DonR101395
New member
Users, not abusers. Those are people that have tried it "at least once".
Since there is no legal use of the drug. They have misused it, therefore they have abused it.
Users, not abusers. Those are people that have tried it "at least once".
I know you were under pressure, but if that is the best lil' tidbit of faulty logic you can come up with to defend your position you might just want to admit defeat and live to fight another day.Since there is no legal use of the drug. They have misused it, therefore they have abused it.
People saying "tried it at least once" in a survey means everyone of those people are "abusing" marijuana???? Even if everyone of them was being honest that is like saying that 85%-95% of Americans are alcoholics because they have drank alcohol. The statistics I posted dealt specifically with "drug abusers" not just everyone that has every "used" a prescription drug.
That statement borders on dishonest and is definately into the absurd range. You are saying that nearly a 3rd of all Americans are abusing marijuana.
No, I am saying it is no worse than prescription drugs. I also saying that the reasons it is illegal are purely political and that it is a drug that is beneficial, inexpensive and readily available to even the poorest of ill people. Guess you missed the point.
Not officially! But Pharmeceuticals are the single biggest industry on earth. If you think they're not there behind the scenes and have not influenced legislation then you're being obtuse.
I know you were under pressure, but if that is the best lil' tidbit of faulty logic you can come up with to defend your position you might just want to admit defeat and live to fight another day.
No, if you read the thread carefully, you would have discovered the example of legal (and government sponsored) use already provided.Since there is no legal use of the drug.
1. If the federal govt. make it legal. It won't be legal to grow unless you're a drug manufacturer and have FDA oversight.
In other words, the majority argues in effect
that the private, purely intrastate possession of machine guns
has a substantial effect on the interstate machine gun market.
This theory, if accepted, would go far toward converting
Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce into "a
plenary police power." Lopez, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at
1633. If there is any sort of interstate market for a
commodity--and I think that it is safe to assume that there is
some sort of interstate market for practically everything--then
the purely intrastate possession of that item will have an effect
on that market, and outlawing private possession of the item will
presumably have a substantial effect. Consequently, the
majority's theory leads to the conclusion that Congress may ban
the purely intrastate possession of just about anything.
The FDA regulates the commercial production and sale of alcohol and tabacco. Not the possession or use. It is still legal to produce either for personal use.
In fact additional laws are required to enforce anything beyond production and sales. Such as "possession by a minor", "contributing to the delinquencies of a minor" and other laws.
No, if you read the thread carefully, you would have discovered the example of legal (and government sponsored) use already provided.
ME:
1. If the federal govt. make it legal. It won't be legal to grow unless you're a drug manufacturer and have FDA oversight.
Pub:
Why? I can grow my own tobacco. Where do the feds get authority over that kind of thing anyway?
Doesnt matter what the goverment does, Americans will still smoke weed.
Drugs taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system.
Is tobacco in general a multi-billion dollar enterprise for organized crime?
Wow, that has to win the "most irrelevent and illogical rant" award for this thread.You go buy yourself an aircraft (bear with me, I know they're expensive). Have someone just getting high as a kite do extensive maintenance on it and you personally take off in it AS SOON as the aircraft is finished being airworthy. By the way, no parachutes, of course. You don't have them on an airline, so no safety nets or hypetheticals.
So you're saying the federal government is illegally supplying cannabis to Irvin Rosenfeld, and that he has therefore been abusing it for these past couple of decades?If you read carefully, the Federal Govt hasn't allowed it to be legal.
No, it's a product. But nicotine is an addictive drug that comes along for the ride.Is your tobacco being marketed as medicine?
Is tobacco in general a multi-billion dollar enterprise for organized crime?