It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: shaneslaughta
Would this mean that now individual states that want to keep it criminal would have to foot the bill on it wouldn't they?
Kinda forcing the hand of the states isn't it?
originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: shaneslaughta
Oh god now we have the states to mess things up. All one has to do is look at NY state and their history of inaction on this issue and they'll realize we still have an uphill battle.
originally posted by: thesmokingman
originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: shaneslaughta
Oh god now we have the states to mess things up. All one has to do is look at NY state and their history of inaction on this issue and they'll realize we still have an uphill battle.
NY is a government-nanny state. You cant even buy a Big Gulp there anymore can you?
originally posted by: HarryJoy
If hemp becomes just another taxable commodity then it's true purpose is destroyed. Hemp has the power within Her to free the world from it's shackles. But she will not be sold as a Harlot. A society must be developed that will exploit her goodness without the pollution of Trade.
originally posted by: IceHappy
I went to the doctor two days ago he said when I asked about the progress of medical MJ he said that he does not want pot heads for clients and that if I am in more pain.... take more morphine
originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: HarryJoy
My main worry with the legalization movement is that the corps will end up poisoning the materials and become even more influential in the political world. I wish people could be free to use whatever they wish as long as they don't hurt anyone but the prospect of a corporate "marijuana cigarette" scares the hell out of me.
originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: olaru12
The desire for "heirloom" strains and truly organic, safe, quality plants will always exist, luckily. To me it's worth the extra time and money spent on establishing decent plants, better than getting seeds from Walmart or Home Depot.
originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: shaneslaughta
I believe that the practical/good uses of hemp should be fully developed. But if hemp only serves to further us down the same road that we are on now...then it will become corrupt along with all the other commodities. The proper setting for the free use of hemp (and it should be free in any setting) imo is a moneyless society where the tremendous potential of hemp can be displayed to the fullest extent by providing many of our basic necessities such as fuel,building materials and clothing. Hemp has the ability to be the underpinning for a whole new type of societal infrastructure.
The Rohrabacher amendment is a welcome indication that many members of Congress, including a sizable number of Republicans, are inclined to let states set their own marijuana policies, and it may indeed deter federal prosecutors from targeting patients and suppliers who comply with state law. But it clearly does not end the federal ban on marijuana, which makes no distinction between medical and recreational use. Even if the rider affects enforcement of that ban in the 23 states with medical marijuana laws, it has no impact in the other 27. Nor does it necessarily end tension between the federal government and states that let patients use marijuana for symptom relief.
First, the rider expires at the end of next September and may or may not be renewed. Second, federal prosecution of particular growers or dispensaries does not, strictly speaking, prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws, since it does not force states to punish activities they have decided to stop treating as crimes. Third, even if we read the rider as prohibiting raids, arrests, prosecutions, and forfeiture actions aimed at people complying with state law, who those people are remains a matter of dispute in California and other states that do not explicitly allow dispensaries. In those states, where the rules for supplying medical marijuana remain fuzzy, people do still "need to worry about federal drug agents raiding retail operations."
It's still federally illegal and, for now, still Schedule I.
All this means is that the feds are prohibited from spending funds in an effort to raid/shutdown medical marijuana dispensaries in states that already have medical marijuana programs established, as long as those facilities are in compliance with state law
If a marijuana shop is not in compliance with state law, then the feds could still shut it down (as could the state).
Curiously, with the way things are worded in the spending bill (specifically repeated use of the word "medical") I would imagine that recreational facilities would not be exempt from federal intervention.