Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Going to pot?

Legalizing marijuana not a high priority in Ohio

January 9, 2014

An Ohio legislator said this week that he will not continue the push for recreational marijuana legalization after a resolution to give Ohioans a vote in the matter was sidelined last year in the......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(144)

NathanG

Jan-14-14 11:19 PM

I would just like to take a minute to point out that all of the negatives "what about truck drivers?" "what about municipal laws" actually indicate complete ignorance of the law and the struggles at hand.

A law stating that the State of Ohio will not prosecute users of marijuana in no way requires employers to employ pot smokers. While the truth is that some people might actually be better at some jobs high, the great thing about a free society is that employers can choose who they want to hire. So if employers don't want to hire potheads, that's fine - no harm no foul. It's not like there aren't plenty of potheads working jobs (and plenty working) right now while it's legal.

Same with municipal laws. Don't want it in your town? Pass a resolution against it. Just like alcohol, or anything else. This is a STATE law, it doesn't mean it has to be legal everywhere.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-13-14 3:28 AM

kunectdots,google "marihuana tax act of 1937 DRCnet library" That will take you to a page that contains the full transcripts of the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act, as well as the conferences before and after. It also includes other things such as a report on the hemp crop and an analysis of the evidence (such as might be found) to support the DuPont idea.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-13-14 2:02 AM

"The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies. "

That's wrong. The representative of the AMA testified during the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act that cannabis was used in hundreds of common medicines at the time. Just about nobody was growing their own.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-13-14 2:00 AM

That's a nice story, kunect, but there isn't a bit of hard evidence to support it, and no real reason to believe it. As I stated earlier, even the farmers who grew the stuff didn't protest the law. The reason was that they still had the hemp crop from 1934 sitting in the warehouses unsold because there were no buyers. It would have been silly for any industrialist to fear hemp as a threat to their business. It just wasn't.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kunectdots

Jan-13-14 1:30 AM

BTW, wm97ab - it wasn't just a situation for the Du ponts that hemp be prevented from interrupting their marketization of nylon (in fact, I've never read that one). It WAS that many of the railcars, that the Du pont company owned, were contracted to haul pulpwood, at that time and they saw the development of hemp as a competitor to that market.

The case is similar to Borg-Warner, that owned a string of rail cars, hauled their own products in them but also made significant profits renting the cars out for hire to other companies. If you saw a rail car labeled BWCX ****, it could have cargo in it unrelated to Borg-Warner.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kunectdots

Jan-13-14 1:21 AM

"Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies. This all set the stage for…

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937"

h ttp://legalizepot.wordpress.c om/2008/01/23/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ann1947

Jan-11-14 12:35 PM

wm97ab..Very informative and intelligent comments ...Thank You

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-11-14 10:38 AM

"The risk for addiction to pot in a physiological sense"

According to NIDA, pot is about as addictive as caffeine. But the whole issue is a red herring because they invariably talk about the risk of addiction with marijuana, but never seem to mention that this risk is far lower than for alcohol and tobacco. Therefore, it should be obvious to everyone that the addictive qualities of any of these drugs never really had anything to do with the law. Anyone who thought that needs to read "Licit and Illicit Drugs" for starters.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-11-14 10:35 AM

" Are you aware of the pressure that the E.I.du Pont family and Randolph Herst placed upon congress to outlaw hemp?"

Yes, that story was written by a friend of mine (RIP Jack). Unfortunately, he was a better writer than a historian. There is no hard evidence for that idea, and lots of reasons why it wouldn't be true. Such as: --nylon really isn't a competitor to hemp -- the hemp crop was fading so rapidly that even the farmers who grew it didn't protest the law because they weren't making any money on it, anyway. -- DuPont made most of their money from explosives, not fiber -- It doesn't explain why mj was already illegal in 30 states before Anslinger came to the FBN and so forth. Google "Was there really a conspiracy to outlaw hemp?"

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

moderation

Jan-11-14 6:52 AM

The risk for addiction to pot in a physiological sense is a point that becomes buried when this debate occurs.Consider alcohol withdrawal... and withdrawal from other drugs, that are legal,particularily tranquilizers. Condsider that being drunk is being in a psychotic state of mind.I may have missed it, but I did not see anyone speak to the different opinions that come from the professionals in the mental health/addiction field, that actually deal with the nuts(no pun Intended) and bolts of substance use/abuse behaviors.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kunectdots

Jan-11-14 1:48 AM

HEY wm97ab! If no one else has touched on it here, yet. Are you aware of the pressure that the E.I.du Pont family and Randolph Herst placed upon congress to outlaw hemp?

