Does Marijuana legalization,

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

You're apparently playing games?

(Parents Opposed to Pot)

https://poppot.org/2018/10/02/my-16-year-old-son-died-from-marijuana/

TESTIMONIES

"MY 16-YEAR-OLD SON DIED FROM MARIJUANA"

"Less than one year ago I received a parent’s worst nightmare at my front door: a Police Officer informing me Henry had been in a horrific car crash. He died a 16-year-old junior at Ludington High School, full of potential. No father should ever have to bury his son. The cause? Recreational marijuana.

How It Happened

It was the evening of October 6, 2017 (homecoming night!). Henry was at the home of a 19-year-old young man, “dabbing”, which is the use of an inhaler to breathe marijuana into your system, making it extremely potent.

This 19-year-old took videos of my son Henry both while he was dabbing and also after he passed out; he then let Henry get into his car to drive home. Apparently, Henry passed out again, only this time behind the wheel. Driving through a stop sign, he hit a semi-truck. He would die a few hours later. And my life has never been the same.

You can imagine my agony as my state now faces a decision on the November ballot on whether or not to legalize the very drug that took my son. I implore Michigan voters: please vote no to legalizing recreational marijuana in Michigan.

Marijuana is Too Accessible

When someone loses a child, you ask yourself, “how can I honor his legacy to make sure this never happens again to someone else’s child?”  Some people have said, “if it was legal it would mean less trouble in the world.” Those who make that argument are short-sighted, basing their rationale on their own desire and not on facts or responsible judgment.

Medical marijuana is already legal in Michigan but its use is already being abused. This ballot initiative addresses recreational marijuana, allowing every adult in a home to have up to 12 plants. Can you imagine how accessible it will become to children?! In spite of parents’ best efforts, when a dangerous substance is that easily within reach (often cloaked in gummy bears and brownies), children and teenagers will find access. By making recreational marijuana legal – this will increase abuse on this dangerous drug, not curb danger.

It is not helpful to point fingers at those who have lost someone and suggest we are to blame as parents. On top of poor choices, Henry made that night, this substance was way too accessible and acceptable to the people in this community.

We must do all we can now and in the future to empower law enforcement and the justice system to address those who are using it irresponsibly in our communities. To make it legal, will make their jobs all the harder. Facts show that very few in Michigan are in prison because of marijuana use. Let’s not open the door to unnecessary problems like recreational marijuana flooding our streets and homes more than it already is. Please, as a state, let us NOT lift the regulations on a dangerous substance just to make it more convenient. Your children are too important to make recreational marijuana more accessible.

Redeeming the Future

I know first hand that talking to those who are for legalizing recreational marijuana is a waste of time: one excuse leads to the next. I am not interested in rationales, or unsubstantiated claims. I lost my son because of his misuse of this terribly misrepresented drug. I am interested in truth and in protecting other parents from having to experience the pain I felt, and still feel.

I would do anything to go back in time and keep my son from going to that house that fateful night. In the same way, I want to do all I can to keep the canary in the cage when it comes to legalizing this poison. Please share my story, tell your neighbors who are not aware, inform your churches and your social clubs, make sure the coaches and teachers are educated and make sure your teenagers know about my Henry and the dangerous drug that took his life.

Together, we must tell others so we can be informed and responsible citizen voters on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Please, Michigan – say NO to recreational marijuana before it’s too late."

https://poppot.org/2019/05/09/marijuana-killed-my-son-david-in-only-a-couple-of-years/

TESTIMONIES

"MARIJUANA KILLED MY SON DAVID IN ONLY A COUPLE OF YEARS

Our son’s story is a warning to other parents

Our son was happy and healthy before he started using marijuana at age 14.  A friend introduced him to marijuana during a time when our family was supporting my wife in her fight against breast cancer.  We noticed David changing rapidly, but attributed the change to   puberty. 

After being kicked out of the private school he had attended for many years, he became a heavy user and seemed to lose motivation for school and for life. He graduated from high school at the bottom of his class and started work as a plumber’s assistant. With his paychecks, he would buy more weed.

As his use became even heavier, he became increasingly removed from our family. He spoke of seeing aliens. By last Thanksgiving he appeared catatonic. The next day he stabbed his right palm with his pocket knife. He was hospitalized in a local mental health facility and diagnosed with depression and psychosis, and only tested positive for marijuana. 

