Posted on 02/06/2016 9:51:27 AM PST by grundle
The study doesn't say that was the sequence of events; it's at least as likely that both drugs were intended (however misguidedly) to address pre-existing issues.
Oh I get it laws are for other people only sounds like stoner logic all right.
Oh I get it laws are for other people only
Not even close. Sounds like boozer logic all right.
The powers and they are who? stoner states have bypassed so many federal laws it isn’t funny their excuse is always it’s what WE WANT deal with the facts or just stay stoned and live in utopia.
The powers and they are who [sic]?
One of the many powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution is the power to legislate about within-state pot matters.
stoner states
So Alaska is a "stoner state" because they legalized? Now, that IS funny.
have bypassed so many federal laws it isn't funny their excuse is always it's what WE WANT
Unconstitutional federal laws are not binding on any state.
deal with the facts or just stay stoned and live in utopia.
Using pot may not be a good idea - but that's not the federal government's decision to make under the Constitution.
You must believe that about fedgov, since you completely ignore the Tenth Amendment.
Suppose you explain what section of the Constitution allows fedgov to override the Tenth Amendment and impose national marijuana prohibition. Can you do it?
"The study specifically did not show that cannabis use triggered psychosis. In fact, it showed the opposite. Plenty of people in the control group had smoked cannabis and not had a psychotic episode. In fact, patients who had suffered psychosis were no more likely than the control group to have tried cannabis." - http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/16/what-media-reports-on-the-new-cannabis-study-aren-t-telling
Marijuana is a controlled substance got it? states can’t pass a law just because the slackers want it got it.
Nothing unconstitutional about federal laws no matter how much you wish it so just because some state hack thinks they are above federal laws some things you just have to deal with.
I’m not sure what you read in your link, but right up front it says:
“While it’s true that the study shows skunk to be dangerous...”
That is what I am saying too.
A federal law is unconstitutional when it assumes powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. One such non-delegated power is the power to legislate about within-state pot matters.
I quoted it:
"The study specifically did not show that cannabis use triggered psychosis. In fact, it showed the opposite. Plenty of people in the control group had smoked cannabis and not had a psychotic episode. In fact, patients who had suffered psychosis were no more likely than the control group to have tried cannabis."
the study shows skunk to be dangerous..."
That is what I am saying too.
You've been making much more specific claims than "dangerous." Alcohol, tobacco, and skydiving are dangerous too - but in a free country adults must be at liberty to choose them.
Oh, and don’t miss this:
‘It [the research paper] makes the case for legalising cannabis much more compelling. It’s by regulating the market for a drug that you can prevent harm. And in this case, there is a very clear way to do that - encourage the use of milder varieties which have been shown to be harmless.
‘As Danny Kushlick of Transform says:
‘”Skunk is a product of prohibition itself. The iron law of prohibition is that it will produce the most potent variety, just like crack in the cocaine market. It’s pure economics. The economics of a deregulated market determines that the most potent, high yield, highest profit version will dominate. And that’s what skunk is.
‘”In a legally regulated market that’s not the case and you have a variety. Currently, cannabis is like a market where you go into the pub and all they’ve got on tap is absinthe. It’s ludicrous. What you want are low-alcohol beers and wines and other things. Where people have a choice they graduate [sic - probably meant “gravitate”: CF] towards milder versions.”’
You better study up on constitutional law and don’t use Obama’s law books.
States have few powers they are a local item they can’t over ride federal laws.
The Tenth Amendment says the opposite:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
A federal law is unconstitutional when it assumes powers not d.
Like emanate domain? states can’t delegate over fed law.
With skunk I’m not sure if its strength as much as a different set of compounds that is making about 10% of heavy users crazy
Like emanate domain?
Eminent domain is recognized by the Fifth Amendment.
states can't delegate over fed law.
As far as I know, no state has ever tried to override the constitutionally-delegated federal power of eminent domain. So what's your point?
The link also says it's low in CBD - presumably a side effect of the singleminded breeding for high THC incentivized by pot prohibition.
Legalizing marijuana presents more “strength” problems than prohibition. People buying professionally packaged brownies say to themselves that it looks delightful, not realizing that eating too much can kill them.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25475533/denver-coroner-man-fell-death-after-eating-marijuana
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.