CA working toward cannabis legalization....

it takes an insane liberal to make the arguement that smoking dope is good,, and smoking cigarettes is not.. holy jeeeezus.
It takes a hypocritical conservative to make the argument that marijuana should be illegal while tobacco remains legal.
 
Last edited:
It's racist to not want people, to waste their time getting high and not do anything productive in their life?
Since when was it government's responsibility to care about your personal productivity?

Weren't you just complaining about socialism a few days ago?
 
Legalizing cannabis for the general public is not a good idea. It dulls the "pain of life". The manufacturing sector knows it. I have been around people who have used it to tolerate the long mind-numbing and body-aching hours. Too ripe for abuse.
I think legalizing it for legitimate medical use should be seriously considered.
People need to get over the image of the stoner/hippie loafer image that marijuana invariably conjures up.
When prescribed by a licensed M.D. who knows what they are doing, I think it can help alleviate a lot of pain for certain people. Chemotherapy patients can attest to this. Why anyone would deprive someone of this near 'perfect' drug to somebody going through that is perplexing.
Instead of being smoked, they could extract the active ingredients from the plant and put into an inhaler; much like an asthmatic would use.

Wrong.

The manufacturing sector (i.e. big pharma/big medicine) knows one thing only. Cannabis is a plant, and if it's legal, they can't make any money off of it because people will grow their own like some people do with gardens.

The manufacturing sector of oil won't like it because cannabis plants can also be converted into biofuel.

Wanna know what the real reason is? Greed.

Incidentally, drug manufacturers HAVE created a drug out of the active ingredient in cannabis (THC). It's called "Marinol" and when tested against smoked cannabis, it was only about 60 percent as effective.

As far as the lung cancer thing? The Royal British Medical Society compared people who smoked cigarettes to people who didn't smoke anything. People who smoked cigarettes were 21 more times likely to get lung cancer.

They then compared a group of people who smoked cannabis only against the control group of non smokers. The incidence of lung cancer in that group tested against a group of non smokers was 0.93 to 0.73 percent chance of getting lung cancer.

In other words, the people who smoked only pot had a less chance of cancer than those that didn't smoke at all.

Might wanna check into some of the science behind this stuff. You'd be surprised how much the government and anti-cannabis people have lied to you.
 
Totally legalize, and then just ignore it.

Another goofy law that serves no other purpose than to give our government a way to fuck with otherwise decent law abiding citizens.

If California legalizes it, I'll seriously consider moving me and my company there.

Not so much so I can smoke, because I smoke every damned day anyway,

But why should I live someplace where I am thought a criminal?

Why should I pay that state's taxes, or give people jobs who think I am a criminal?

I've been dealing with this problem for over 40 years, so all I can say is it's about freakin time.
 
It's racist to not want people, to waste their time getting high and not do anything productive in their life?

no, it was made illegal in the first place for racist reasons since at the time it was made illegal it was popular amongst mexican immigrants
 
Totally legalize, and then just ignore it.

Another goofy law that serves no other purpose than to give our government a way to fuck with otherwise decent law abiding citizens.

If California legalizes it, I'll seriously consider moving me and my company there.

Not so much so I can smoke, because I smoke every damned day anyway,

But why should I live someplace where I am thought a criminal?

Why should I pay that state's taxes, or give people jobs who think I am a criminal?

I've been dealing with this problem for over 40 years, so all I can say is it's about freakin time.

It should be legal. For you people who don't know anything, here's some stuff on Anslinger, as well as the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act......

Restrictions for marijuana started in District of Columbia 1906 and was followed by state laws in other parts of the country in the 1910s and 1920s. The early laws against the cannabis drugs were passed with little public attention. Concern about marijuana was related primarily to the fear that marijuana use would spread, even among whites, as a substitute for the opiates. It is highly likely that the early prohibitive marijuana laws were a response by the general public to the popularity of the drug among Mexicans. [3] In 1925 United States supported regulation of Indian hemp, Cannabis for use as a drug, in the International Opium Convention[4]. Recommendations from the International Opium Convention inspired the work with The Uniform State Narcotic Act between 1925 and 1932. Harry J. Anslinger become an active person in this process from about 1930.[5][6]

Some of his critics allege that Anslinger, DuPont petrochemical interests and William Randolph Hearst together created the highly sensational anti-marijuana campaign to eliminate hemp as an industrial competitor. Indeed, Anslinger did not himself consider marijuana a serious threat to American society until in the fourth year of his tenure (1934), at which point an anti-marijuana campaign, aimed at alarming the public, became his primary focus as part of the government's broader push to outlaw all drugs.[7]

Members of the League of Nations had already implemented restrictions for marijuana in the beginning of the 1930s and restrictions started in many states in U.S years before Anslinger was appointed. Both president Franklin D. Roosevelt and his Attorney General publicly supported this development in 1935.[7]

An alternative explanation for Anslinger's opinions about hemp is that he believed that a tax on marijuana could be easier to supervise if it included hemp.

