Marijuana should be legal, change my mind.

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@John_C_87

You still have NO ARGUMENT, John.

The below, are more of your preachings:

"It is important to understand that legislators in many states understand the addiction of gambling. The number of ways an addiction problem can present itself is not held in a united state by narcotic or drugs, this includes prescription medications.

One of the meanings to the word Trump is “a dependable and exemplary person,” gambling as an addiction does not make the person who gambles dependable or exemplary. Is Gambling mentioned explicitly, in those state's Marijuana Law's?Are you say you cannot see any gamble in how marijuana is legislated as a substance and not pollutant by THC contamination?"

 

@TKDB  

Assessing the extent of what is see as negligence the way to gather information depends greatly on honesty, truth, and in the way a reply to questions is presented. I concede fully you have taken control of the debate by the limited answers you provide. So, this means more question must be asked as the lack of answers to questions still provides us with information to build a search on.

As for gambling it is an example of addiction as united state, there is a consistent lack of addressing united state in debate, in many of the debate people take part in. As I do not disagree with basic principles that you being to the date, In fact they help set the idea of negligence in Ex post facto, as we get to see the change taking place after the facts are presented as accusation of written law.

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

As a substance abuse in basic principle this means the substance is used incorrectly or in a dangerous way. Dirt is often associated with substance abuse in legal precedent and children it is described as hygiene with infants, a form of organic contamination of pollutant. Common defense to the general welfare.

(Pure John opinion, as well) Number of children Xfound  reported who have been killed due to smothering with marijuana so far. Buried? 0 reported

More of your internet preaching John, 

I am looking for information how many babies are smothered a year under the weight of marijuana, a fallen bail or trash bag full ? How many babies crawl into a five-gallon bucket and drowned in marijuana?There are a number of deaths that take place as a supervisor of children  under the influence of THC, none under drowning directly in marijuana. Can a person get high by touching marijuana? Is the chemical pollutant THC a threat by contact like poison ivy?

All information collected so far is along the line of second hand breathing of marijuana smoke supporting air pollution and not owning of marijuana as a crime. 

The understanding is ;who would have this vital common defense such as how much marijuana a person can touch before they are high? 

When a substance is burned and creates a threat in basic principle this is air pollution can you provide any links which state this is not true?

TKDB

@John_C_87

Why no response for the below?

Maybe you can't come up with a real life, or world counter argument, for the below is a probable truth?

From Parents Opposed to Pot:

"STONED BABIES AND UNDERACHIEVING ADULTS

JUNE 4, 2019 EDITOR

By Dr. Drew Edwards

Physicians and medical professionals routinely warn women not to use marijuana while they are pregnant or nursing. Why? The best available scientific evidence has established that exposure to marijuana’s psychoactive constituent, THC, in utero causes neuroadaptive changes in their baby’s brain, especially in the regions where their cognitive capacity and emotional regulation is formed. As a result, the life trajectories for prenatally exposed children may be permanently altered. These facts, like so many others germane to marijuana’s toxic effects have been well established in the scientific literature for years—and largely ignored. But why?

Blatant ignorance, apathy, greed or all of the above, coalesced and organized by pro cannabis politicians, financiers and a large, grass roots constituency of chronically addicted users who support full legalization of marijuana. As a result, more women than ever are smoking marijuana both during and after their pregnancy. Specifically, research informs that two-thirds of pregnant women now believe that smoking marijuana during pregnancy presents “no risk at all”, or only a “slight risk” to their baby–meaning they are going to continue getting high during their pregnancy and after.

NAS Report, other recent research

Recently, a shocking revelation was by reported by researchers from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. While researching the risk factors associated with marijuana during pregnancy, they discovered numerous instances in which non-medical personnel (uneducated sales clerks) at state approved marijuana dispensaries throughout California were recommending that pregnant women smoke marijuana for morning sickness. The fact is, smoking marijuana is an effective antimimetic, as it is for terminal cancer patients on chemo. But is it safe?

Recent research published by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that marijuana use (twice per week) increases the risk of low birth weight, citing previous studies that revealed that babies exposed in utero had “statistically significantly smaller head circumferences (smaller brain) shorter stature and lower birth weights” compared to babies not exposed. Not surprising, the findings were more pronounced among women who used marijuana during the first and second trimesters. In addition, a well powered study (in press) from Colorado Children’s Hospital, describes how THC is commonly being fed to newborn babies via their mother’s breastmilk, causing intoxication to the infant…yes, stoned babies.

How is the brain affected?

