Bill to remove Pot from Federal regulation sponsored in House

[oreo]

This only has 6 sponsors so far, and hasn't even been taken up in committee, but it's a start. Lets see if it even sees the light of day.

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

The crux of the text as it amends the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

Prohibition On Certain Shipping Or Transportation.—This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

So basically Pot would get the Alcohol treatment. States can regulate it, and all the feds do is punish people who try to bring it into places where it is locally banned.

It won't see the light of day. Not with Republicans as a majority.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Hope it dies. No thanks. I have STUPIDLY smoked once and drove and I barely remember it and I am shocked I managed to make the 20 plus mile trip without being pulled over or wrecking....

Pussy...It's a joke that weed is illegal in the first place..

Not really.

It is addicting and there are many users that end up needing to go through detox for it.

But alcohol is the same way.

Alcohol is just more acceptable socially, and sexy, and does not stink like camel shit like pot does.

There has never been a single human being in the history of the world that needed to go through a "detox" for marijuana.

It is "addicting" in the same way that sex is, or gambling. There is no physical addiction involved.

Tell it to these people.

Detoxing from Marijuana - Marijuana Anonymous

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This only has 6 sponsors so far, and hasn't even been taken up in committee, but it's a start. Lets see if it even sees the light of day.

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

The crux of the text as it amends the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

So basically Pot would get the Alcohol treatment. States can regulate it, and all the feds do is punish people who try to bring it into places where it is locally banned.

Well, considering it's direct link to schizophrenia I can see why the DC establishment would want the people to have it.

No, there is no direct link in the sense that marijuana doesn't make people schizophrenic. It's that the symptoms of schizophrenia can be made worse by smoking marijuana. Alcohol also makes it worse.

Marijuana leads to schizophrenia.

If you want evidence, look at every leftist.

Plus marijuana causes cancer.

or people who schizophrenia go to pot to try to treat it.

Correlation is not causation.

And modern vaping technology removes most of the cancer risk from pot, same as with cigarettes.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Vaping and Lung Cancer: What You Should Know

This assumes that nicotine is vaped at all times and the strength is uniform. Neither of which is true.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Hope it dies. No thanks. I have STUPIDLY smoked once and drove and I barely remember it and I am shocked I managed to make the 20 plus mile trip without being pulled over or wrecking....

Pussy...It's a joke that weed is illegal in the first place..

Not really.

It is addicting and there are many users that end up needing to go through detox for it.

But alcohol is the same way.

Alcohol is just more acceptable socially, and sexy, and does not stink like camel shit like pot does.

There has never been a single human being in the history of the world that needed to go through a "detox" for marijuana.

It is "addicting" in the same way that sex is, or gambling. There is no physical addiction involved.

Tell it to these people.

Detoxing from Marijuana - Marijuana Anonymous

This isn't my opinion, it's medical fact. There is absolutely no evidence of any medical withdrawal symptoms related to "detoxing" from marijuana.

Psychosomatic symptoms do not qualify.

The only drugs that require a medical detox are alcohol, benzodiazepines, and opiates.

 

[JBond]

I can envision Trump signing off on this. If they can get it done before midterms with strategic GOP support, the dems have a major problem. Weed, alcohol, etc. are problems for some, just like anything they can be abused. Parents need to be parents. That is all.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I can envision Trump signing off on this. If they can get it done before midterms with strategic GOP support, the dems have a major problem. Weed, alcohol, etc. are problems for some, just like anything they can be abused. Parents need to be parents. That is all.

Why would this cause a "major problem" for the democrats?

 

[dblack]

Now that pot has been more or less legal in some states for a while, scientists are finding additional evidence that pot is not harmless.

Yep. That's one of the many benefits of legalization - reliable information about the risks of use. We also get better quality control, and people don't have to deal with potentially dangerous criminals to get their weed.

Yes, using people as medical experiment fodder is a wonderful idea.
Let's just eliminate the FDA and let anyone put out drugs.
We will eventually find out which ones to avoid.

Cat's and dogs, living together!

 

[martybegan]

This only has 6 sponsors so far, and hasn't even been taken up in committee, but it's a start. Lets see if it even sees the light of day.