After a 6-day inpatient stay, David was discharged with no discharge planning. Notes from the facility reveal that David filled out a questionnaire on the day of discharge expressing that he “often” felt panic or terror and that he had made plans to end his life. This was not made known to the family, and he was discharged anyway.  

After discharge he started an outpatient program. On the fourth day he smoked cannabis in the woods behind our house. Then he came inside, got a gun from the safe and shot himself.

Marijuana kills! It killed my son. We will never escape David’s loss, but we hope that by telling his story we can help other parents and children understand that marijuana is far from harmless.   (We published a testimony by David’s sibling who described the effects of his death on the family.)"

And CALM (Citizens Against the Legalization of Marijuana)

Are great reference sources, that many of the pro marijuana crowd ignore.

So now, you have my argument, and position being spelled out.

"My answer, is a sobering answer, that is pro kid, child, and pro family, and pro public in general."

@Plaffelvohfen

So why cant you present a counter argument to the above, instead of having a tunnel vision argument, towards me, instead of the real life arguments, when it comes to those kids, or children?  

TKDB

https://poppot.org/2019/02/18/large-new-study-shows-teen-cannabis-use-risk-for-later-depression/

MENTAL HEALTH

"LARGE NEW STUDY SHOWS TEEN CANNABIS USE RISK FOR LATER DEPRESSION

FEBRUARY 18, 2019 

Leaders of the Parents Movement of the late 1970s and 1980s feared their children’s pot use led to apathy, lower grades and other drugs. The old concerns remain, but the new anti-pot Parents Movement warns more about the fact that marijuana may lead to severe forms of mental illness.  A new study confirms that teen marijuana use increases depression and the risk for suicide in young adulthood.

According to the study, the odds of developing depression are 37% higher in young adults up to age 32 who used marijuana as teens, compared to those who did not. The odds of a young adult thinking about suicide were 50% higher in those who smoked pot as teens. The odds of a suicide attempt were almost 3.5 times higher in the pot smokers versus those who didn’t use marijuana."

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB ;

You really are a special kind of right? 

What you're doing is listing single cases, not making an argument at all... it's an appeal to anecdotal evidence, it's fallacious... 

For every case you list I can provide cases where cannabis helps people, mostly kids and elders, here are a few...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvLhSqQ5ip8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNT8Zo_sfwo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcuZ3C9Q3Jg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvwASmdTEOI

These, like yours are NOT ARGUMENTS!!!  

TKDB

https://calmca.org/

"Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM) is an all-volunteer Political Action Committee dedicated to defeating any effort to legalize marijuana."

"We are a dedicated group of individuals, parents, business owners, medical professionals, crime and safety officials, young and old - all working to defeat the legalization of marijuana in California and other targeted states.

Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM) takes the position that Federal laws against the use, cultivation, and transportation of marijuana should be maintained and enforced and should not be relaxed or softened. Cultivation, processing, transportation and use are illegal under the Federal Controlled Substances Act.

Marijuana continues to be identified by Congress and the DEA as a schedule I drug. Schedule I drugs are classified as having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment, and a lack of accepted safety for use. After decades of study the FDA continues to reaffirm that there is no medical benefit provided by the use of smoked marijuana and that, in fact, considerable harm can be caused by such use. 

CALM is opposed to any State law that attempts to undermine the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Our position is that California Proposition 215 was misrepresented under the misguided claim that there is substantial “medical” benefit from ingesting marijuana and that the harm and negative impacts would be negligible. Subsequently, SB 420 was enacted in a failed attempt to clarify some aspects of Prop 215.

We affirm the 2006 FDA finding and vast scientific evidence that marijuana causes harm. The normalization, expanded use, and increased availability of marijuana in our communities are detrimental to our youth, to public health, and to the safety of our society.

Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana calls upon the state legislature, county governments, and local municipalities to work within current federal law and to join with federal agencies to stop the spread of marijuana distribution and use. We encourage all citizens to join in this effort."

“Legalization of marijuana will come at the expense of our children and public safety”

"— Drug Enforcement Administration 2006 "

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen ;

Keep expressing statements like this one:

"You really are a special kind of right?"

