Agreed. But it has nothing to do with being a plant. They don’t oppose the sale or possession of alfalfa, as far as I know.The fact that people oppose it doesn’t change what it is or the thousands of years it’s been utilized as medicine. It’s ridiculous.
Might as well, some may not approve of what people might do with alfalfa.Agreed. But it has nothing to do with being a plant. They don’t oppose the sale or possession of alfalfa, as far as I know.
Especially Alfalfa!Might as well, some may not approve of what people might do with alfalfa.
I believe he's referring to me. I must be a city boy because I mentioned a hay field and straw, and I'm obviously a doper because I support legalization.
So the undesirables are killing themselves off?
That’s perfect. Well done.Especially Alfalfa!
Out of curiosity, when someone is pulled over for impaired driving and they are high but not drunk, how is this prosecuted? Drunk is pretty easy to understand as the breathalyzer gives a number and statutes are written around those numbers. I'm not aware of anything like this for MJ though.
Alcohol is the same.The trouble is that pot will have DRASTICALLY different effects on the person who uses everyday vs the person who almost never does.
Better to legalize it here than to have Indiana residents cross state lines and use our money to fund those blue states surrounding us.Indiana Democrats want to legalize medical and recreational marijuana. They say it will generate a lot of tax revenue.
Obviously, the next step is to legalize prostitution. It will also generate tax revenue and attract conventions (except the FFA) to the state. Additionally, it will provide employment for unskilled young people who don't want to bother with schooling.
Add purple if you think necessary.
So, you would characterize the arc of society as bending toward the moral since the end of prohibition?But also, let's not say that it’s a sign of an immoral society, any more than society was when it demanded that Prohibition end.
Maybe revisit the actual meaning of 'de facto'?It wasn’t made illegal federally by the MJ tax act. It was federally regulated and taxed in 1937. Interestingly that law was repealed in 1969. It was made illegal by the controlled substances act in 1970.
Congress saw how states were prohibiting cannabis and responded with the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937. At the time, the US federal government lacked the power to ban cannabis, so it levied a tax so punitive that no one could pay it. Drafted by Anslinger, the act imposed a heavy tax against anyone using the plant. Failure to comply meant a fine of up to $2,000 and up to five years in jail. The first marijuana arrest under the new federal law was a small-time weed dealer in Denver, Colorado.
Well, no, I wouldn’t characterize it as that and I didn’t say anything that should indicate such.So, you would characterize the arc of society as bending toward the moral since the end of prohibition?
I really just want to make the point that right and wrong are not a popularity contest. More people wanting something might actually get it, but that doesn't make it right or even usually even solve the problem
And it was repealed. The tax, btw was not levied as a de facto ban because of morality. It was crony capitalism that did that. But the real ass ban was in 1970.Maybe revisit the actual meaning of 'de facto'?
| ||||
|
at approximately 4:20 p.m.
at approximately 4:20 p.m