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

The crux of the text as it amends the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

So basically Pot would get the Alcohol treatment. States can regulate it, and all the feds do is punish people who try to bring it into places where it is locally banned.

Well, considering it's direct link to schizophrenia I can see why the DC establishment would want the people to have it.

No, there is no direct link in the sense that marijuana doesn't make people schizophrenic. It's that the symptoms of schizophrenia can be made worse by smoking marijuana. Alcohol also makes it worse.

Marijuana leads to schizophrenia.

If you want evidence, look at every leftist.

Plus marijuana causes cancer.

or people who schizophrenia go to pot to try to treat it.

Correlation is not causation.

And modern vaping technology removes most of the cancer risk from pot, same as with cigarettes.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Vaping and Lung Cancer: What You Should Know

Web.md.....probably referencing the same quality of studies that promote Climate change.


It's amazing, people come up with an improved way to inhale things like nicotine and cannabis and the ban-happy-killjoys find other ways to try to make people enjoy only the things THEY enjoy....

 

[martybegan]

This only has 6 sponsors so far, and hasn't even been taken up in committee, but it's a start. Lets see if it even sees the light of day.

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

The crux of the text as it amends the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

Prohibition On Certain Shipping Or Transportation.—This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

So basically Pot would get the Alcohol treatment. States can regulate it, and all the feds do is punish people who try to bring it into places where it is locally banned.

It won't see the light of day. Not with Republicans as a majority.

You might have a better chance with libertarian leaning republicans than with most dems. I don't see the democratic caucus screaming for it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This only has 6 sponsors so far, and hasn't even been taken up in committee, but it's a start. Lets see if it even sees the light of day.

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

The crux of the text as it amends the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

Prohibition On Certain Shipping Or Transportation.—This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

So basically Pot would get the Alcohol treatment. States can regulate it, and all the feds do is punish people who try to bring it into places where it is locally banned.

It won't see the light of day. Not with Republicans as a majority.

You might have a better chance with libertarian leaning republicans than with most dems. I don't see the democratic caucus screaming for it.

There's only one Republican in Congress who has gone on the record supporting marijuana legalization. There are 21 Democrats.

 

[oreo]

This only has 6 sponsors so far, and hasn't even been taken up in committee, but it's a start. Lets see if it even sees the light of day.

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

The crux of the text as it amends the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

Prohibition On Certain Shipping Or Transportation.—This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

So basically Pot would get the Alcohol treatment. States can regulate it, and all the feds do is punish people who try to bring it into places where it is locally banned.

It won't see the light of day. Not with Republicans as a majority.

You might have a better chance with libertarian leaning republicans than with most dems. I don't see the democratic caucus screaming for it.

Well you don't have a libertarian congress, and you're never going to get one. The biggest lobbyist against marijuana in this country is # 1 law enforcement (it's an easy bust--usually not life threatening) & # 2 big Pharma.

I live in Colorado-& the biggest constant battle is always with Republicans--whom are always trying to rewrite marijuana laws, who are constantly on the news saying how bad it is, when they have no proof of what they say etc . etc. They are hysterical over it, even though our state tax revenues went over 220 million just last year--and there's no crime associated with it. We don't have people that are driving cars that are stoned, we basically haven't noticed any difference, and the gold hasn't melted off the capital building over it. Yet they're still hysterical over it. We can only be thankful that we have a Democrat governor in John Hickenlooper who vetoed most of their ridiculous bills.

You're not going to get anything from any Republican regarding marijuana. They won't even take it off a schedule 1 drug, it is still right up there with crack cocaine--meth & heroin.

This bill isn't going to see the light of day with Republicans owning both houses. If you want change you'll have to make it to the polls this coming NOVEMBER in the midterm election cycle and vote for DEMOCRATS who may do something with Marijuana. They are more pragmatic. Republicans will ALWAYS fight marijuana tooth and nail.

Did you miss this? Here is Jeff Sessions, Attorney General. He's going to CRACK down on legal marijuana states--after TRUMP told you he wouldn't get involved in states rights, his attorney general doesn't agree.