"What you're doing is listing single cases, not making an argument at all... it's an appeal to anecdotal evidence, it's fallacious..."

So you're playing the "medicinal weed angle," to help platform your individual marijuana position, right?

As some, of the medicinal weed using parents, and recreational weed use their marijuana around their kids, and families? 

Are you maybe suggesting, that the parents on the Parents Opposed to Pot, or the parents, on the CALM websites, are being fallacious to the public, via their websites? 

Because you like to hound a participants points of view, when they aren't agreeing with yours, or you'll go find a video, or videos on YouTube, and use it to do your pro marijuana arguing for you, right, because you wont argue, with the proof, or evidence, published in an article, about parents losing their kids, because of weed, right? 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

“Legalization of marijuana will come at the expense of our children and public safety”
"— Drug Enforcement Administration 2006 "

"Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM) is an all-volunteer Political Action Committee dedicated to defeating any effort to legalize marijuana."

"We are a dedicated group of individuals, parents, business owners, medical professionals, crime and safety officials, young and old - all working to defeat the legalization of marijuana in California and other targeted states.

Okay for the learning impaired slowly. Marijuana             does                not              hold              a         united state          as           being             criminally              illegal.                                              N.....    E......      V......     E.....      R                       D.....      I …..    D.....

John_C_87

What do you want to achieve by maintaining (or returning to) cannabis illegal status?

1.  To sells the principle it held a united state as a crime in the first place. There are ongoing issues of domain takeovers of homes and property in California along with many states.
2.  Slowing Machine operation impairment studies on basis of amounts of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol in the blood stream.
3. Stop or prevent a school nurses from administering marijuana as a prescription medication in school to a child.
4. The litigation process itself can bring attention to the chemical additives placed in tabaco.




 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

I googled your play of words, 

"It's an appeal to anecdotal evidence, it's fallacious..."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Scientific_context

"Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

The term is sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony which are uncorroborated by objective, independent evidence such as notarized documentation, photographs, audio-visual recordings, etc.

When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are highly regulated[1] or banned in some[which?] jurisdictions.

When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[2][3] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[4] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statisticalevidence.[5] Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical.

In all forms of anecdotal evidence its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation, leaving verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence."

"A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is throughfallacious reasoning such as the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Anotherfallacy involves inductive reasoning."

"What you're doing is listing single cases, not making an argument at all... it's an appeal to anecdotal evidence, it's fallacious..."

I presented information from legitimate websites:

"Parents Opposed to Pot"

Along with another website:

Citizens Against the Legalization of Marijuana or, CALM.

Are you trying to label those legitimate websites as fallacious?

TKDB

@John_C_87

Enjoy entertaining yourself John.

"Okay for the learning impaired slowly. Marijuana             does                not              hold              a         united state          as           being             criminally              illegal.                                              N.....    E......      V......     E.....      R                       D.....      I …..    D....."

 

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@John_C_87

Enjoy entertaining yourself John.

Honestly you are entertaining me...you are so entertaining. I'm working representing constitutional principle. Inspired by George Washington, dare to walk first from, where the many first try and run for. 

Caution wide turns.

How is my driving?  CALL 1-800- INA - DARK

TKDB

@John_C_87

You're representing yourself:

"I'm working representing constitutional principle. Inspired by George Washington, dare to walk first from, where the many first try and run for. 

Caution wide turns.

How is my driving?  CALL 1-800- INA - DARK"

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@John_C_87

You're representing yourself:

No, you are accusing me of not representing constitutional principle. As I go on questioning your use of complex idea of principles to legislate something as illegal. The force of habit is hard to break as you stated by use of additions.

Neither Virginia nor New England established their initial legal approaches on English common law. Instead, Virginia sought to pay its investors by extracting maximum labor from local inhabitants “through intimidation and brutality,” not English law (8). New England, on the other hand, looked to “the law of God, not the law of England” as they sought to unify religion and the state and create their religious utopia (8). Maryland, on the other had, sought to protect its initial Roman Catholic settlers by immediately adopting English law and insisting on its protections as more and more Protestants immigrated.

https://inpropriapersona.com/articles/colonial-law-in-early-america/

TKDB

@John_C_87I

You're on the internet, via your own keyboard, to solely representing yourself.

