Legalisation: Why The Idea SUCKS

KushKrew

KushKrew

New Member
Hey All,

Well I know I'm going against the grain here...

Legalisation of reefer? Guys, have you been paying attention to what happens with commercial crops? Have you noticed how hard it is to find non-GM food?

Reefer treated like big business is a SHIT idea. You think you'll survive as a grower when competing with guys that have many many acres of mechanised land?

Second, once legal, it'll be open for modification by assholes like Montsanto and their trans-gene technology.

Quality control my ass, we'll have all sorts of impurities, I'm willing to wager the first thing companies will do is try make it addictive, it's good money.

Why do we not trust ourselves, the underground? Reefer is in good hands. We are taking care of it like nothing else on this planet has been taken care of. We have advanced the plant, we have a RELATIONSHIP with it.

So fucking what if they want to persecute us for it, at least they're not gassing us like they did to people for simply having a religion a while ago. They drag us through court and try break us by taking all our money. Well do this shit right and there's enough money to fight back.

Legalisation is a way to get us to roll over.

Just my 2 cents on the topic, but as far as reefer goes, the last hands I want to see it in, is government.

Surge
 
V

vuttomundo

New Member
Yes i know!

Being able to get marijuana from a safe legal source SUCKS!
Not being forced to get marijuana from dangerous criminals off the black market SUCKS!
Smoking a joint in my home and not having the cops bust down my door SUCKS!
Having the right to grow marijuana in my own home SUCKS!
 
R

Rak on Tur'

Active Member
vuttomundo said:
Yes i know!

Being able to get marijuana from a safe legal source SUCKS!
Not being forced to get marijuana from dangerous criminals off the black market SUCKS!
Smoking a joint in my home and not having the cops bust down my door SUCKS!
Having the right to grow marijuana in my own home SUCKS!
Click to expand...
Dangerous criminals? That's as true as the gateway theory that DARE loves to use.
 
ILoveYouSweetLeaf

ILoveYouSweetLeaf

Well-Known Member
tend to agree with you on how companies will try to dominate it add shit to it.

quote
"So fucking what if they want to persecute us for it"

will you say the same thing if you are behind thick steel bars?
 
Rancho Cucamonga

Rancho Cucamonga

Active Member
First off, marijuana will never be legal federally. As for what will happen with states IDK, but most states will not legalize at state level. At any time the feds could come out for or against state rights, and to be honest IMO, the only reason Obama hasn't made a move one way or another is because he doesn't want this decision made during his term, as most president's wouldn't. Almost every single head of every single government agency, almost every politician, and most of congress are against any legalization even at state levels. Even if a president wanted legal they would have to not only go through congress but they would have to go through all the LE agencies who are dead set against legalization of any kind. If I were a betting man I'd bet marijuana will not only remain illegal at the federal level and for most state's, but marijuana will not be re-scheduled and current legal rec and medical will become more restrictive and taxed higher. Medical might get to half of the states in 5-10 years, but even most of those are not true "legal" as most med states have endless restrictions and regulations.
I believe rec marijuana will fail at every level.

That said. I'm against LEGALIZATION THROUGH REGULATION AND TAXATION. Not only would it do the things you and I mention, but I have no desire to give federal, state, county or city governments MORE MONEY. Government at every level have a horrible track record of how they spend tax dollars. The few politicians that are for legalization of some kind are ALL in it for tax revenue, nothing more.
 
Rancho Cucamonga

Rancho Cucamonga

Active Member
Rak on Tur' said:
Dangerous criminals? That's as true as the gateway theory that DARE loves to use.
Click to expand...
Weed was my gateway drug. Just saying. Although I never became addicted to hard drugs or booze. But to say it's never a gateway drug is not true. But I agree with you on the dangerous criminals thing, all my dealers over the years were the coolest people one could met. Unless you are buying weed from gangbangers there are really no "dangerous criminals" selling weed.
 
Jimdamick

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
One thing I know for sure, making any money off growing it will be hard to do for the small grower. Already because of Colorado prices in CT have dropped like 20%. I grow for my head mainly, but I liked to make some money on the side. Prices these day's make it not even worthwhile growing except for yourself.
 
R

Rak on Tur'

Active Member
Rancho Cucamonga said:
Weed was my gateway drug. Just saying. Although I never became addicted to hard drugs or booze. But to say it's never a gateway drug is not true. But I agree with you on the dangerous criminals thing, all my dealers over the years were the coolest people one could met. Unless you are buying weed from gangbangers there are really no "dangerous criminals" selling weed.
Click to expand...
I won't deny that it can be the first drug a person tries, then they try something else. But how much of that is just youthful experimentation? It's just the stereotype that if a person smokes pot they automatically become a candidate for heroin use that some groups try to sell I take issues with. Same with so called criminals that some claim is rampant in the pot market. Sure, there is some. But not on any sort of massive scale. After spending 49 years on and off as a trooper I never saw the connection. In all those years I can think of only three cases were I would define the person caught as a criminal.

