Mother facing prison time and fine for..

[Apêx1]

It seems you have a deluded, assimilated viewpoint towards marijuana. The media and authorities did their job well.
ANYTHING that makes laws and regulations obsolete will be demonized. 1: industrial hemp could replace fossil fuels, feed cattle and improve their health, save crops that are grown to feed cattle and use that food to feed the poor. Instead, police state america arrests and jails people that feed the homeless. 2: treats cancer, alzheimer?, infections, seizures, insomnia, overall health. Making big pharma obsolete...now, our rulers can't have that, huh?..

Only because my view point different from yours doesn't mean it is deluded. If you can't distinguish between subjective opinions then why make such a debatable thread in the first place?

Yes, that is true. However, I don't see your point from thereafter. Hemp replacing fossil fuels is an ongoing development, and the USA is ahead of the rest of the planet. Your point? Homeless people cannot cause an uproar over things like that, humans don't deem homeless people significant enough for such to occur, nor would the media be permitted to perpetuate something of this sort.
Yes, Cannabis can have positive effects on people who aren't in amazing health. I never once claimed that Marijuana is detrimental to people with mental illnesses and the like. However, it is nigh impossible to draw the line between people who are using Marijuana to better themselves and people who are using Marijuana to get high. You will indubitably discriminate at one point, and that is something the USA doesn't want to risk. And I know your posts from the past, I have seen your opinions, how can you claim that it will eventually be legalised when it is impossible for the USA to monopolise Marijuana? Moreover, in a human science perspective, we don't know the long term effects of Marijuana at all, so saying that it is strictly positive holds no grounds when it is impossible to tell what its futuristic effects are.

So yes, you have some points, but fact remains that the USA cannot monopolise weed nor can they permit the usage of Marijuana and the like without ever risking discrimination. And I don't understand what you are saying in your last sentence, reiterate that.

 

[YowYan]

Only because my view point different from yours doesn't mean it is deluded. If you can't distinguish between subjective opinions then why make such a debatable thread in the first place?

Yes, that is true. However, I don't see your point from thereafter. Hemp replacing fossil fuels is an ongoing development, and the USA is ahead of the rest of the planet. Your point? Homeless people cannot cause an uproar over things like that, humans don't deem homeless people significant enough for such to occur, nor would the media be permitted to perpetuate something of this sort.
Yes, Cannabis can have positive effects on people who aren't in amazing health. I never once claimed that Marijuana is detrimental to people with mental illnesses and the like. However, it is nigh impossible to draw the line between people who are using Marijuana to better themselves and people who are using Marijuana to get high. You will indubitably discriminate at one point, and that is something the USA doesn't want to risk. And I know your posts from the past, I have seen your opinions, how can you claim that it will eventually be legalised when it is impossible for the USA to monopolise Marijuana? Moreover, in a human science perspective, we don't know the long term effects of Marijuana at all, so saying that it is strictly positive holds no grounds when it is impossible to tell what its futuristic effects are.

So yes, you have some points, but fact remains that the USA cannot monopolise weed nor can they permit the usage of Marijuana and the like without ever risking discrimination. And I don't understand what you are saying in your last sentence, reiterate that.

Because it seems to me that you have accepted the law as being in tune with norms and logic.
Just because something is against the law, that does not mean it is a bad thing. It is simply against the interests of our owners.
Everything Hitler did, domestically, was legal.
Marijuana was legal in the U.S. until they found out about it's potential to create global abundance together with other oppressed medicine and technology. It'd make a ruler obsolete. Self-sustainability. Cannabis was a household medicine, and a century of propaganda and new laws and regulations somehow managed to convince the masses that it's normal to ban a medicinal plant and punish people that undermine that law.

And if people want to smoke, what's it to you? Do I even have to start about alcohol?

 

[Apêx1]

Because it seems to me that you have accepted the law as being in tune with norms and logic.
Just because something is against the law, that does not mean it is a bad thing. It is simply against the interests of our owners.
Everything Hitler did, domestically, was legal.
Marijuana was legal in the U.S. until they found out about it's potential to create global abundance together with other oppressed medicine and technology. It'd make a ruler obsolete. Self-sustainability. Cannabis was a household medicine, and a century of propaganda and new laws and regulations somehow managed to convince the masses that it's normal to ban a medicinal plant and punish people that undermine that law.

And if people want to smoke, what's it to you? Do I even have to start about alcohol?

If you read my initial post:

Well if the Cannabis helps the person, then it should be 100% legal. If it is being used for the sake of getting high, then it should be illegal, since contradictory to common day belief Cannabis can have terrible effects on your brain cells. However, that's where it gets iffy, how do you categorise avocational usage from edifying usage without discriminating?

You'd come to the realisation that I said if Cannibis is helping, it should be legal. So I don't see what you are getting at with the bolded.
Yes, Marijuana can have major advantages to the world, I haven't denied that. It's recreational consumption however, is in no way, shape or form highly advantageous. So I agree, the media did modify the world's outlook of Marijuana, however they still stressed on a significant point which is in fact true.

To me? It's nothing to me, don't see where you keep pulling these things out, most of my friends are weed smokers, I don't complain that they should stop doing it, it's their choice. However, your thread is simply asking for thoughts on the topic, and my thought was that legal action being taken on them is definitely justifiable, since not doing so would risk discrimination. That is my entire point, and don't see how it escalated to this. I claimed smoking weed would be a subsequent effect of legalisation of Marijuana, and that has negative impacts on people. Evolutionarily, it would be negative. To me, I couldn't care less, however, I am irrelevant, it is the law which is relevant, and the government which decides whether it wants its people to be negatively impacted by Marijuana (and itself). If it decides not to legalise it, then it is 100% justifiable, whether it has other advantageous uses or not. Not to mention the USA has the greatest research fulfilled for industrial hemp as a substitute for petroleum. And suggest what you want, in the early 1900's the USA placed a ban on alcohol. Even if it was a known fact that it wouldn't work, the mere fact that they risked it doesn't support what you are suggesting.