Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Marijuana revisited

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Marijuana revisited

    What are your thoughts & opinions on this ?

    It's an interesting issue and below is an interesting read on the subject in many ways.

    I think it's just a matter of time before this weed really is no longer outlawed.

    Do I think that's a good or a bad thing ?

    I think it's like anything else that can be abused and misused .... People will have to be intelligent with their everyday decisions as always, it's only a weed.

    I'm not a big fan of government involvement and regulation of and taxing of people over it either though. Just another opportunity to feed the government leeches more money that they didn't earn !

    Let people who want some, buy seeds and grow their own !

    I don't know ?

    What do you think ?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    President Donald Trump said Friday that he was inclined to support a bipartisan effort in Congress to ease the U.S. ban on marijuana, a proposal that would dramatically reshape the nation's legal landscape for pot users and businesses.

    The federal ban that puts marijuana on the same level as LSD and heroin has created a conflict with about 30 states that have legalized pot in some form, creating a two-tiered enforcement system at the state and federal levels.

    The legislation would ensure states have the right to determine the best approach to marijuana within their borders, but some U.S. restrictions would remain, including sales of non-medical pot to people under 21.

    The proposal introduced Thursday has support from members of Congress from both parties, including Republican U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado.

    "I support Senator Gardner. I know exactly what he's doing," Trump told reporters in Washington when asked about the legislation. "We're looking at it. But I probably will end up supporting that, yes."

    The president's remarks place him in conflict with his own Justice Department and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who staunchly opposes marijuana. He lifted an Obama administration policy and freed federal prosecutors to more aggressively pursue cases in states that have legalized marijuana.

    Asked about the measure in an interview with Colorado Public Radio, Sessions said, "We'll see how far it goes and how much support there is. ... My view is clear: The federal law remains in effect nationwide, just as it does for heroin and cocaine."

    The proposal's prospects in Congress were unclear.

    Gardner, who heads the Senate Republicans' campaign arm, is close to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican has consistently opposed legalizing marijuana but has called hemp and marijuana "two entirely separate plants."

    The bill would change the definition of marijuana in federal drug law to exclude industrial hemp, which like marijuana is part of the cannabis plant family but doesn't contain the THC that gives pot users the high. Hemp produces the non-intoxicating cannabinoids, or CBDs, that have become a health rage and a lucrative crop in Kentucky and other states.

    Oregon Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a co-sponsor, said momentum was building in the House but "we just need Republican leadership in Congress to get on board or get out of our way, and for Trump to keep his word."

    Despite his comments, Trump has sent mixed signals on the drug: While campaigning for president, he pledged to respect states that legalized marijuana, but he also has criticized legalization and implied it should be stopped.

    "I don't think anyone would make a bet on the long-term validity of an offhand remark by the president that he 'probably' would support something," said Kevin A. Sabet, head of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a nonpartisan group opposed to marijuana legalization. "I think he'll find out soon from ... victims of marijuana addiction and impaired driving that this is not as popular as Cory Gardner is leading him to believe."

    Trump's remarks Friday echo a promise that Gardner said he received privately from the president in April to support legislation protecting the marijuana industry in states that have legalized the drug.

    "My legislation is in line with what President Trump said on the campaign and what he and I have discussed several times since he was elected," Gardner said in a statement Friday. He welcomed the president's "continued interest in an approach that respects the will of the voters in each state."

    Another co-sponsor of the measure, Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, said in a statement that Washington "needs to get out of the business of outlawing marijuana."

    California, home to one in eight Americans, launched the nation's largest legal marijuana marketplace on Jan. 1 but thousands of businesses that have been licensed are still facing the threat of federal prosecution.

    A major problem stemming from the federal ban: Major banks have been reluctant to do business with marijuana companies, fearing it could lead to prosecution. In California, for example, paying taxes and other transactions are often done in cash, sometimes in vast amounts.

    The bill includes language intended to address financial issues caused by the federal ban.


    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mar...6/09/id/865179

  • #2
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
    What are your thoughts & opinions on this ?

    It's an interesting issue and below is an interesting read on the subject in many ways.

    I think it's just a matter of time before this weed really is no longer outlawed.

    Do I think that's a good or a bad thing ?

    I think it's like anything else that can be abused and misused .... People will have to be intelligent with their everyday decisions as always, it's only a weed.

