupid as Prohibition, but I don't make the laws. I think as long as alcohol is legal MJ should be, with the same legal consequences of use. Tax the crap of it, like cigarettes and viola problem solved. Those that say it's a gateway drug should consider beer a gateway to hard liquor. More people are killed in alcohol related accidents than MJ accidents. But they ain't gonna touch that with a twenty foot pole.
I personally think an addict is an addict, whether it be booze, scrips, illegal drugs, etc. Something has to be done though. The government could outsource through regional growers and pretty much put the cartels out of the pot business. Losing 20 keys of coke would hit the cartels harder than 100 pounds of MJ. We'll also have a new source of revenue for the feds. But I don't and won't advocate it until it is legal.
Magic_Salad0892
10-08-11, 03:04
You're using a pretty broad brush. ;) NORML estimates there could be as many as 750k to 1.1 million people with prescriptions for medical marijuana in California: http://www.canorml.org/news/cbcsurvey2011.html CA patients are no longer required to register and that's the reason for the estimates rather than hard numbers.
Would you support a law that restricts blacks and Mexicans from owning guns as well? If you look at statistics and prison population percentages than it would follow the same logic.
Either fully legalize everything all at once, or ban shit.
If you do it incramentally, stupid shit happens.
It's not the optimal decision, but it's the one that they've forced.
Belmont31R
10-08-11, 13:46
Lamar Smith has introduced a bill that would allow the government to prosecute citizens WORLD WIDE for drug offenses.
The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) -- even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they're carried out. The new law, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA, the massive federal law that prohibits drugs like marijuana and strictly regulates prescription medication.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/us-drug-policy-war-congress_n_998993.html
I wonder if due process is going to be followed here? More and more things the Feds are sticking their nose into overseas regulating what Americans do even if legal elsewhere. No matter where you go Uncle Fed will be watching...:rolleyes:
make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities
Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death. No escape from airstrip one.
polydeuces
10-08-11, 16:30
After I was injured I was prescribed Fentanyl, Oxycodone, Clonazepam and a myriad of other pretty hardcore drugs. During that time I purchased several firearms. Was I in violation, are they gonna shoot my dags now?
Seriously, I have kids and I teach them drugs are bad. But I would have rather smoked MJ daily than take the shit I was prescribed. Coming off of major opiates is a proverbial bitch, it was the worst thing I ever experienced.
Either legalize it or outlaw it, no middle ground. Each state needs the same enforcement or not. The fact that the federal government doesn't like MJ or it's byproducts is about as stupid as Prohibition, but I don't make the laws. I think as long as alcohol is legal MJ should be, with the same legal consequences of use. Tax the crap of it, like cigarettes and viola problem solved. Those that say it's a gateway drug should consider beer a gateway to hard liquor. More people are killed in alcohol related accidents than MJ accidents. But they ain't gonna touch that with a twenty foot pole.
I personally think an addict is an addict, whether it be booze, scrips, illegal drugs, etc. Something has to be done though. The government could outsource through regional growers and pretty much put the cartels out of the pot business. Losing 20 keys of coke would hit the cartels harder than 100 pounds of MJ. We'll also have a new source of revenue for the feds. But I don't and won't advocate it until it is legal.
That pretty much sums it up - could not have said it better myself.
Hope you're OK - those are beyond anything most people have to take.
CarlosDJackal
10-10-11, 09:29
If he has a prescription for it then he should have ignored Jones's advice and answered no.
+ 1 million.
The form specifically says, “Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana, a depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
Since he had a legally-obtained prescription, he should have answered NO.
"Losing 20 keys of coke would hit the cartels harder than 100 pounds of MJ"
Actually, not really. The Cartels are now major players in the production of high potency, hydroponic indica marijuana in the U.S. Such marijuana, when retailed through a "dispensary" can regularly fetch $5,000.00/lb. The transportation stream is shorter, meaning lower cost and the retail sale is semi-legitimized meaning lower risk. A key of coke on the wholesale end right now can be had for $18,000.00/kilo or about $9,000.00/lb but the coke comes with much higher transportation costs and much greater risk to distribute. So, in your example we have a gross price of $500,000.00 for the weed, and 360,000.00 for the coke, which explains exactly why the cartels and organized crime are so excited about the MJ business in the U.S., it is all about the money. Marijuana is now the cash generator for the production and purchase of other drugs such as ecstasy, cocaine, and methamphetamine, meaning the guys involved in the commercial production of marijuana are also involved in the distribution of MJ are slinging other, harder stuff.