 

[MikeK]

Like that it causes cancer?

https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65/chemicals/finalmjsmokehid.pdf

There are a number of well-funded government agencies, such as the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) the sole purpose of which is, in simple terms, to produce and disseminate anti-marijuana propaganda. The item you've linked to is one example of the extremely impressive kind of misleading nonsense these federal agencies produce. It looks good, and it sounds good, and it manages to convince a lot of people that it's true. But if it were actually true that marijuana causes cancer, per se, considering how many Americans use marijuana, do you realize all of the cancer treatment facilities in the U.S., both public and private combined couldn't handle one percent of the volume? That simple fact, alone, should make you question the purpose of that phony government report.

Marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Marijuana prohibition does. Growers of illegal marijuana have no problem spraying their crops with carcinogenic insecticides and growth-enhancing chemicals. In fact, I recall back in the seventies a federal propaganda agency was found to be using batches of marijuana in laboratory examples which was grown in a radioactive dump and seized by the DEA. This is the kind of marijuana that causes cancer.

Ordinary, "clean," marijuana contains nothing which is biologically harmful. But smoking marijuana, or anything else, poses some risk of cancer for anyone who is susceptible. Some people are, most are not. But smoking marijuana is not the only way to enjoy it, nor is it the best way. But the bottom line here is to advise you not to be taken in by this government bullshit. Because that's what it is.

 

[HappyJoy]

This only has 6 sponsors so far, and hasn't even been taken up in committee, but it's a start. Lets see if it even sees the light of day.

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

The crux of the text as it amends the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

So basically Pot would get the Alcohol treatment. States can regulate it, and all the feds do is punish people who try to bring it into places where it is locally banned.

Well, considering it's direct link to schizophrenia I can see why the DC establishment would want the people to have it.

No, there is no direct link in the sense that marijuana doesn't make people schizophrenic. It's that the symptoms of schizophrenia can be made worse by smoking marijuana. Alcohol also makes it worse.

Marijuana leads to schizophrenia.

If you want evidence, look at every leftist.

Plus marijuana causes cancer.

or people who schizophrenia go to pot to try to treat it.

Correlation is not causation.

And modern vaping technology removes most of the cancer risk from pot, same as with cigarettes.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Vaping and Lung Cancer: What You Should Know

Your link is about vaping nicotine and liquid flavoring. Not pot. Which I wouldn't say that vaping pot is healthy, it's not nearly as bad as cigarettes and alcohol. But, if you are saying that government should only allow healthy things to be legal then you should turn over that fake small government conservative card you're carrying around.

 

[martybegan]

This only has 6 sponsors so far, and hasn't even been taken up in committee, but it's a start. Lets see if it even sees the light of day.

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

The crux of the text as it amends the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

Prohibition On Certain Shipping Or Transportation.—This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

So basically Pot would get the Alcohol treatment. States can regulate it, and all the feds do is punish people who try to bring it into places where it is locally banned.

It won't see the light of day. Not with Republicans as a majority.

You might have a better chance with libertarian leaning republicans than with most dems. I don't see the democratic caucus screaming for it.

There's only one Republican in Congress who has gone on the record supporting marijuana legalization. There are 21 Democrats.

Still way short either way you look at it.

The social conservatives will hem and haw about it.

 

[martybegan]

This only has 6 sponsors so far, and hasn't even been taken up in committee, but it's a start. Lets see if it even sees the light of day.

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

The crux of the text as it amends the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

Prohibition On Certain Shipping Or Transportation.—This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

So basically Pot would get the Alcohol treatment. States can regulate it, and all the feds do is punish people who try to bring it into places where it is locally banned.

It won't see the light of day. Not with Republicans as a majority.

You might have a better chance with libertarian leaning republicans than with most dems. I don't see the democratic caucus screaming for it.

Well you don't have a libertarian congress, and you're never going to get one. The biggest lobbyist against marijuana in this country is # 1 law enforcement (it's an easy bust--usually not life threatening) & # 2 big Pharma.

I live in Colorado-& the biggest constant battle is always with Republicans--whom are always trying to rewrite marijuana laws, who are constantly on the news saying how bad it is, when they have no proof of what they say etc . etc. They are hysterical over it, even though our state tax revenues went over 220 million just last year--and there's no crime associated with it. We don't have people that are driving cars that are stoned, we basically haven't noticed any difference, and the gold hasn't melted off the capital building over it. Yet they're still hysterical over it. We can only be thankful that we have a Democrat governor in John Hickenlooper who vetoed most of their ridiculous bills.