    I'm not a big fan of government involvement and regulation of and taxing of people over it either though. Just another opportunity to feed the government leeches more money that they didn't earn !

    Let people who want some, buy seeds and grow their own !

    I don't know ?

    What do you think ?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    President Donald Trump said Friday that he was inclined to support a bipartisan effort in Congress to ease the U.S. ban on marijuana, a proposal that would dramatically reshape the nation's legal landscape for pot users and businesses.

    The federal ban that puts marijuana on the same level as LSD and heroin has created a conflict with about 30 states that have legalized pot in some form, creating a two-tiered enforcement system at the state and federal levels.

    The legislation would ensure states have the right to determine the best approach to marijuana within their borders, but some U.S. restrictions would remain, including sales of non-medical pot to people under 21.

    The proposal introduced Thursday has support from members of Congress from both parties, including Republican U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado.

    "I support Senator Gardner. I know exactly what he's doing," Trump told reporters in Washington when asked about the legislation. "We're looking at it. But I probably will end up supporting that, yes."

    The president's remarks place him in conflict with his own Justice Department and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who staunchly opposes marijuana. He lifted an Obama administration policy and freed federal prosecutors to more aggressively pursue cases in states that have legalized marijuana.

    Asked about the measure in an interview with Colorado Public Radio, Sessions said, "We'll see how far it goes and how much support there is. ... My view is clear: The federal law remains in effect nationwide, just as it does for heroin and cocaine."

    The proposal's prospects in Congress were unclear.

    Gardner, who heads the Senate Republicans' campaign arm, is close to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican has consistently opposed legalizing marijuana but has called hemp and marijuana "two entirely separate plants."

    The bill would change the definition of marijuana in federal drug law to exclude industrial hemp, which like marijuana is part of the cannabis plant family but doesn't contain the THC that gives pot users the high. Hemp produces the non-intoxicating cannabinoids, or CBDs, that have become a health rage and a lucrative crop in Kentucky and other states.

    Oregon Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a co-sponsor, said momentum was building in the House but "we just need Republican leadership in Congress to get on board or get out of our way, and for Trump to keep his word."

    Despite his comments, Trump has sent mixed signals on the drug: While campaigning for president, he pledged to respect states that legalized marijuana, but he also has criticized legalization and implied it should be stopped.

    "I don't think anyone would make a bet on the long-term validity of an offhand remark by the president that he 'probably' would support something," said Kevin A. Sabet, head of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a nonpartisan group opposed to marijuana legalization. "I think he'll find out soon from ... victims of marijuana addiction and impaired driving that this is not as popular as Cory Gardner is leading him to believe."

    Trump's remarks Friday echo a promise that Gardner said he received privately from the president in April to support legislation protecting the marijuana industry in states that have legalized the drug.

    "My legislation is in line with what President Trump said on the campaign and what he and I have discussed several times since he was elected," Gardner said in a statement Friday. He welcomed the president's "continued interest in an approach that respects the will of the voters in each state."

    Another co-sponsor of the measure, Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, said in a statement that Washington "needs to get out of the business of outlawing marijuana."

    California, home to one in eight Americans, launched the nation's largest legal marijuana marketplace on Jan. 1 but thousands of businesses that have been licensed are still facing the threat of federal prosecution.

    A major problem stemming from the federal ban: Major banks have been reluctant to do business with marijuana companies, fearing it could lead to prosecution. In California, for example, paying taxes and other transactions are often done in cash, sometimes in vast amounts.

    The bill includes language intended to address financial issues caused by the federal ban.


    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mar...6/09/id/865179
    First, like any other intoxicant (including alcohol), cannabis will be abused, causes impairment and wastes people's time. That being said, it is arguably the "least worst" choice, since it has the potential of being used with the least damage to both the individual and society. It has demonstrated clear medical benefits, a fact which expose a few conservatives who hold their opposition so fiercely that it embarrasses fellow conservatives. OTOH, it's abuse is ignored by a few liberals, who hold up the impossibility of overdosing on (real) cannabis as some sort of proof that man cannot abuse this plant.