At the time, Dupont had most of their railcars hauling pulpwood (for paper production) and Hearst, of course, had investments in paper production from pulpwood. Hemp production threatened their empires. In the midst of that, hemp, ditch-weed and marijuana all got rolled up (no pun intended) into America's drug laws.

Read up on the antics of Harry Anslinger and the development of our drug laws and our "war" against them.

As usual, it was whomever is making the money, gets his way.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

thegreek

Jan-10-14 8:58 PM

You are definitely adamant about this subject.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-10-14 7:50 PM

" btw...you may consider that you are not comprehending what i have been posting and are missing the point."

I think your real problem is that I have gotten to the heart of what you are posting.

" in addition your arguments when applied to other so-called vices you tend to deflect rather than simply being honest and saying that you may not apply them to meth, coke and her**n. there are many like you that would fight as hard as you have for their "medication"."

If that was what I intended to say, I would certainly say it.

"anyway i wish you well in your fight for posssibly no drug laws but you may consider changing your tactic....condescension is unappealing especially when it is unwarranted and wasted."

It is hard not to be condescending when you run into people who talk about George Washington's motor scooter. Do a little reading and it won't happen so much.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-10-14 7:49 PM

"tell absolem i said hi(gh)...he'll remember me."

Your lack of marijuana use has apparently made you hallucinate. Mj most commonly causes hallucinations in people who have never used it. it is evil stuff. I have no clue who absolem is.

"......so tell me...are there ways in which our actions hurt others or impact others without physical contact?"

Sure. There are also laws to arrest the person hurting you, in case it gets to that point. Those laws apply whatever the substance involved might be. And alcohol wins all the prizes for that stuff, so it is silly for you to be arguing about marijuana if you aren't hiding under the bed in fright from alcohol.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-10-14 7:49 PM

"control the actions of those within our society."

You obviously didn't read the history and have no clue why these laws were passed.

" you seemed to imply in a rather condecending way that my opinion did not matter on the subject in regards to the actions of others. you however are sadly mistaken yet again."

You have not explained how the medications that anyone else takes affect your day at all. Still waiting for that.

" whether you believe it or not you do not just harm yourself when you do anything no matter if you drink, smoke, ingest or inject yourself."

Sooooo . . . to protect people from themselves, we should throw them in jail and drag them through the criminal justice system to teach them healthy living. How does that work?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-10-14 7:41 PM

"....re-read my first coment regarding a physician deciding the medical need. if the citizens of california approved the medicinal use of marijuana... how is requiring the patients to fulfill their obligation to the citizens of california by proving they are deserving somehow not their business?"

You apparently didn't get it. "Deserving" is determined solely by the physician. If the person has the piece of paper then they have fulfilled their obligations to whomever you may choose -- not that any such obligation even existed in the first place. In short, the courts in California have already said that is none of your business -- as a matter of law or morality. You don't know anything about those people, and you care even less, so -- quite naturally -- your opinion on whether they are "deserving" ain't worth squat.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-10-14 7:35 PM

"......you asked who could judge...i answered you. no one said anything about physicians sending people to prison...but you did. "

That is the primary place where the judging matters -- the criminal justice system. Get it? People really do go to jail, have their property seized, and their lives generally ruined behind this crap -- for no good reason. That's why this current discussion is happening.

".....why have physicians or pharmacies...write your own prescriptions...self-medication.."

Because expertise is required for some drugs. Not so much for others. In any event, punishing someone for self-medication doesn't produce any good.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-10-14 7:34 PM

"......you asked who could judge...i answered you. no one said anything about physicians sending people to prison...but you did. "

That is the primary place where the judging matters -- the criminal justice system. Get it? People really do go to jail, have their property seized, and their lives generally ruined behind this crap -- for no good reason. That's why this current discussion is happening.

".....why have physicians or pharmacies...write your own prescriptions...self-medication.."

Because expertise is required for some drugs. Not so much for others. In any event, punishing someone for self-medication doesn't produce any good. Explain why someone should be punished when they have harmed no one but themselves.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

luvthesouth

Jan-10-14 7:23 PM

others or impact others without physical contact? btw...you may consider that you are not comprehending what i have been posting and are missing the point. in addition your arguments when applied to other so-called vices you tend to deflect rather than simply being honest and saying that you may not apply them to meth, coke and her**n. there are many like you that would fight as hard as you have for their "medication".

anyway i wish you well in your fight for posssibly no drug laws but you may consider changing your tactic....condescension is unappealing especially when it is unwarranted and wasted.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

luvthesouth

Jan-10-14 7:23 PM

control the actions of those within our society. you seemed to imply in a rather condecending way that my opinion did not matter on the subject in regards to the actions of others. you however are sadly mistaken yet again.

" whether you believe it or not you do not just harm yourself when you do anything no matter if you drink, smoke, ingest or inject yourself. there is always an impact. so pack you one, roll you one or bake you one and have at it. i will enjoy the freedom i have to vote any way i desire and i suggest you do the same. tell absolem i said hi(gh)...he'll remember me."

Well, if someone actually harms someone else, then you don't need a drug law to arrest them, do you? You know, same as with alcohol, which causes far more of those problems than all the illegal drugs combined. Didn't we cover this before? Are you keeping up with your reading? I know you aren't reading any of the references."

......so tell me...are there ways in which our actions hurt oth

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

luvthesouth

Jan-10-14 7:22 PM

medical marijuana is 100% deserving as defined by law and the medical profession."

Under California law, that is the definition of "deserving". If the person's physician says so then how do you even know enough about the subject to have an opinion? You never did explain what business this is of yours, anyway. How does this change your day? You still haven't explained that.

".....re-read my first coment regarding a physician deciding the medical need. if the citizens of california approved the medicinal use of marijuana... how is requiring the patients to fulfill their obligation to the citizens of california by proving they are deserving somehow not their business?

" the right that you refer to is the right to vote for who or what enters into my community. you have the same right."

I have no clue what part of my statement you are referring to."

...of course you don't. that right that you and i have gives us the ability to make the laws and co

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

luvthesouth

Jan-10-14 7:22 PM

"wm97ab, here is who is in judgement...the physicians. they determine who is in need." Physicians don't send people into the criminal justice system."

......you asked who could judge...i answered you. no one said anything about physicians sending people to prison...but you did. "

"apparently you support self-medication."

I don't think there is any good to be gained from punishing anyone who self-medicated. Can you explain what good there is in that?

" fine support it."

And you support putting sick people in jail who have never harmed anyone but themselves?

.....why have physicians or pharmacies...write your own prescriptions...self-medication..never said anything about sending sick people to jail...you did. besides sick people go to jail for violating many other laws...they have hospitals in prison...you do know that right????

" can you honestly say that everyone that walks out of a clinic with a prescription in hand for medica

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-10-14 6:44 PM

Hey thegreek

" One veteran border narcotics agent told FoxNews"

Did you really need any more information than that to determine that what comes next is bound to be a lie?

Just FYI, the Federal drug agencies have had an officially stated policy of lying about drugs since at least 1925. The DEA has even been sued over it. The DEA's defense in court is that they aren't required to tell the truth.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-10-14 6:41 PM

"But seriously - As the smoke settles from the first week of legal marijuana sales in Colorado, experts are warning that sanctioned pot dealers could become targets for the very folks they put out of business."

But seriously -- Oooooookaaaay. Yeah, like Budweiser has problems with the Al Capone types coming after them. Yeah, that's the ticket. I knew the sky must be falling in Colorado for some reason. Run for your lives!

Just a question -- were you aware that thousands of pot shops have been operating in California for the past fifteen years and the drug cartels are nowhere in sight in that industry?

One thing I will miss about Reefer Madness when it is gone is all the insane ideas about the calamities that will happen when it is legalized.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wm97ab

Jan-10-14 6:37 PM

" the right that you refer to is the right to vote for who or what enters into my community. you have the same right."

I have no clue what part of my statement you are referring to.

" whether you believe it or not you do not just harm yourself when you do anything no matter if you drink, smoke, ingest or inject yourself. there is always an impact. so pack you one, roll you one or bake you one and have at it. i will enjoy the freedom i have to vote any way i desire and i suggest you do the same. tell absolem i said hi(gh)...he'll remember me."

Well, if someone actually harms someone else, then you don't need a drug law to arrest them, do you? You know, same as with alcohol, which causes far more of those problems than all the illegal drugs combined. Didn't we cover this before? Are you keeping up with your reading? I know you aren't reading any of the references.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 144 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web