And educating the public, via your own mindful rhetoric. 

And this evidence, from your own keyboard, is evidence to how use the internet, for your own self benefit?

"No, you are accusing me of not representing constitutional principle. As I go on questioning your use of complex idea of principles to legislate something as illegal. The force of habit is hard to break as you stated by use of additions"

And we exist in the 21st century, this information from you:

"Colonial Law in Early America"

"In The Common Law in Colonial America: The Chesapeake and New England, 1607-1660, William Edward Nelson writes about three main colonial legal traditions: Virginia, New England, and Maryland. These three centers drew to various degrees from English common law, but deviated from it in a number of important respects and for reasons related to their establishments and purposes.

In The Common Law in Colonial America, Vol. 1: The Chesapeake and New England 1607-1660, William Edward Nelson writes about three main colonial legal traditions: Virginia, New England, and Maryland. These three centers drew to various degrees from English common law, but deviated from it in a number of important respects and for reasons related to their establishments and purposes. He summarizes their initial influences by noting “that Virginia was founded primarily for economic profit; New England, primarily to create a religious utopia; and Maryland, primarily to establish a haven for persecuted Roman Catholics” (Nelson 7).

Neither Virginia nor New England established their initial legal approaches on English common law. Instead, Virginia sought to pay its investors by extracting maximum labor from local inhabitants “through intimidation and brutality,” not English law (8). New England, on the other hand, looked to “the law of God, not the law of England” as they sought to unify religion and the state and create their religious utopia (8). Maryland, on the other had, sought to protect its initial Roman Catholic settlers by immediately adopting English law and insisting on its protections as more and more Protestants immigrated.

As the need to reassure English investors–who provided Virginia tobacco farmers the capital they needed–that they could recoup their debts grew, Virginia adopted English law. The interest was commercial, and the goal was to create predictability for investors, not to create fairness or justice for its inhabitants. As a result, the bulk of seventeenth century court cases in Virginia revolved around debt collection.

As the importance of protection Roman Catholics lessened and as Maryland began to adopt the plantation practices of Virginia, so too it began to adopt the focus on “black-letter law” that Virginia emphasized as well. Thus rule of law in Maryland joined Virginia’s approach of committing “to government by clear, unchanging dictates that would guarantee the certainty and predictability needed to entrepreneurial investment” (11).

The New England colonies differed in purpose and approach. They were founded on Puritan religious goals that emphasized the importance of religious involvement and the unity of church and state (53). Their farming did not consist of tobacco plantations, but rather emphasized  yeoman farmers who lived close to town and community. Their religion required adherence to community norms (which were strict), but also emphasized justice for both servants and masters. Self-restraint was key, and the community reigned in its most powerful members through increasingly codified laws. Religious belief was fundamental to the different outcome and approach in New England:

Puritanism and its related ideal of harmonious community … kept seventeenth-century Massachusetts from becoming the debt-ridden outpost of British colonialism that Virginia became (63).

New England cared about commerce, but debt collection was never a central concern of its courts. Instead, New England courts dealt with land titles, road building, and schools, as well as the collection of taxes that accompanied a focus on community and community building. English common law provided the backdrop to New England’s laws, but its colonists insisted on codification to increase fairness and reign in abuses by its leadership.

In fact, English common law provided the backdrop to all these American colonies, but “on the ground” social forces “gave legislation a preeminence in American law that it had lacked in England” (131). Religious values gave New England’s colonies a distinct approach that strongly differed from approaches fostered by the economic conditions of Virginia and Maryland. By 1660, there was a distinctly “American” feel to each of these areas approaches to law, but there was not yet a unifying power above all of them that would draw them closer together."

@John_C_87

Is from the Common law in Colonial America, and not of the 20th century, or from the 21st century, right?

Therefore, your common law talking point, isn't applicable towards the 20th, or the 21st century, yes, or no?

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Those parents, who are using medicinal weed, and recreational weed, around their own kids.

According to the legalization of marijuana laws, when it comes to the kids and teenagers in general, its illegal for them to be around weed, or to indulge in weed altogether?