Around 1931 advertising started for hemp as the new billion dollar crop. Anslinger had reports from experiments with mechanical harvesting of hemp in 1936, reporting that the machines were no success.

"they were able to cut only a part of the Tribune Farm crop by machine, two thirds of it they did by hand with a sharp hand cutter...".[8]

"The existence of the old 1934-1935 crop of harvested hemp on the fields of southern Minnesota is a menace to society in that it is being used by traffickers in marijuana as a source of supply "[9]

By using the mass media as his forum (receiving much support from William Randolph Hearst), Anslinger propelled the anti-marijuana sentiment from the state level to a national movement. Writing for The American Magazine, the best examples were contained in his "Gore File", a collection of quotes from police reports, by later opponents described as police-blotter-type narratives of heinous cases, most with no substantiation, linking graphically depicted offenses with the drug:

"An entire family was murdered by a youthful addict in Florida. When officers arrived at the home, they found the youth staggering about in a human slaughterhouse. With an axe he had killed his father, mother, two brothers, and a sister. He seemed to be in a daze… He had no recollection of having committed the multiple crime. The officers knew him ordinarily as a sane, rather quiet young man; now he was pitifully crazed. They sought the reason. The boy said that he had been in the habit of smoking something which youthful friends called “muggles,” a childish name for marijuana."[10]

It appeared that Anslinger was also responsible for racial themes in articles against marijuana in the 1930s:

"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy"[11][12]

"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."[12][13]

What Anslinger used was language from police reports about illegal drug use. Police reports are typically written with a concise language including such details as age, gender, race, ethnic group, type of crime etc.[citation needed] Anslinger, for example, pointed at the former big bootleggers of alcohol, something that many interpret as the Italian/Jewish mafia, as responsible for a big part of the organized illegal trade with opium and cocaine from mid 1930s.[citation needed] "The first Federal law-enforcement administrator to recognize the signs of a national criminal syndication and sound the alarm was Harry J. Anslinger, Commissioner of the Bureau of Narcotics in the Treasury" (Ronald Reagan 1986)[14]

When Anslinger was interviewed in 1954 about drug abuse (see below), he did not mention anything about race or sex. In his book The Protectors (1964) Anslinger has a chapter called "Jazz and Junk Don't Mix" about the black jazz musicians Billie Holliday and Charlie Parker, who both died after years of heavy drug abuse:

"Jazz entertainers are neither fish nor fowl. They do not get the million-dollar protection Hollywood and Broadway can afford for their stars who have become addicted - and there are many more than will ever be revealed. Perhaps this is because jazz, once considered a decadent kind of music, has only token respectability. Jazz grew up next door to crime, so to speak. Clubs of dubious reputation were, for a long time, the only places where it could be heard. But the times bring changes, and as Billy Holiday was a victim of time and change, so too was Charlie Parker, a man whose music, like Billie's is still widely imitated. Most musicians credit Parker among others as spearheading what is called modern jazz."(p.157)

In the United States, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), was a significant bill on the path[1] that led to the criminalization of cannabis. It was introduced to U.S. Congress by Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger. The Act is now commonly referred to using the modern spelling as the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.

The Act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of hemp, marijuana, or cannabis, but levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. The Act did include penalty provisions and elaborate rules of enforcement to which marijuana, cannabis, or hemp handlers were subject. Violation of these procedures could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment. The net effect was to increase the risk for anyone dealing in the substance — at least until World War II required the United States Department of Agriculture to make its 1942 movie "Hemp for Victory". The film encouraged and taught farmers to grow variants of hemp suitable as raw material for hawsers used by the U.S. Navy and the Merchant Marine, prior to the adoption of nylon rope. The hemp was also used as a substitute for other fibrous materials that were blocked by Japan.