For those that think MJ is not addictive, you are relying on past experiences or old information with MJ from 20-30-40 years ago. The differences between low grade "backyard" sativas and high potency hydroponic indicas is as high as 100 times more potent. The MJ being sold now is more potent than the hashish sold in the seventies. Marijuana is now listed as the number one drug of referral at drug treatment centers. It is addictive and it does have major psychological side affects.
The dollar amounts being seized from MJ deals now regularly run between .1 and .5 million dollars. The medicinal marijuana movement has nothing to do with compassionate care and everything to do with the profits. Legalization is not going to make the greed motivator go away. These guys will kill over a 100lbs of weeks just as quickly as they will kill over thirty kilos of coke.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/19/national/main20064366.shtml?tag=re1.channel
The Oregon Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a retired school bus driver can have her medical marijuana and a concealed handgun, too.
The ruling upheld previous decisions by the Oregon Court of Appeals and circuit court that determined a federal law barring criminals and drug addicts from buying firearms does not excuse sheriffs from issuing concealed weapons permits to people who hold medical marijuana cards and otherwise qualify.
"We hold that the Federal Gun Control Act does not pre-empt the state's concealed handgun licensing statute and, therefore, the sheriffs must issue (or renew) the requested licenses," Chief Justice Paul De Muniz wrote in the ruling issued in Salem.
thopkins22
12-14-11, 14:47
For those that think MJ is not addictive, you are relying on past experiences or old information with MJ from 20-30-40 years ago. The differences between low grade "backyard" sativas and high potency hydroponic indicas is as high as 100 times more potent. The MJ being sold now is more potent than the hashish sold in the seventies.
That's not really true. The main psychoactive drug is THC which is present in both types. Testing that shows marijuana isn't addictive utilizes much higher percentages of THC than 15%, and not a soul became physically addicted or suffered any damage. Both types can be made very potent, and were made potent in the 60's/70's as well. The profit motive was not as strong then though...wonder what created that? But it is true that you can become psychologically addicted to it...but that's true for pretty much anything. There are people that are addicted to eating plastic and paper napkins.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana5.htm
is now listed as the number one drug of referral at drug treatment centers. It is addictive and it does have major psychological side affects.
Gee, when folks are court ordered to receive treatment, it's no wonder that the most popular illegal drug receives more referrals than the others. If I made people receive treatment for consuming caffeine, it would probably take the top spot instead. If I made a similar correlation about anything else in one of my classes, I'd receive an F.
I'm not condoning it's use, the folks I knew who habitually used marijuana did tend to become complacent with their place in life and lose drive. But they certainly weren't physically addicted nor did they exhibit any criminal behavior other than the drug abuse itself.
Honestly, I don't care if it killed every single one of them. Free people should have the right to do whatever they please as long as the rest of us don't have to pay for the consequences.
The dollar amounts being seized from MJ deals now regularly run between .1 and .5 million dollars. The medicinal marijuana movement has nothing to do with compassionate care and everything to do with the profits. Legalization is not going to make the greed motivator go away. These guys will kill over a 100lbs of weeks just as quickly as they will kill over thirty kilos of coke.
Who cares about greed or profit? I'm for it. Greed when there is recourse through the courts is almost ALWAYS a good thing. How many people are killed by Exxon Mobile? They are quite greedy(I'm okay with it,) and far more money is at stake than with drugs. But guess what? When someone has the ability to go to court to settle disputes, they usually do. Black markets have always been where force applied without due process and without neutrality and other serious problems really thrive.
That's not really true. The main psychoactive drug is THC which is present in both types. Testing that shows marijuana isn't addictive utilizes much higher percentages of THC than 15%, and not a sole became physically addicted or suffered any damage. Both types can be made very potent, and were made potent in the 60's/70's as well. The profit motive was not as strong then though...wonder what created that? But it is true that you can become psychologically addicted to it...but that's true for pretty much anything. There are people that are addicted to eating plastic and paper napkins.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana5.htm
Gee, when folks are court ordered to receive treatment, it's no wonder that the most popular illegal drug receives more referrals than the others. If I made people receive treatment for consuming caffeine, it would probably take the top spot instead. If I made a similar correlation about anything else in one of my classes, I'd receive an F.
I'm not condoning it's use, the folks I knew who habitually used marijuana did tend to become complacent with their place in life and lose drive. But they certainly weren't physically addicted nor did they exhibit any criminal behavior other than the drug abuse itself.
Honestly, I don't care if it killed every single one of them. Free people should have the right to do whatever they please as long as the rest of us don't have to pay for the consequences.