You're not going to get anything from any Republican regarding marijuana. They won't even take it off a schedule 1 drug, it is still right up there with crack cocaine--meth & heroin.

This bill isn't going to see the light of day with Republicans owning both houses. If you want change you'll have to make it to the polls this coming NOVEMBER in the midterm election cycle and vote for DEMOCRATS who may do something with Marijuana. They are more pragmatic. Republicans will ALWAYS fight marijuana tooth and nail.

Did you miss this? Here is Jeff Sessions, Attorney General. He's going to CRACK down on legal marijuana states--after TRUMP told you he wouldn't get involved in states rights, his attorney general doesn't agree.

Sessions would be rendered impotent if congress acted. And only 21 Dems supported the bill, so support there is tepid at best.

 

[BlackSand]

Sessions would be rendered impotent if congress acted. And only 21 Dems supported the bill, so support there is tepid at best.

Perhaps they should encourage some children who are tired of being busted and forced to endure incarceration to speak out and support this cause as well ...
If we take the advice of children in firearms regulations ... Drugs shouldn't be much different.

.

 

[konradv]

Decriminalizing pot by a republican controlled congress...... is that likely to happen?

More likely. Only Nixon could go to China, for example.

 

[oreo]

This only has 6 sponsors so far, and hasn't even been taken up in committee, but it's a start. Lets see if it even sees the light of day.

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

The crux of the text as it amends the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

Prohibition On Certain Shipping Or Transportation.—This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

So basically Pot would get the Alcohol treatment. States can regulate it, and all the feds do is punish people who try to bring it into places where it is locally banned.

It won't see the light of day. Not with Republicans as a majority.

You might have a better chance with libertarian leaning republicans than with most dems. I don't see the democratic caucus screaming for it.

Well you don't have a libertarian congress, and you're never going to get one. The biggest lobbyist against marijuana in this country is # 1 law enforcement (it's an easy bust--usually not life threatening) & # 2 big Pharma.

I live in Colorado-& the biggest constant battle is always with Republicans--whom are always trying to rewrite marijuana laws, who are constantly on the news saying how bad it is, when they have no proof of what they say etc . etc. They are hysterical over it, even though our state tax revenues went over 220 million just last year--and there's no crime associated with it. We don't have people that are driving cars that are stoned, we basically haven't noticed any difference, and the gold hasn't melted off the capital building over it. Yet they're still hysterical over it. We can only be thankful that we have a Democrat governor in John Hickenlooper who vetoed most of their ridiculous bills.

You're not going to get anything from any Republican regarding marijuana. They won't even take it off a schedule 1 drug, it is still right up there with crack cocaine--meth & heroin.

This bill isn't going to see the light of day with Republicans owning both houses. If you want change you'll have to make it to the polls this coming NOVEMBER in the midterm election cycle and vote for DEMOCRATS who may do something with Marijuana. They are more pragmatic. Republicans will ALWAYS fight marijuana tooth and nail.

Did you miss this? Here is Jeff Sessions, Attorney General. He's going to CRACK down on legal marijuana states--after TRUMP told you he wouldn't get involved in states rights, his attorney general doesn't agree.

Sessions would be rendered impotent if congress acted. And only 21 Dems supported the bill, so support there is tepid at best.

The point is you're not going to get a Republican majority congress to do anything with marijuana.

 

[martybegan]

This only has 6 sponsors so far, and hasn't even been taken up in committee, but it's a start. Lets see if it even sees the light of day.

Cosponsors - H.R.1227 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

The crux of the text as it amends the Controlled Substances Act of 1970

So basically Pot would get the Alcohol treatment. States can regulate it, and all the feds do is punish people who try to bring it into places where it is locally banned.

It won't see the light of day. Not with Republicans as a majority.

You might have a better chance with libertarian leaning republicans than with most dems. I don't see the democratic caucus screaming for it.

Well you don't have a libertarian congress, and you're never going to get one. The biggest lobbyist against marijuana in this country is # 1 law enforcement (it's an easy bust--usually not life threatening) & # 2 big Pharma.