The bill was passed on the grounds of different reports[2] and hearings [3]. Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention that from 1928 included cannabis as a drug, and that all states had some kind of laws against improper use of cannabis. Some testimonies included that cannabis caused "murder, insanity and death"[4]. Today, it is generally accepted that the hearings included incorrect, excessive or unfounded arguments.[5] By 1951, however, new justifications had emerged, and a bill that superseded the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed.[citation needed]

The background also included a report about the commercialized hemp, reporting that from 1880 to 1933, the hemp grown in the United States had declined from 15,000 acres (61 km2), to 1,200 acres (5 km2), and that the price of line hemp had dropped from $12.50 per pound in 1914 to $9.00 per pound in 1933.[6]

In 1967, President Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of justice opined, "The Act raises an insignificant amount of revenue and exposes an insignificant number of marijuana transactions to public view, since only a handful of people are registered under the Act. It has become, in effect, solely- a criminal law, imposing sanctions upon persons who sell, acquire, or possess marijuana."[7]

In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.[8] In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970[9]. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.

Although the spelling "marijuana" is more common in current usage, the correct spelling for the Marihuana Tax Act is "Marihuana". "Marihuana" was the spelling most commonly used in Federal Government documents at the time. To stay consistent with prior law, it is still spelled "Marihuana" in some congressional bills such as HR 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005.

In addition, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized the use of the term "marihuana" as a label for hemp and cannabis plants and products. Prior to 1937, "marihuana/marijuana" was slang; it was not included in any official dictionaries.[10] The slang word marihuana/marijuana is probably of Mexican origin. In the years leading up to the tax act, considerable issues existed involving illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States, and the one thing Mexicans were identified as being in possession of was cannabis,[citation needed] which they called marihuana. The southern border states called for action.[citation needed] After the enactment, illegal immigrants and U.S. citizens could be arrested for possession of cannabis.

Shortly after the U.S. Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act on October 1, 1937, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Denver City police first arrested Moses Baca for possession and Samuel Caldwell for dealing. Baca and Caldwell's arrest made them the first marijuana convictions under U.S. federal law for not paying the marijuana tax.[11]

Judge Foster Symes sentenced Moses Baca to 18 months and Samuel Caldwell to four years in Leavenworth Penitentiary for violating the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. They were eventually released.

Still think it should be a criminal substance?
 
Legalizing cannabis for the general public is not a good idea. It dulls the "pain of life".
Like legal alcohol?

I have to pass a urine test to "work" so I want the MFs who get welfare and unemployment to have to pass one too to get their checks. I also want urine tests for drivers licenses and ALL employment. Let the druggies live in boxes under bridges.
 
Legalizing cannabis for the general public is not a good idea. It dulls the "pain of life".
Like legal alcohol?

I have to pass a urine test to "work" so I want the MFs who get welfare and unemployment to have to pass one too to get their checks. I also want urine tests for drivers licenses and ALL employment. Let the druggies live in boxes under bridges.

Sounds like someone is pissed that their job won't allow them to smoke cannabis.

You know.........if it was legal, then there would be fewer work restrictions placed on those that do smoke, which would result in the MF's ending up getting jobs and being productive tax paying citizenry.
 
Legalizing cannabis for the general public is not a good idea. It dulls the "pain of life".
Like legal alcohol?

I have to pass a urine test to "work" so I want the MFs who get welfare and unemployment to have to pass one too to get their checks. I also want urine tests for drivers licenses and ALL employment. Let the druggies live in boxes under bridges.

instead of wasting your time to try to get more people drug tested ,which is a violation of the 4th amendment, why don't you use that time to try to help get it legal so you wont get tested.
 
instead of wasting your time to try to get more people drug tested ,which is a violation of the 4th amendment, why don't you use that time to try to help get it legal so you wont get tested.

The reason that employers drug test is because it is required by Worker's Compensation. In Ohio, any employer who is paying into the worker's comp insurance program has to do random drug tests. And regardless of whether pot is legal, worker's comp will still test for it, as they also test for alcohol.
 
Legalizing cannabis for the general public is not a good idea. It dulls the "pain of life".
Like legal alcohol?

I have to pass a urine test to "work" so I want the MFs who get welfare and unemployment to have to pass one too to get their checks. I also want urine tests for drivers licenses and ALL employment. Let the druggies live in boxes under bridges.

Well you do have the option of working in a field that doesn't require piss tests...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top