    Let's face the radical center, everyone. Humans have demonstrated their capacity to abuse the potato (overeating potato chips), so we will find ways to abuse any other plant material. Alcohol is clearly more dangerous than cannabis, yet it has the potential of being used in very beneficial ways. Socially, one can drink one ounce of alcohol and enjoy benefits, and it is clearly a beneficial medium for delivery of some medicine (of both allopath and homeopath categories). Unfortunately, that is only a partial history of our use of alcohol, which has also been severely abused, causing mortal damage in nearly every category -individual, family, society, the environment.

    Cannabis studies will prove two things, IMO. First, they will prove that there are benefits to be enjoyed by cannabis. They will follow the roughly equivalent range of benefits that alcohol provides, from social/psychological to outright medicinal objectives. That is, if it is used with less frequency and lower dose, it does minimal damage, maybe even provides minor benefits in a social setting. It's medical benefits are no longer in dispute: ranging from control of epilepsy, MS, etc.
    The second conclusion from these studies will be the pitfalls of cannabis use. Is it damaging -or not- for young people, not yet adults? Effects on various organs, at various dosage points? There are social consequences that are currently not measured. Lost work productivity depending on dosage/frequency of use. Social isolation ("anomie"). Psychological changes (intellectual and emotional capacity). We'll have a comparison with alcohol, the other drug of choice for "checking out" of the everyday mundane. Upside might be comparable to alcohol, but the downside with cannabis might be considerably less damaging than alcohol.

    Those studies should have been started decades ago, rather than choosing to add cannabis to a list of prohibited substances. It could have been given a "decriminalized" status while the studies were ongoing; we would have more information to act on, without so many criminal records that will need to be expunged.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
      First, like any other intoxicant (including alcohol), cannabis will be abused, causes impairment and wastes people's time. That being said, it is arguably the "least worst" choice, since it has the potential of being used with the least damage to both the individual and society. It has demonstrated clear medical benefits, a fact which expose a few conservatives who hold their opposition so fiercely that it embarrasses fellow conservatives. OTOH, it's abuse is ignored by a few liberals, who hold up the impossibility of overdosing on (real) cannabis as some sort of proof that man cannot abuse this plant.

      Let's face the radical center, everyone. Humans have demonstrated their capacity to abuse the potato (overeating potato chips), so we will find ways to abuse any other plant material. Alcohol is clearly more dangerous than cannabis, yet it has the potential of being used in very beneficial ways. Socially, one can drink one ounce of alcohol and enjoy benefits, and it is clearly a beneficial medium for delivery of some medicine (of both allopath and homeopath categories). Unfortunately, that is only a partial history of our use of alcohol, which has also been severely abused, causing mortal damage in nearly every category -individual, family, society, the environment.

      Cannabis studies will prove two things, IMO. First, they will prove that there are benefits to be enjoyed by cannabis. They will follow the roughly equivalent range of benefits that alcohol provides, from social/psychological to outright medicinal objectives. That is, if it is used with less frequency and lower dose, it does minimal damage, maybe even provides minor benefits in a social setting. It's medical benefits are no longer in dispute: ranging from control of epilepsy, MS, etc.
      The second conclusion from these studies will be the pitfalls of cannabis use. Is it damaging -or not- for young people, not yet adults? Effects on various organs, at various dosage points? There are social consequences that are currently not measured. Lost work productivity depending on dosage/frequency of use. Social isolation ("anomie"). Psychological changes (intellectual and emotional capacity). We'll have a comparison with alcohol, the other drug of choice for "checking out" of the everyday mundane. Upside might be comparable to alcohol, but the downside with cannabis might be considerably less damaging than alcohol.

      Those studies should have been started decades ago, rather than choosing to add cannabis to a list of prohibited substances. It could have been given a "decriminalized" status while the studies were ongoing; we would have more information to act on, without so many criminal records that will need to be expunged.
      Interesting points.

      I agree, alcohol has a much greater ability to impair - especially motor functions more quickly. Strangely, it (alcohol) is well accepted, so well that we have drinking establishments that we drive vehicles too, but ... it's illegal to be impaired and drive.. etc etc etc.

      And I agree generally. I think if people use it in sensible amounts and at sensible times - not before a job interview or a college calculus test - it's ok.

      Doing research and "studies" isn't a bad idea. BUT depending on who is doing these studies and research, unfortunately can give us differing results and "professional opinions."

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

        Interesting points.

        I agree, alcohol has a much greater ability to impair - especially motor functions more quickly. Strangely, it (alcohol) is well accepted, so well that we have drinking establishments that we drive vehicles too, but ... it's illegal to be impaired and drive.. etc etc etc.

