PDA

View Full Version : State Vs. FED's: The marijuiana controversy


nonparanoia
11-17-02, 12:26 AM
On August 4th of this year, the DEA and Federal Agents raided a house in rural Kentucky on the charge of growing marijuiana.
The house that was raided was owned by a family with 2 kids, who were home-schooled. The parents, who had never been in trouble with the law, were arrested on charges of growing and distributing marijuiana, even though it was being grown under strict guidlines for medical use.
Because there was a loaded gun that was used for hunting, (It was licensed and legal) the couple is now not only being charged with the State law, but now also from the Federal Government with having a firearm.
Does it seem fair that this couple, who is only trying to help out the sick and terminally ill, is being charged with these outlandish crimes, and will spend time in jail and on parole for growing a plant?
Besides, what is the big deal? There has been controversy surrounding this subject since the beginning. Why shouldnt marijuiana be legal to grow and sell, under guidlines?
Keith Stroup, NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuiana Laws) executive director, argued that nothing in a BLF (British Lung Foundation) report justifies
arresting
and jailing responsible adult marijuana smokers. "Any risk presented
by
marijuana smoking falls within the ambit of choice we permit the
individual in a free society," he said. "We do not suggest that
marijuana
is totally harmless or that it cannot be abused. That is true for all
drugs, including those that are legal. Clearly, however, marijuana's
relative risk to the user and society in no way justifies criminal
prohibition or the continued arrest of more than 700,000 Americans on
marijuana charges every year."
Plus, what are the medical benifits behind the use of marijuiana? Is there a serious physical risk with smoking marijuiana?
Stroup did agree that marijuana smoke arguably carries some health
risks.
"Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants
and
carcinogens. However, most marijuana-only smokers likely do not inhale
enough smoke to cause serious lung damage. In addition, many of these
carcinogens may be reduced or eliminated by the use of marijuana
vaporizers and other alternative smoking devices currently banned by
the
U.S. government."

Stroup also noted that the chief psychoactive ingredient in marijuana,
THC, is not carcinogenic and may actually offer protection against the
development of some malignancies. A 1996 U.S. toxicology study found
that
rats administered THC over long periods of time failed to develop
cancer
and had fewer tumors than rats not given the agent. A follow up study
by
a Spanish research team in 2000 found that injections of synthetic THC
eradicated malignant brain tumors - so-called gliomas - in one-third of
treated rats, and prolonged life in another third by as much as six
weeks.
Although there could be much more to say on this subject, I guess I will leave it with a question:
What do you think about the use of marijuiana, both for medical and recreational use, and about the laws regarding the growth of this very special plant.

Julie
11-17-02, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by nonparanoia
What do you think about the use of marijuiana, both for medical and recreational use, and about the laws regarding the growth of this very special plant.

First of all, I thought Americans had "the right to bear arms"? And if their gun was legal... :confused:

I think marijuana use, whether for recreational or medicinal purposes, should be allowed. As someone else said at this website, banning anything doesn't work. People have, and will continue to, smoke marijuana. This reality must be faced. Personally, I don't smoke it, but find no problem with people who do. Moreover, I'd much raher be around people who've smoked pot than people pissed on alcohol.

nonparanoia
11-17-02, 01:20 AM
Exactly why it just isnt right. The only reason that the FED's are charging them with the gun charges is because they had a firearm while in the commission of a felony. (Distibution of marijuiana)

Why do they have to suffer the consequences for the State laws only to get out, have the FED's pick up the case, and get into more trouble?!

Eddy's Geist
11-17-02, 02:14 AM
State vs. federal.. whooo boy! Here in California we've been having this same debate and it's not pretty. As many of you already know... California voters overwhelmingly approved the use of marajuana for medical purposes back in 94(?). I belive it was 70% in favor. The local police had a difficult time with this for a few years and after several lawsuits and tons of discussion a semi-peace has developed between law enforcement and growers. (Not in all counties but much of California) The growers update the police on where and how much is being grown and where the weed is to be distributed and the DA and police accept what is going on. The DA and police really don't have a problem with weed being grown for mediacl purposes.. they just don't like the jokers who claim it's for medical reasons when actually their growing it for commercial sale.

Anyhow... in July and August the FEDs (without notifying local authorities) went to several farms in a variety of counties and dug up the plants and arrested some people. The local police were furious as they feel that this is their jurisdiction and and a mutual trust and respect has developed between authorities and the medical pot people. In one case, the Sheriff in Marin got nose top nose with the Justice Dept head and hands were on gun butts... I think in this case the feds left.

So, who's law wins? As States do we have the right to govern ourselves or do we allow the feds to dictate?

Personally, I think Ashcroft has much more important issues to worry about than marajuana legalization. I honestly think within the decade it will be legal for at least medical usage (on a national level).

Some say marajuana is a gateway drug.. yes, it is. But so is alcohol and cigerettes. Hey, my start came from smoking clove cigs. Started hanging out with the surfers at the beach.. smoke a clove, relax in the sun... next came a beer... then weed after weed I did everything else. Of course, no drug is really a gateway... I'd say it's the person. I liked having my perception altered. If it wasn't weed then it would have been something else.

I no longer smoke weed but as Nic already said.. I don't mind others and I like stoners better than drunks.

JDub
11-17-02, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Eddy's Geist
So, who's law wins? As States do we have the right to govern ourselves or do we allow the feds to dictate?

No, they don't have a right to dictate.:mad: Follow me, y'all...I've already got the old flag out.;)

Julie
11-17-02, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Eddy's Geist
I no longer smoke weed but as Nic already said.. I don't mind others and I like stoners better than drunks.

Yep... the chances of someone whose had a coupla cones becoming aggressive are almost nought compared with the person whose been drinking.

nonparanoia
11-17-02, 11:40 PM
Not only would I rather cross a man stoned than piss drunk in a dark alley, but I personally think that those who engage in smoking the ganja are much more funner to be around.

JBMoney
01-15-03, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by nonparanoia
much more funner

Dude! You're so stoned!

C..
01-16-03, 04:54 AM
I personally hate this debate.... of course it should be legal... end of matter. It's up to the individual to decide what they want to do with their body. Then again.... most people are experts when it comes to how others run their lives... :rolleyes:

Tabacco is far worse.... people have smoked pot for thousands of years, and as soon as the profits of ciggarette companies were in question, it was illegal....

It pisses me off no end to think it would ruin my career if i was charged with possesion.... or something.....

Oh well..... I'm happy.... :Pimp: :hehe:

Kimmy
01-16-03, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by C..
It pisses me off no end to think it would ruin my career if i was charged with possesion.... or something.....


C...We're drug tested before we can even get most decent jobs. Some places take hair samples, some use a urine test. After you actually GET the job, you can be subject to random testing. In my opinion, they're creating more alcoholics. I know plenty of people that would rather smoke than drink, but they can't for fear of losing their job. It's ok to come to work with a raging hangover, but for the sake of the safety of your coworkers, you can't smoke a joint the night before. How ridiculous.

Laurie
01-16-03, 07:37 AM
Here Here Kimmy :smokin:


But again, the reality of it is MONEY !!!


Where would our government be without the profits of the drugs they make illegal? If they legalize marijuana, then there will be groups of people out there asking why cocaine can't be legalized. And sure! Cocaine is physicially addictive, unlike marijuana, but so is alcohol. And one must have a lot of money to be able to support a coke habit. :shrug: