Posted on 02/06/2016 9:51:27 AM PST by grundle
So why the concern about letting the medical community 'prescribe another gateway drug'? Who's doing the letting? That sounds like you accept fedgov legitimacy in the area.
As far as folks who get caught and charged with possession of marijuana? Is that really the only offensive thing they're doing if they're cited?
I don't know. What has that got to do with federalism and supporting the Constitution?
Because heroin has become an epidemic, and over use of pain killers often leads there. My concern is the same as I'd have about the spread of any epidemic that's killing people and is preventable.
Ah, that's different. Forget the Tenth Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. We've got a drug problem. Please save us, fedgov!
You’re wrong. New studies show a qtr of all new psychotics are the result of heavy use of skunk weed
I have a better question.
How does the President expect to win the war over Marijuana, if he’s going to leave the border wide open to drug traffickers ..??
Are all the raids really for some other purpose ..??
Where did I say ANYWHERE that the feds should save us??? I said get both federal and state govs out of people’s lives!
Do you believe that is his goal?
I can't square that with this =>
I have a serious worry about medical marijuana with the pharmaceutical and medical communities being trusted with prescribing it.
Then who do you trust to decide?
“New studies show a qtr of all new psychotics are the result of heavy use of skunk weed”
Debunked here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3257928/posts?page=84#84
and here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3365682/posts?page=48#48
Another good link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3257928/posts?page=13#13
Why not just leave it alone and work for lesser penalties for marijuana use? I just don't get it that people want something regulated and controlled that the gov wasn't already regulating and controlling.
Because it is not being left alone by fedgov. They are the ones setting the rules and trampling the Tenth Amendment. Why not make obedience to the Tenth Amendment and the rest of the Constitution the top priority?
I just don't get it that people want something regulated and controlled that the gov wasn't already regulating and controlling.
You don't get it because your premise is false. Prohibition is a regulatory scheme. It is the most heavy handed and intrusive form of it, and it is being done by fedgov with no constitutional legitimacy.
So the answer to stopping prohibition is to let state government tax, control the content and sources, and prescribe it so the feds can’t?
Yes. That is what the Tenth Amendment says.
so the feds can’t?
Nope. You let the states regulate it because that is what the Constitution says. If you disagree, then where does the Constitution put that authority, in your opinion?
How do your posts debunk?
1) Medical reports of people going pyscho are supported by the everyday experience of everyone here.
2) Your citations consist of your posts and the posts of others who make unfounded claims
3) Do you seriously suggest that skunk does not change the brain? http://www.techtimes.com/articles/111214/20151127/skunk-weed-cannabis-can-seriously-damage-vital-nerve-fibers-in-the-brain.htm
NO
Debunked here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3257928/posts?page=84#84
and here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3365682/posts?page=48#48
Another good link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3257928/posts?page=13#13
How do your posts debunk?
1) Medical reports of people going pyscho are supported by the everyday experience of everyone here.
Everyone here sees people going pyscho every day? LMAO! If anyone here has ever seen it, they weren't in a position to know that the person was under the influence of skunk, much less that it was the skunk rather than a pre-existing mental condition that caused the "going pyscho".
2) Your citations consist of your posts and the posts of others who make unfounded claims
No, statements well founded in facts from the study itself and in logic:
"it's the old correlation-is-the-causation-we-want-to-find nonsense that's been peddled for decades; the fact is that the reported results could be explained every bit as well by a predisposition (possibly genetic: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3171782/posts) to psychosis causing an increased likelihood of using cannabis."
"The second group, the control group, is being asked to self-diagnose psychosis (or being judged for psychosis through self reported data), while the first group was medically diagnosed properly. Therefore, the data about the incidence of psychosis in the second group is not comparable to the first."
3) Do you seriously suggest that skunk does not change the brain? http://www.techtimes.com/articles/111214/20151127/skunk-weed-cannabis-can-seriously-damage-vital-nerve-fibers-in-the-brain.htm
That's a different claim than skunk-causes-psychosis - and your new claim is rebutted by facts from the study itself at my second link:
"Even the authors admit the same effect was not seen in smokers of Hashish.
"Additionally, under 50 people were studied and no controls set for what their brains were like before they smoked all this "skunk"."
"All but three were taking antipsychotic medicine and it's marijuana that caused the results they garnered?!"
So what - I am talking about skunk and not hash. Your “debunking” is deflecting tautologies
Duh - of course people that develop cannabis psychosis are going to take antipsychotics
Hash is an extract of pot and is more potent than pot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.