        And I agree generally. I think if people use it in sensible amounts and at sensible times - not before a job interview or a college calculus test - it's ok.

        Doing research and "studies" isn't a bad idea. BUT depending on who is doing these studies and research, unfortunately can give us differing results and "professional opinions."
        That's where peer review helps out. Just as conservative and liberal check each other in political arguments, the same can be done for medical and psychological studies. If that gave us a wide view of problems vs. benefits with alcohol, it can do the same with cannabis. Trouble is, we're years behind compared to the alcohol studies. Up to now, doing research was very limited or outright illegal. The good news ...science (with its toys used to measure) is more advanced, so cannabis research should be able to catch up before too long.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
          That's where peer review helps out. Just as conservative and liberal check each other in political arguments, the same can be done for medical and psychological studies. If that gave us a wide view of problems vs. benefits with alcohol, it can do the same with cannabis. Trouble is, we're years behind compared to the alcohol studies. Up to now, doing research was very limited or outright illegal. The good news ...science (with its toys used to measure) is more advanced, so cannabis research should be able to catch up before too long.
          I think it's been researched somewhat. Back in the late 90's my grandma was able to be prescribed a caplet form of THC - she had stomach cancer and some other issues and needed help with eating too.

          The doses contained too much for a little old lady and she hated it, refused more after the first dose, which I'd advised them to cut - ie give her less than the entire caplet.

          Long story but it COULD have been effective if others in my family would have helped out/listened, but ignorance, plus the tendency in the medical community FDA etc to recommend more/over prescribe way more than necessary ( you get this with most drugs and ALL vitamins/supplements )... it didn't work out, but I think it certainly could have.

          But the whole issue is complicated by the fact that the plant has been used for so many years as a sort of illegal substance. Now we have lots of goofballs who got into the "new industry" at the right time and were made rich off it.

          I don't know really. It's not that much of a deal to me, I never enjoyed it so much that I could ever develop a problem/addiction too it. In small doses it's nice to relax with occasionally, that's about it. and it can help people with some medical conditions - many actually depending on a lot of factors. . a lot to learn about it still.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            My opinion, you're right, Trips, it is really just a matter of time. Smart money is already investing in MJ production, many in the open market: IT's not just for penny stocks anymore.

            I tried it in high school: Obviously a different era and a different drug back then, but I never got high so I've never revisited it. For me, the ONLY reason I eschew it's use generally (I mean without legal ramifications) is because it is illegal.

            So one issue we will have to deal with once Trump signs off on it (and, having already signaled his inclination, I'm certain it will come about) will be, what do we do with those in prison for transgressing the law, when it was against the law?

            I say they serve their sentences: Making it legal doesn't make it retroactive (unless that paragraph is intentionally put into the legislation).

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
              My opinion, you're right, Trips, it is really just a matter of time. Smart money is already investing in MJ production, many in the open market: IT's not just for penny stocks anymore.

              I tried it in high school: Obviously a different era and a different drug back then, but I never got high so I've never revisited it. For me, the ONLY reason I eschew it's use generally (I mean without legal ramifications) is because it is illegal.

              So one issue we will have to deal with once Trump signs off on it (and, having already signaled his inclination, I'm certain it will come about) will be, what do we do with those in prison for transgressing the law, when it was against the law?

              I say they serve their sentences: Making it legal doesn't make it retroactive (unless that paragraph is intentionally put into the legislation).
              Sentence reduction or pardons will probably depend on the state. Washington state (or just Seattle?) has already done some fast-track removals from the criminal cannabis records. I'm for that, although I would also like to see a case-by-case treatment. Some kid that was busted with 1/2 ounce? -Expunge his record. The wild cat farmer who was convicted of using a wildlife refuge to grow and sell a 1/2 ton? Not so much. If there were unsolved killings of hikers in the area during his "career", or even a proven case of environmental damage as a result of his grow, I'd be in favor of skipping several more parole hearings for the turd. Serve out his entire sentence, if it can't be enhanced with a conviction for a different crime.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                What are your thoughts & opinions on this ?

                It's an interesting issue and below is an interesting read on the subject in many ways.

                I think it's just a matter of time before this weed really is no longer outlawed.

                Do I think that's a good or a bad thing ?

