Author Topic: Legalizing Weed on the Federal Level  (Read 198 times)


Legalizing Weed on the Federal Level
« on: December 17, 2019, 06:01:53 am »
This is perhaps my most simplest thread for the first time on this. Recently the Democratic party decided to create a bill known as the "More Act,"  the bills design was to legalize weed off the federal Level including giving those a second chance with minor felony records based on Marijuana.

As you might read through this article you will figure that the house of the Judiciary Committee I believe is Democratic, the Senate being Republican. I haven't quite been on my updates that much on this news of Federal Legalization as of Today since most of these articles are 4 to 3 weeks.

Anyways getting to the point, being a Moderate Marijuana User myself I can make my simple counter Argumentative statements as to why Recreational weed should be put off the Federal Level.

1) It gives a worker such as myself the right to their own privacy, to not constantly worry of failing a drug test by having a harmless substance in ones system if they use it for their own spare time. It also gives the real thing of true Legalization.

2) Its harmless and safe then all the other drugs including alcohol and cigarettes.

3) It changes who you are as a person in a good way, the first time I used weed I never saw the world the same. Back then I used to be a calculating arrogant prick but ever since Iv'e used Marijuana it has expanded as to who I am as a person.

4) Marijuana is a substance of seeking knowledge of oneself, their can be many things that one gains that can be put to ones personal enlightenment.

5) A Conservative individual that I have met, have told me their reasons as to why their older generation of republicans is against Recreational Marijuana. This individual has told me that Republicans are perhaps against it over doubling the dui's or having the fear of the "great opium in china" (quote from my individual source).

But that is not the right case to make on this stance of being against it, Yes we do have many irresponsible idiots in this country that would abuse alcohol and drugs, while also driving under the influence. But at the same time as mentioned earlier, Marijuana is less harmful and non overdosed. So I don't see this exact excuse on hypocrisy that one makes as a legitimate argument.

We still have this Reefer Madness stigma brought on by the group on Conservatives within the Republican Party. We need to get rid of this stigma by introducing Marijuana to those who choose to make that decision, we cannot force it on them. But it will show the real truth by dispelling the myths that people have thought over these years on the dangers of the drug.

6) This is my favorite counter argument of all, Iv'e heard that some of the stances against Recreational Marijuana is that it is a "gateway drug."  That is absolutely A COMPLETELY FALSE AND BULL SHIT EXCUSE/Answer THAT ONE MAKES. I have met many users of Marijuana that have never gone further to harder drugs.

It is the persons own action that he or she chooses to partake in those hard drugs.

End of my Argument
"Our collective ambition is that the membership of the Order of the Serpent also serves as guardians of the Black Flame and collaborates with the Prince of Darkness in the Infernal Mandate of re-creating the Cosmos in the eternal glory of the Setian Will!"-Setamontet

Km Anu

Re: Legalizing Weed on the Federal Level
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2019, 06:44:36 am »

This is my favorite video on the subject


  • Guest
Re: Legalizing Weed on the Federal Level
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2019, 01:03:45 pm »
We should Decriminalize it but it shouldn't be just recreational. Instead anyone who can benefit from it should easily be able to get a card for way less than $300. I have my card and it's a godsend, but over in Vegas where it's legal the quality is terrible, the service is terrible, and the prices are outrageous.


Re: Legalizing Weed on the Federal Level
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2019, 03:29:38 pm »
@Xepera maSet Agreed, nowadays many people are on board with medical marijuana but at the same time it is unfair that recreational weed has been, to put it in words left out of the picture.
"Our collective ambition is that the membership of the Order of the Serpent also serves as guardians of the Black Flame and collaborates with the Prince of Darkness in the Infernal Mandate of re-creating the Cosmos in the eternal glory of the Setian Will!"-Setamontet

Km Anu

Re: Legalizing Weed on the Federal Level
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2020, 02:44:02 pm »
Cannabis prohibition and the thought campaign against harmful substances has certainly evolved drastically in the last century. What's more, it isn't too hard to figure out that someone is muddying the narrative, obscuring the motivation behind the prohibition.Here we can see a documented effort to control a potentially hazardous substance.

As such, it will likely come as a shock to most that there was essentially no significant period of unrestricted marijuana use in the United States. For the uninitiated, the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds commonly referred to as marijuana are drawn from a genus of plants known as Cannabis. The term marijuana, however, did not appear with regularity until the first two decades of the twentieth century. Cannabis was originally introduced in North America as the common hemp plant during the seventeenth century, but commentary on the medicinal and intoxicating properties of cannabis did not fully emerge in the United States until the mid nineteenth century. Spurred by medical experiments conducted in India by Dr. William Brooke O'Shaughnessy during the late 1830s, American doctors also began tests of medicinal cannabis. Barely a decade later pharmaceutical preparations of cannabis were readily available in drug stores and pharmacies. What emerged from this brief period of research—which included a good deal of personal experimentation by both medical and literary figures—was a blend of scientific inquiry and artistic expression that fed a wide-ranging understanding of cannabis and its effects. On the eve of the Civil War, classifications of cannabis included: hypnotic, anodyne, narcotic, stimulant, poison, and intoxicant. What was almost always present, however, was the ready classification of cannabis as a potentially dangerous substance. In short, like most all drugs, cannabis could be both helpful and harmful. This understanding quickly landed cannabis alongside arsenic, chloroform, opium, and many other drugs as the target of broad, state-level efforts to regulate the practice of pharmacy and the sale of medicines and poisons.