"What constitues an "illegal use" of legal cannabis??? You'll definitely have to explain this one."

https://amp-usatoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/607482002?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFCAGgAQI=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2018/05/14/study-more-parents-smoking-pot-around-kids/607482002/

"More parents are smoking pot around kids; children inhaling second-hand smoke"

"The good news: We've made strides in shielding our children from secondhand smoke."

"The bad news: A Columbia University study suggests that an increase in parents smoking pot around their children could undo decades of effort to protect our kids."

"As we are removing cigarette smoke — and that's a major public policy achievement — that success will be attenuated by increasing exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke."  

"Spike in pot-smoking parents

Parents have got the message about the dangers of secondhand smoke. In 2002, 27 percent said they were smoking around their kids. In 2015, that number went down to 20 percent."

"But the study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics found that among parents who smoke cigarettes, pot use increased from 11 percent in 2002 to more than 17 percent in 2015.

Researchers at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and City University of New York found that among parents who don't smoke tobacco, marijuana use only increased from 2 percent to 4 percent during the same period."

"More legalization equals more smoke 

Pot use is still increasing, Goodwin said, and increasing marijuana legalization among states and the experience of a Colorado friend who works for a government agency  made her want to do the study."

"He knocks on people's doors, someone comes to the door, a puff of cannabis smoke comes out and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not illegal. That's fine. But it is secondhand smoke." 

"Thirty states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws, 9 states and the District of Columbia have recreational use laws."

"But is it harmful?

A lack of evidence exists on the dangers of secondhand marijuana smoke. 

The Health Day story quotes Dr. Karen Wilson, division chief for general pediatrics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York City who suggests it definitely is harmful.

Wilson referenced a Colorado study that found 16 percent of kids hospitalized for a lung infection called bronchiolitis showed they had been exposed to marijuana smoke. Even worse, about 46 percent had been exposed to both tobacco and pot smoke, she said.

Goodwin says we shouldn't wait for more definitive science on secondhand pot smoke. Public messaging about potential harmful effects should happen now."

"There is counseling and advice for folks on having their children avoid cigarette smoke, but no one is being advised on what to do about marijuana smoke," Goodwin said."

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@John_C_87

Is from the Common law in Colonial America, and not of the 20th century, or from the 21st century, right?

Therefore, your common law talking point, isn't applicable towards the 20th, or the 21st century, yes, or no?

No. The United State described in Constitution by introduction of truth preamble, the common defense to the general welfare. The constitution as law of the land. There is a precedent of religious influence in law, any idea that a one wrong allows abuse of addition wrong is not justified. Your task by basic principle is to address the effect enjoyed by marijuana abuse. When is that effect dangerous to the general welfare? In basic principle when it becomes a air pollutant.

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@Plaffelvohfen

Those parents, who are using medicinal weed, and recreational weed, around their own kids.

According to the legalization of marijuana laws, when it comes to the kids and teenagers in general, its illegal for them to be around weed, or to indulge in weed altogether?

"What constitues an "illegal use" of legal cannabis??? You'll definitely have to explain this one."

https://amp-usatoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/607482002?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFCAGgAQI=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2018/05/14/study-more-parents-smoking-pot-around-kids/607482002/

"More parents are smoking pot around kids; children inhaling second-hand smoke"

"The good news: We've made strides in shielding our children from secondhand smoke."

"The bad news: A Columbia University study suggests that an increase in parents smoking pot around their children could undo decades of effort to protect our kids."

"As we are removing cigarette smoke — and that's a major public policy achievement — that success will be attenuated by increasing exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke."  

"Spike in pot-smoking parents

Parents have got the message about the dangers of secondhand smoke. In 2002, 27 percent said they were smoking around their kids. In 2015, that number went down to 20 percent."

"But the study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics found that among parents who smoke cigarettes, pot use increased from 11 percent in 2002 to more than 17 percent in 2015.

Researchers at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and City University of New York found that among parents who don't smoke tobacco, marijuana use only increased from 2 percent to 4 percent during the same period."

"More legalization equals more smoke 

Pot use is still increasing, Goodwin said, and increasing marijuana legalization among states and the experience of a Colorado friend who works for a government agency  made her want to do the study."

"He knocks on people's doors, someone comes to the door, a puff of cannabis smoke comes out and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not illegal. That's fine. But it is secondhand smoke." 