                I think it's like anything else that can be abused and misused .... People will have to be intelligent with their everyday decisions as always, it's only a weed.

                I'm not a big fan of government involvement and regulation of and taxing of people over it either though. Just another opportunity to feed the government leeches more money that they didn't earn !

                Let people who want some, buy seeds and grow their own !

                I don't know ?

                What do you think ?

                ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                President Donald Trump said Friday that he was inclined to support a bipartisan effort in Congress to ease the U.S. ban on marijuana, a proposal that would dramatically reshape the nation's legal landscape for pot users and businesses.

                The federal ban that puts marijuana on the same level as LSD and heroin has created a conflict with about 30 states that have legalized pot in some form, creating a two-tiered enforcement system at the state and federal levels.

                The legislation would ensure states have the right to determine the best approach to marijuana within their borders, but some U.S. restrictions would remain, including sales of non-medical pot to people under 21.

                The proposal introduced Thursday has support from members of Congress from both parties, including Republican U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado.

                "I support Senator Gardner. I know exactly what he's doing," Trump told reporters in Washington when asked about the legislation. "We're looking at it. But I probably will end up supporting that, yes."

                The president's remarks place him in conflict with his own Justice Department and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who staunchly opposes marijuana. He lifted an Obama administration policy and freed federal prosecutors to more aggressively pursue cases in states that have legalized marijuana.

                Asked about the measure in an interview with Colorado Public Radio, Sessions said, "We'll see how far it goes and how much support there is. ... My view is clear: The federal law remains in effect nationwide, just as it does for heroin and cocaine."

                The proposal's prospects in Congress were unclear.

                Gardner, who heads the Senate Republicans' campaign arm, is close to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican has consistently opposed legalizing marijuana but has called hemp and marijuana "two entirely separate plants."

                The bill would change the definition of marijuana in federal drug law to exclude industrial hemp, which like marijuana is part of the cannabis plant family but doesn't contain the THC that gives pot users the high. Hemp produces the non-intoxicating cannabinoids, or CBDs, that have become a health rage and a lucrative crop in Kentucky and other states.

                Oregon Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a co-sponsor, said momentum was building in the House but "we just need Republican leadership in Congress to get on board or get out of our way, and for Trump to keep his word."

                Despite his comments, Trump has sent mixed signals on the drug: While campaigning for president, he pledged to respect states that legalized marijuana, but he also has criticized legalization and implied it should be stopped.

                "I don't think anyone would make a bet on the long-term validity of an offhand remark by the president that he 'probably' would support something," said Kevin A. Sabet, head of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a nonpartisan group opposed to marijuana legalization. "I think he'll find out soon from ... victims of marijuana addiction and impaired driving that this is not as popular as Cory Gardner is leading him to believe."

                Trump's remarks Friday echo a promise that Gardner said he received privately from the president in April to support legislation protecting the marijuana industry in states that have legalized the drug.

                "My legislation is in line with what President Trump said on the campaign and what he and I have discussed several times since he was elected," Gardner said in a statement Friday. He welcomed the president's "continued interest in an approach that respects the will of the voters in each state."

                Another co-sponsor of the measure, Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, said in a statement that Washington "needs to get out of the business of outlawing marijuana."

                California, home to one in eight Americans, launched the nation's largest legal marijuana marketplace on Jan. 1 but thousands of businesses that have been licensed are still facing the threat of federal prosecution.

                A major problem stemming from the federal ban: Major banks have been reluctant to do business with marijuana companies, fearing it could lead to prosecution. In California, for example, paying taxes and other transactions are often done in cash, sometimes in vast amounts.

                The bill includes language intended to address financial issues caused by the federal ban.


                https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mar...6/09/id/865179
                For me this has always been an issue of individual rights. In a free country - I still have this old fashioned idea that we are a free country - people should be able to do anything that does not cause unacceptable harm or an unacceptable threat of harm to other people or to society as a whole. Smoking weed does not do that, so there is no way there ever should have been a legal sanction against it.
                Whether its good or bad for one's health should have nothing to do with its legality. To use it or not should be every citizen's personal choice.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                  For me this has always been an issue of individual rights. In a free country - I still have this old fashioned idea that we are a free country - people should be able to do anything that does not cause unacceptable harm or an unacceptable threat of harm to other people or to society as a whole. Smoking weed does not do that, so there is no way there ever should have been a legal sanction against it.
                  Whether its good or bad for one's health should have nothing to do with its legality. To use it or not should be every citizen's personal choice.
                  I agree to a point.