Beginning in earnest around 1860, these measures sought to provide consumer protection in an increasingly complex and potentially dangerous marketplace for drugs. Fears of adulteration, mislabeling, poisoning, and related concerns brought about action on the part of social reformers, physicians, and pharmacists aiming to carve professional space for themselves and provide expert knowledge to consumers. The role of medical doctors and pharmacists as guardians of potentially dangerous substances occupied a central place in nineteenth-century measures to regulate medicine and pharmacy. So too did growing concerns about addiction and nonmedical uses of substances. As a range of pharmaceutical products became increasingly available to the public in the late nineteenth century, these restrictions continually changed and evolved.

What I see above is that; you know, marijuana has always been a problem in the US. The name is pretty new too, we just used to call it hemp. They started criminalizing it in the early 1800's when they figured out that drugs were a problem. A few people researched the effects of hemp and concluded cannabis was just as dangerous as all of them. I may be over scrutinizing, but this narrative is false. Wikipedia says,

In 1925 a compromise was made at an international conference in The Hague about the International Opium Convention that banned exportation of "Indian hemp" to countries that had prohibited its use, and requiring importing countries to issue certificates approving the importation and stating that the shipment was required "exclusively for medical or scientific purposes". It also required parties to "exercise an effective control of such a nature as to prevent the illicit international traffic in Indian hemp and especially in the resin".[47][48]

In the United States in 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act was passed,[49] and prohibited the production of hemp in addition to cannabis. The reasons that hemp was also included in this law are disputed—several scholars have claimed that the act was passed in order to destroy the US hemp industry,[50][51][52] Shortly thereafter the United States was forced back to promoting rather than discouraging hemp cultivation; hemp was used extensively by the United States during World War II to make uniforms, canvas, and rope.[53] Much of the hemp used was cultivated in Kentucky and the Midwest. During World War II, the U.S. produced a short 1942 film, Hemp for Victory, promoting hemp as a necessary crop to win the war. In Western Europe, the cultivation of hemp was not legally banned by the 1930s, but the commercial cultivation stopped by then, due to decreased demand compared to increasingly popular artificial fibers.[54] In the early 1940s, world production of hemp fiber ranged from 250 000 to 350 000 metric tonnes, Russia was the biggest producer.[50][55]

If you've ever tried concentrated THC alongside flower, one of them is markedly more sedating and harder to dose due to its concentration. The point is that all preparations of consumption are not comparable and these 'facts' are actually talking about one concentrated form of Mary Jane, not all. And it seems someone decided to throw a wrench in the "We've known weed was bad since the 1800's" narrative by focusing on imported hemp's threat to the cotton industry. we can find here:

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 effectively made possession or transfer of marihuana illegal throughout the United States under federal law, excluding medical and industrial uses, through imposition of an excise tax on all sales of hemp. Annual fees were $24 ($637 adjusted for inflation) for importers, manufacturers, and cultivators of cannabis, $1 ($24 adjusted for inflation) for medical and research purposes, and $3 ($82 adjusted for inflation) for industrial users. Detailed sales logs were required to record marihuana sales. Selling marihuana to any person who had previously paid the annual fee incurred a tax of $1 per ounce or fraction thereof; however, the tax was $100 ($2,206 adjusted for inflation) per ounce or fraction thereof to sell any person who had not registered and paid the annual fee.[37]

The American Medical Association (AMA) opposed the act because the tax was imposed on physicians prescribing cannabis, retail pharmacists selling cannabis, and medical cannabis cultivation and manufacturing; instead of enacting the Marihuana Tax Act the AMA proposed cannabis be added to the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.[38] This approach was unappealing to some legislators who feared that adding a new substance to the Harrison Act would subject that act to new legal scrutiny. Since the federal government had no authority under the 10th Amendment to regulate medicines, that power being reserved by individual states in 1937, a tax was the only viable way to legislate marijuana.

The evidence implies that hemp in EVERY form was prohibited. I've never smoked a rope, seems like kind of an extreme measure. In fact banning consumable cannabis exclusively was proposed in those early days and still the tax remained in place. The intent was not focused on criminalizing recreational use.

There are more theories out there, but criminalization is the weakest in my opinion. At least in its most commonly consumed form today, flower.