I live in Colorado-& the biggest constant battle is always with Republicans--whom are always trying to rewrite marijuana laws, who are constantly on the news saying how bad it is, when they have no proof of what they say etc . etc. They are hysterical over it, even though our state tax revenues went over 220 million just last year--and there's no crime associated with it. We don't have people that are driving cars that are stoned, we basically haven't noticed any difference, and the gold hasn't melted off the capital building over it. Yet they're still hysterical over it. We can only be thankful that we have a Democrat governor in John Hickenlooper who vetoed most of their ridiculous bills.

You're not going to get anything from any Republican regarding marijuana. They won't even take it off a schedule 1 drug, it is still right up there with crack cocaine--meth & heroin.

This bill isn't going to see the light of day with Republicans owning both houses. If you want change you'll have to make it to the polls this coming NOVEMBER in the midterm election cycle and vote for DEMOCRATS who may do something with Marijuana. They are more pragmatic. Republicans will ALWAYS fight marijuana tooth and nail.

Did you miss this? Here is Jeff Sessions, Attorney General. He's going to CRACK down on legal marijuana states--after TRUMP told you he wouldn't get involved in states rights, his attorney general doesn't agree.

Sessions would be rendered impotent if congress acted. And only 21 Dems supported the bill, so support there is tepid at best.

The point is you're not going to get a Republican majority congress to do anything with marijuana.

If you get the right republican majority you would, or you would get enough dems to cross over to pass it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like that it causes cancer?

https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65/chemicals/finalmjsmokehid.pdf

There are a number of well-funded government agencies, such as the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) the sole purpose of which is, in simple terms, to produce and disseminate anti-marijuana propaganda. The item you've linked to is one example of the extremely impressive kind of misleading nonsense these federal agencies produce. It looks good, and it sounds good, and it manages to convince a lot of people that it's true. But if it were actually true that marijuana causes cancer, per se, considering how many Americans use marijuana, do you realize all of the cancer treatment facilities in the U.S., both public and private combined couldn't handle one percent of the volume? That simple fact, alone, should make you question the purpose of that phony government report.

Marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Marijuana prohibition does. Growers of illegal marijuana have no problem spraying their crops with carcinogenic insecticides and growth-enhancing chemicals. In fact, I recall back in the seventies a federal propaganda agency was found to be using batches of marijuana in laboratory examples which was grown in a radioactive dump and seized by the DEA. This is the kind of marijuana that causes cancer.

Ordinary, "clean," marijuana contains nothing which is biologically harmful. But smoking marijuana, or anything else, poses some risk of cancer for anyone who is susceptible. Some people are, most are not. But smoking marijuana is not the only way to enjoy it, nor is it the best way. But the bottom line here is to advise you not to be taken in by this government bullshit. Because that's what it is.

This is from Weatherman's link. Unlike most people, I actually take time to read linked articles to see if they actually support what the poster says they do. This one is kinda questionable, especially when they say that the articles they used to figure this out were actually biased towards saying it causes cancer.

From the link...................................

3.1.1
Literature Search and Review
3.1.1.1
Methods
Articles that reported or discussed observed cancers among people exposed to marijuana smokeor whose parents were exposed to marijuana smoke before or during gestation were identified by searching the PubMed database with the following search stringmarijuana OR marihuana OR
cannabis OR hash OR hashish OR kif OR kef OR kief OR keef OR ganja OR tekrouri OR bhang)AND (epidemiology OR epidemiologic* OR cohort* OR control OR controls OR mortality OR incidence OR rate OR rates OR odds OR risk OR ratio OR ratios) with limitation to human
studies, journal articles, and the topic of cancer.
As of 10/17/08 this search string identified 463
articles. The PubMed search results were reviewed and copies of potentially relevant articles were obtained. Articles were additionally identified by examining the reference lists of obtained articles.

The literature search may have been biased toward finding articles that found an association between marijuana smoking and cancer. The potential bias is due to literature databases generally not containing the entire contents of articles. Instead, they contain only abstracts and selected basic information such as titles and keywords. If investigators are more likely to
mention in abstracts factors found to be associated with disease than factors found to be not associated, a literature search may miss articles in which the results of interest are reported only in the body of the article