I agree with you totally on your statement on taxes. I have always felt a person should only be charged income taxes. Nothing more.
 
ILoveYouSweetLeaf

ILoveYouSweetLeaf

Well-Known Member
Medical Grade said:
yea did you see what they have done to tomatoes?! fuck now every one has tomatoes!
Click to expand...
don't know if that was for me.
I was referring to what I have heard about how Monsanto sues farmers for saving seeds. how some farmers get sued because there fields can get contaminated from near bye Monsanto fields.
 
aknight3

aknight3

Moderator
cannabis is already owned by the USA if you didnt know, they patented cannabinoids in 2005 i beleive, pretty fucked up if you ask me.
 
TheGreenMaester

TheGreenMaester

Member
aknight3 said:
cannabis is already owned by the USA if you didnt know, they patented cannabinoids in 2005 i beleive, pretty fucked up if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Got a link supporting this claim? I don't think you patent a class of molecules.

Either way I would like to see it legalized. Yes Montsanto does things with food crops, but what do you think they will do with cannabis? Are they involved in the tobacco industry to any extent? My belief is that people can still grow high quality cannabis even if they legalize it and it becomes a mainstream product that corporations produce en masse. The same with alcohol. There exists premium beers versus cheap brans such as Keystone or PBR.
 
K

Kervork

Well-Known Member
Gubbmint wants to legalize it so they can tax it. Tobacco companies want to legalize it so they can sell it. It's all about the money which in the end will turn it into a big problem, just like tobacco.

The best thing they could do is ignore it. Fewer people would wind up smoking it then. The solution involves removing the profitability, not mass marketing. If someone wants to grow it in their back yard and secretly sell to a few friends fine. If someone wants to monocrop 100 acres and mass market, no.
 
aknight3

aknight3

Moderator
ty guy for posting link, i can promise you the USA govt DOES have a patent for marijuana cannabinoids, just look on the patent office offical website...this is not a 'claim' this is pure 100% public knowledge and fact, if you didnt already know this and your a 'pothead', you should take a close look at how you receive and process your information intake.dont worry, i wouldnt repeat something if i didnt know it to be true, this not being a claim, it is fact. later



edit nevermind, ill do it for you


Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants
US 6630507 B1
Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH3, and COCH3.
 
aknight3

aknight3

Moderator
Publication number US6630507 B1
Publication type Grant
Application number 09/674,028
Publication date Oct 7, 2003
Filing date Apr 21, 1999
Priority date Apr 21, 1998
Also published as EP1071419A1
EP1071419B1
WO1999053917A1
Less «
2 More »

Inventors Aidan J. Hampson
Julius Axelrod
Maurizio Grimaldi
Less «
2 More »
Original Assignee The United States Of America As Represented By The Department Of Health And Human Services

U.S. Classification 514/454
International Classification A61K31/352
A61P25/00
A61K31/05
C07D311/80
A61P25/16
G01N33/15
A61K31/09
A61P39/06
A61K31/12
A61P9/00
A61P25/28
A61P43/00
A61K31/35
Less «
12 More »
Cooperative Classification A61K31/35
European Classification A61K31/35

References Patent Citations (22)
Non-Patent Citations (29)
Referenced by (10)


External Links USPTO
USPTO Assignment
Espacenet
Less «
2 More »
 
S

SlaveNoMore

Active Member
I'm a bit extreme on this one.

I say full legalization or nothing. This back and forth with the federal government is like watching a donkey show in tijuana. Hiding behind the whole "medical" thing will not last folks. The fed will do whatever it wants when it wants. Pot becomes unscheduled, unregulated and gets thrown to the free market for anyone to do with it what they will. I don't believe in compromising with any government over a person's rights to do whatever they please as long as they aren't hurting another person.
 
R

Rak on Tur'

Active Member
SlaveNoMore said:
I'm a bit extreme on this one.

I say full legalization or nothing. This back and forth with the federal government is like watching a donkey show in tijuana. Hiding behind the whole "medical" thing will not last folks. The fed will do whatever it wants when it wants. Pot becomes unscheduled, unregulated and gets thrown to the free market for anyone to do with it what they will. I don't believe in compromising with any government over a person's rights to do whatever they please as long as they aren't hurting another person.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call your views extreme, I think that what your wanting is quite rational. I feel the same way, but I don't want the government setting plant number limits, expanding oversight, and having a special tax bracket with zero write offs.

I refuse to get a med card, I want no part of that garbage. I refuse to call myself a patient as well, that's a term for people that belong in the nut house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top