"Thirty states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws, 9 states and the District of Columbia have recreational use laws."

"But is it harmful?

A lack of evidence exists on the dangers of secondhand marijuana smoke. 

The Health Day story quotes Dr. Karen Wilson, division chief for general pediatrics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York City who suggests it definitely is harmful.

Wilson referenced a Colorado study that found 16 percent of kids hospitalized for a lung infection called bronchiolitis showed they had been exposed to marijuana smoke. Even worse, about 46 percent had been exposed to both tobacco and pot smoke, she said.

Goodwin says we shouldn't wait for more definitive science on secondhand pot smoke. Public messaging about potential harmful effects should happen now."

"There is counseling and advice for folks on having their children avoid cigarette smoke, but no one is being advised on what to do about marijuana smoke," Goodwin said."

In basic principle and united state are you just accusing all people who have marijuana of murder? 

TKDB

@John_C_87

Where did this individual notion from your own mind, come from?

(Being that, all I did, was present an article?)

"In basic principle and united state are you just accusing all people who have marijuana of murder?"

"Your task by basic principle is to address the effect enjoyed by marijuana abuse. When is that effect dangerous to the general welfare?
In basic principle when it becomes a air pollutant."

What's maybe, more important on Mother's Day?

An individual mom, maybe spending quality time with their family, or maybe instead, indulging in medicinal weed, or recreational weed, around that same family? 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Where did this individual notion from your own mind, come from? You, and the basic principle of a threat to human life built with written articles used to set a united state of criminal intentions by having marijuana. The idea shared is marijuana is hurting people much like a letter comprising of cut out and arranged words from magazine and newspaper article might explain a ransomed in a kidnapping to someone. 

 I get it, you are saying the person is guilty of accidentally murdering someone as they abuse a substance. This abuse kills as a collateral damage making a victim from anyone nearby them. Correct? However how the marijuana issue stands now that person is linked to murders that are taking place in control of revenue spent for marijuana?

What's maybe, more important on Mother's Day?
An individual mom, maybe spending quality time with their family, or maybe instead, indulging in medicinal weed, or recreational weed, around that same family? 

Exactly! What is more important on Mother’s Day. Are you saying a mother is killing her family? Are you saying a mother is subjecting a child to air pollution that can be life threatening? Are you saying a mother does not have the liberty of choice, as many medications have side effects? A person might grow marijuana like a mint plant and drink it with warm milk?

TKDB

@John_C_87

Nope, I didn't imply this at all, but given your way of logic, apparently its where your self rationalizing took your choice of words?

"I get it, you are saying the person is guilty of accidentally murdering someone as they abuse a substance. This abuse kills as a collateral damage making a victim from anyone nearby them. Correct? However how the marijuana issue stands now that person is linked to murders that are taking place in control of revenue spent for marijuana?"

And again, I didn't imply the below either, but given your way of logic, apparently its where your self rationalizing, took your choice of words?

"Exactly! What is more important on Mother’s Day. Are you saying a mother is killing her family? Are you saying a mother is subjecting a child to air pollution that can be life threatening? Are you saying a mother does not have the liberty of choice, as many medications have side effects? A person might grow marijuana like a mint plant and drink it with warm milk?"

John_C_87

"I get it, you are saying the person is guilty of accidentally murdering someone as they abuse a substance. This abuse kills as a collateral damage making a victim from anyone nearby them. Correct? However how the marijuana issue stands now that person is linked to murders that are taking place in control of revenue spent for marijuana?"

Whole truth does not depend on implication by you. truth is taking place by how legislation has been placed into law in basic principle publicly as a freedom.

 First basic principle:  Marijuana air pollution in which a person who smokes marijuana pollutes the air someone else breaths with them. Second basic principle: There are murders taking place to control the money made on marijuana sales. The people who purchase the marijuana had been contributing to the cause of these murders.

This is the same thing that had taken place with alcohol, people were killed over money connected to alcohol sales, making the drinkers of alcohol connected to the killings as well. The process of untangling this mess is not easy by United State constitutional principle. It would have been safer to legislate marijuana and alcohol constitutional in basic principle form the beginning.

By the way being drunk can still be proven to be illegal as a basic principle. Marijuana is not illegal it was the influence high that is under attack, with astronomic collateral damage publicly.