I do not want to get high or stoned. I do not want to get drunk everytime I sip an adult beverage.
Its none of the governments business until I cause harm to someone else.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Indiana's Push for Medical Marijuana
- Thread starter hoosierdoc
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Its none of the governments business until I cause harm to someone else.
There’s that disingenuous argument again. It’s more than just a weed. Everyone knows this. If it’s nothing more than a weed, there’s plenty of crab grass in my yard. Someone can smoke all they want and not go to jail.
I’m not saying that because I disagree with legalization. I’m in favor of it. I disagree with using dishonest arguments.
It's not disingenuous it is a weed, a plant, what would you have me call it? Whats the proper, honest word I should be using?
It is a weed. So is my crab grass and that’s not illegal. It’s status as a weed is not the reason mj is schedule 1. It’s schedule 1 because it’s also a drug. It’s disingenuous because you’re intentionally minimizing the reason that it’s illegal, as if the only thing that matters is that it’s a weed. If that were true, I should make a fortune harvesting and selling my crabgrass. Let’s just say it’s been a good year.
An honest argument would be up front about the reason it’s illegal. You want to make a case against that, then go through the list of qualifiers of schedule 1 drugs, and dismantle the applicability for each.
No, the fact that it's been elevated to a schedule 1 drug is the disingenuous part of this entire charade.
Calling it what it is, a plant, is only minimizing it if you've bought into the propaganda. The fact that we elevate it to such a status is part of the problem.
Calling it what it is, a plant, is only minimizing it if you've bought into the propaganda. The fact that we elevate it to such a status is part of the problem.
From https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling
That is the complete text under Schedule 1. So what about that description was untrue when it was scheduled or is untrue now. To save time, please note that the childhood epilepsy drug Epidiolex is a standardized extract of cannabidiol (CBD) and Marinol is a synthetic version of ∆9-Tetrahydrocannabinol. No part of just plain leaf marijuana has ever been approved by the FDA, I don't think it has even been tested due to the high number of compounds in any given leaf. Scientific testing needs a more precisely characterized compound in order for the results to be meaningful
I won’t even begin to say that I’m smart enough to have an educated opinion of this but I found this article to be interesting, there has been a lot of talk about medical marijuana have all of these great effects but little data from the other side of the coin,
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...ijuana-pot-health-risks-legalization.amp.html
as far as the argument of it should be legalized for freedoms sake does that include all illegal drugs (heroin, meth, cocaine, etc) where does the freedom argument end and why?
again to be perfectly honest I’m not sure what side of the fence I’m on, just like to look at both sides, legal, ethical, financial, societal***,,
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...ijuana-pot-health-risks-legalization.amp.html
as far as the argument of it should be legalized for freedoms sake does that include all illegal drugs (heroin, meth, cocaine, etc) where does the freedom argument end and why?
again to be perfectly honest I’m not sure what side of the fence I’m on, just like to look at both sides, legal, ethical, financial, societal***,,
"Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."
By that definition, alcohol should be classified as a Schedule 1 drug.
Bug, you linked a summary description, not the schedule itself.
From Cornell's law archive, in reference to 21 US Code 812 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812):
(1)Schedule I.—
(A)The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B)The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C)There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Does Marijuana fit these criteria (as vague and porous as they are)?
1a) What is abuse? Is using an intoxicant to become intoxicated (in and of itself) abuse? Or does simple use require a complicating factor to become abuse? It seems to me that alcohol the most appropriate analog for this example...people everywhere use alcohol as an intoxicant. Is that abuse? I don't see how that argument holds water, and by extension I think marijuana is a poor fit for this criteria.
1b) "Currently accepted medical use" You yourself have already listed two compounds active in Marijuana that are FDA approved as medicine. In several US States doctors can already prescribe marijuana as medicine. Since, in actual practice, Marijuana is already widely accepted as medicine this criteria also fits poorly.
1c) C'mon...I mean really? Unsafe, even under medical supervision? Marijuana? Occasional adult use of marijuana is not indicated as a factor in any documented medical diagnosis and has not been statistically linked increased mortality or reduced lifespan...marijuana does not fit this criteria in any way.
Marijuana doesn't belong on Schedule 1 or any of the other four. Marijuana is a natural intoxicant and should be treated as such - similar to the way we treat other natural intoxicants like alcohol and tobacco. There is already a widely accepted set of mores surrounding public use of intoxicants...applying those same mores to marijuana makes far more sense than prohibition and criminalization of this incredibly widely-used natural intoxicant.
Okay, so the full version confirms that by this definition, alcohol should be a Schedule 1 drug. So keep that in mind the next time you crack open a cold one. It's exactly like shooting heroin.
I have plenty of ragweed too. So can you get high with that?
C’mon, man. Be honest. You know why it’s illegal. Has nothing to do with being a plant. It’s because ingesting it makes you high.
ETA, it’s fine to argue that it shouldn’t be on the schedule. I suggested that already. But to argue it’s just a weed/plant is disingenuous. You don’t have to argue disingenuously. It’s an easy enough case to make that it doesn’t belong on the schedule.
Last edited:
There are other criteria. I think I posted them a couple of days ago from the FDA site. It’s medical use is becoming more accepted by medical professionals, but it’s also kinda like circular reasoning to say it should be on the schedule if it has no accepted medical use once it’s on the schedule. If it’s on the schedule it can’t have accepted medical use.
For me, it makes best sense to draw the line at the point where one cannot reasonably own or use something without a very high likelihood of causing others harm. So with guns, with what is currently available to citizens, as many as 100 million people are personally able to own an average 3 or 4 guns per person without harming others, with very few exceptions. Obviously firearm ownership isn’t a societal problem. Nukes, though, would be a problem. I don’t think a citizen can personally own nukes responsibly. I know plenty of “hold my beer” types who would eliminate entire cities.
Theres no evidence that light drugs like mj can’t be used responsibility such that it necessarily does harm to society. In fact, its prohibition does harm in other ways, such as organized crime, etcetera.
I don’t support legalization of drugs like Meth. It’s societal harm is very evident. The average meth user can’t help but impact society.
Got a link to show where the governor can keep this issue off the election ballot?
I'm not convinced he can.
Got a link to show where the governor can keep this issue off the election ballot?
I'm not convinced he can.
Jim Lucas has already shown a bill he's going to offer to legalize mj. It won't be on a ballot.
Wasn’t it constitutional carry he got scuttled a couple of years ago? Not exactly a ballot measure but with a supermajority and willing cronies, if he doesn’t want something to see light of day, it doesn’t. But I kinda think this line of reasoning is silly. Whether it can or cannot get on the ballot has no bearing on whether it should. Not when the current legislature would ban ****ing any way but missionary if it thought it could get away with it.Got a link to show where the governor can keep this issue off the election ballot?
I'm not convinced he can.
We should vote for it via referendum, up or down. Simple as that. Gov, legislature or anyone else would have trouble fighting against the popular vote in Indiana.
Of course, if you think you cannot win, it's a different story, right?
Of course, if you think you cannot win, it's a different story, right?
Second biggest liberal county in Indiana is considering easing up on possession enforcement.
https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0NYXKYrH?s=a3&pd=03TexQIv
https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0NYXKYrH?s=a3&pd=03TexQIv
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,567
- 149
How do propose we do that? Indiana doesn't have statewide referendums. We do have statewide ballot measures, but they can only be placed on the ballot by the legislature and only for the purpose of a Constitutional amendment.
And as for being afraid of it not winning if it was possible, well 70-80+% of hoosiers support legalization of at least medical use according to polling data. So....