Who cares about greed or profit? I'm for it. Greed when there is recourse through the courts is almost ALWAYS a good thing. How many people are killed by Exxon Mobile? They are quite greedy(I'm okay with it,) and far more money is at stake than with drugs. But guess what? When someone has the ability to go to court to settle disputes, they usually do. Black markets have always been where force applied without due process and without neutrality and other serious problems really thrive.
Grow it, sell it, transport it accross state lines, then buy lots of stuff with the proceeds, cars, planes, houses, toys, whatever, then cry me a river when we come take it all away from you and rip you from your family for years and destroy your life. Truth in sentencing; federally with good behavior you'll serve a minimum of 85% of your sentence. I get paid the same regardless.
Land of the free...
cry me a river when we come take it all away from you and rip you from your family for years and destroy your life. Truth in sentencing; federally with good behavior you'll serve a minimum of 85% of your sentence. I get paid the same regardless.
http://images.screenrush.co.uk/r_760_x/medias/nmedia/18/65/06/57/18828544.jpg
Land of the free...
http://images.screenrush.co.uk/r_760_x/medias/nmedia/18/65/06/57/18828544.jpg
What is that old TV show theme song lyric, "don't do the crime, if you can't do the time"?
Buddy, I have been called a lot worse by far better people than you; you gotta do a whole lot better than that. My actions aren't what brings a person before a Federal Magistrate and a District Court Judge after that. It is that person's actions. One has to own up to their behavior and the consequences of their own actions. The poor life choices of others aren't my responsibility, they are, however, part and parcel my chosen profession.
Hangmen also die.
Whatever, I sleep quite well at night.
Buddy, I have been called a lot worse by far better people than you; you gotta do a whole lot better than that. My actions aren't what brings a person before a Federal Magistrate and a District Court Judge after that. It is that person's actions. One has to own up to their behavior and the consequences of their own actions. The poor life choices of others aren't my responsibility, they are, however, part and parcel my chosen profession.
No one called you anything, he actually wrote "Land of the free...", so do you really feel the need to try to insult and bait people?
You should be grateful that there are in fact people who break these types of bullshit laws, they aren't crimes, so that you can keep sucking off the tit of the taxpayer. Without them you lose all of your job security and would actually have to work for a living producing something for a change.
You may want to reread the Constitution of the United States since you swore an oath to uphold it and you obviously have no clue as to what it says by what you've written.
For some reason real evil always gets dehumanized to a level similar to making sure the library cards are all in order.
"Republican attorney general candidate Brian Sandoval explained the AG is obligated to enforce any enactment of the Legislature, no matter how unconstitutional.
"Come on, " I demanded, "you're saying that if the Legislature passed a law requiring all Jews to wear yellow stars of David sewn on the outside of their clothing, you'd enforce it?"
"It's my job to enforce it," Mr. Sandoval replied." -Vin Suprynowicz
They made this guy Governor... Irish's Governor. :haha: :eek:
thopkins22
12-15-11, 00:13
Grow it, sell it, transport it accross state lines, then buy lots of stuff with the proceeds, cars, planes, houses, toys, whatever, then cry me a river when we come take it all away from you and rip you from your family for years and destroy your life. Truth in sentencing; federally with good behavior you'll serve a minimum of 85% of your sentence. I get paid the same regardless.
I don't really get it. I don't use marijuana, sell it, grow it, nor would I ever advocate anyone else do any of the above. :confused:
And honestly I don't suffer much pity for those running dispensaries or whatever that get busted because they knew it was against the law and the risks they were taking. I do not however find them criminal. I realize that's contradictory, but it makes sense to me.
Vin Suprynowicz
They made this guy Governor... Irish's Governor. :haha: :eek:
Sandoval's a piece of work and that's the nicest thing I can think of to say... Vin Suprynowicz is a Las Vegas resident I can appreciate. I read his articles frequently and own several of his books. He's a libertarian through and through and puts a pretty cool perspective on a lot of things. He is super duper pro-2nd Amendment to the core. Here's his site: http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/
Sandoval's a piece of work and that's the nicest thing I can think of to say... Vin Suprynowicz is a Las Vegas resident I can appreciate. I read his articles frequently and own several of his books. He's a libertarian through and through and puts a pretty cool perspective on a lot of things. He is super duper pro-2nd Amendment to the core. Here's his site: http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/
Yep, Vin is a righteous dude, the country needs more journalists like him.
Saw this in an article today and I couldn't help but think of this thread.
http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/2425/obedience.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.