                  Pot is quite a bit less addictive and powerful a drug than what can be found in opium poppies or coca plants or hallucinogenic mushrooms etc etc

                  The argument about freedom and whether or not these plants & substances should be illegal is a long one. That some of these substances can be so destructive to peoples lives is something that should be considered though. Alcohol and cigarettes are plenty destructive enough, the arguments for and against those are always fun too.

                  Freedom and rights, we'll always have issues of debate about these LOL

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                    I agree to a point.

                    Pot is quite a bit less addictive and powerful a drug than what can be found in opium poppies or coca plants or hallucinogenic mushrooms etc etc

                    The argument about freedom and whether or not these plants & substances should be illegal is a long one. That some of these substances can be so destructive to peoples lives is something that should be considered though. Alcohol and cigarettes are plenty destructive enough, the arguments for and against those are always fun too.

                    Freedom and rights, we'll always have issues of debate about these LOL
                    I think most drugs should be legalized and regulated, with the hard drugs being more tightly regulated than the others like pot. We should have learned by now that prohibition of drugs, like prohibition of alcohol, causes more harm than good. It causes massive amounts of criminal activity, makes some criminals rich, fills up the prisons, and fails completely to prevent easy access to drugs. This so called war on drugs has brought us more, and more powerful, drugs than ever.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                      I think most drugs should be legalized and regulated, with the hard drugs being more tightly regulated than the others like pot. We should have learned by now that prohibition of drugs, like prohibition of alcohol, causes more harm than good. It causes massive amounts of criminal activity, makes some criminals rich, fills up the prisons, and fails completely to prevent easy access to drugs. This so called war on drugs has brought us more, and more powerful, drugs than ever.
                      We humans will always be in pursuit of making ourselves 'feel good,' life is tough, we all want to escape it or make it easier to accept/deal with.

                      In so many different ways.

                      Finding ways of allowing this, while preventing/minimizing self destructive tendencies/results is the problem.

                      It's another "sticky" human problem with troubles no matter what we decide to do about it.

                      I tend to agree with you in general, but we have to know it's not always going to be pretty. What is when it comes to us ? LOL

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                        We humans will always be in pursuit of making ourselves 'feel good,' life is tough, we all want to escape it or make it easier to accept/deal with.

                        In so many different ways.

                        Finding ways of allowing this, while preventing/minimizing self destructive tendencies/results is the problem.

                        It's another "sticky" human problem with troubles no matter what we decide to do about it.

                        I tend to agree with you in general, but we have to know it's not always going to be pretty. What is when it comes to us ? LOL
                        I agree. There will always be people who don't use alcohol or drugs responsibly and get themselves messed up, sometimes dead, but whenever the state plays nanny and tries to protect people from themselves they end up doing more harm than good.

                        Hypocrates said, "first, do no harm." That rule should be applied to government as well.

                        We need law enforcement to protect us from one another. They should leave it at that. When they try to protect us from ourselves its all bad - it doesn't work and we lose some of our freedom.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                          I agree. There will always be people who don't use alcohol or drugs responsibly and get themselves messed up, sometimes dead, but whenever the state plays nanny and tries to protect people from themselves they end up doing more harm than good.
                          True, yet "the state" never admits this.

                          Why ?

                          Because, just like the criminals dealing the drugs, the state makes money off this racket.

                          Who are the criminals ?

                          Originally posted by Brexx View Post
                          Hypocrates said, "first, do no harm." That rule should be applied to government as well.

                          We need law enforcement to protect us from one another. They should leave it at that. When they try to protect us from ourselves its all bad - it doesn't work and we lose some of our freedom.
                          And money.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                            True, yet "the state" never admits this.

                            Why ?

                            Because, just like the criminals dealing the drugs, the state makes money off this racket.

                            Who are the criminals ?



                            And money.
                            But of course conservatives shouldn't extend these freedoms to women or gays For those groups government better tell them what they can do,

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              But of course conservatives shouldn't extend these freedoms to women or gays For those groups government better tell them what they can do,
                              I believe women and gays should be free to smoke as much weed as they want, same as anyone else.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X