The human brain does not fully develop until the mid to late 20’s. The female brain develops a few years sooner than the male brain. Moreover, the brain develops from the back (cerebellum) to the front (frontal cortex). This is developmentally significant, as the frontal cortex is what makes us uniquely human. It is where conceptual and abstract learning develop, as well as our capacity for empathy, and motivation to sustain focus, set goals and work hard to achieve them. Our frontal brain is where we develop morality, learn fairness, desire to help others, to delay gratification and inhibit primitive hedonic impulses from the midbrain. Marijuana use retards the development of the frontal cortex and degrades the neuro-circuitry that innervates this region.

In a paper published (2015) by researchers at Columbia University Medical Center and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, investigators used a novel and highly specific carbon radio-tracer, which binds preferentially to dopamine 3 (D3) receptors in the brain. Using  sophisticated imaging technology, these studies revealed that regular cannabis use is associated with lower dopamine release in the associative striatum and the sensory motor striatumwhich mediate reward salience, motivation and cognition. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter that causes reward when human and mammals engage in pro-survival behavior. All drugs of abuse usurp this most primitive survival drive by releasing dopamine, thus fooling the brain and rewarding the user as if they had accomplished something significant. Lead investigator, Dr. Anissa Abi-Dargham, concluded. “Cannabis shares a negative impact on dopaminergic transmission with other drugs, only with a different regional profile”

Why is this important?

There are currently 24 million marijuana users in the US. Today, approximately 7,000 children or teens will smoke marijuana for the first time. And 7,000 tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day…. Yet, the acute and chronic effects of the 120 plus cannabinoids and other constituents present in marijuana are mostly unknown.

When a person smokes marijuana- THC, the known psychoactive cannabinoid is pumped  from the lungs, into the heart, reaching the brain within minutes. The body absorbs THC more slowly when it is eaten, delaying the onset of action for at least an hour and prolonging the duration of the effect. Users who are naive to the slower onset of edibles may consume 2 or 3 times the initial dose, erroneously believing that the initial dose was insufficient to get them high.

This is common cause of visits to the local hospital’s emergency department. Moreover, competition for market share of this multibillion- dollar business has driven up the potency of the marijuana products, with little regard for safety. In order to increase the percentage of THC in retail products, the manufacturers make room by eliminating most of the cannabidiol (CBD) which has been shown to have positive, neuro-protective effects. In short, THC degrades neuronal connections and circuitry while CBD is protective.

Our list of child neglect deaths involving caregivers using marijuana includes 17 children who drowned and 13 who died in hot cars.

Legalization has produced intense market competition, which, in turn, has produced dangerously potent products. Since legalization in Colorado, admission to poison control centers and pediatric emergency departments have experienced a 300-to-400 percent increase due to marijuana toxicity and overdose. In addition, dozens of babies and toddlers have died because their parent or caregiver was so stoned that they left a small child unattended in a bathtub, or near a pool, or strapped in an overheating car and was literally baked alive because the adult just “lost track of time.”

Altered life trajectory

Numerous prospective and longitudinal studies reveal that teens who smoke marijuana grossly under achieve in life. One such longitudinal study (10 years) showed that teens who used marijuana at least twice per week are 5 times more likely to drop out of high school, 3 times more likely to be incarcerated or unemployed, earn significantly less money as adults, and have multiple failed significant relationships. Additionally, teens who smoke marijuana are 2.6 times more likely to become addicted to opioids.

Clearly the consequences of marijuana use, via legalization, has fallen most heavily on the very least of us, e.g., the unborn, infants, small children, and the poor, while making many politicians wealthy and elitist billionaires even more wealthy.

Stoned babies, brain damaged and psychotic teens, underachievement, incarceration, unemployment, depression, suicidality, infant death by neglect…Is it worth it?

Apparently so, as too many ignorant, apathetic users and greedy and powerful politicians and financiers are willing to trade the lives and the future of millions of children, so that marijuana users have the legal right to get stoned and impaired whenever they want, and without consequence. This must change, less we become a nation of underachieving, sick and unproductive people. "

References Provided Upon Request

Dr. Drew Edwards is a Clinical Consultant for Lakeview Health in Florida and a behavioral medicine researcher, author, clinician, trainer and consultant. Formerly Dr Drew was Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior and at the Medical College of Georgia, as well as the director for the Department of Psychiatry. Previously, Dr. Edwards was the Associate Director of Psychiatry at the University of Florida, College of Medicine.
www.drdrewedwards.org www.lakeviewhealth.com. 

John_C_87

Why no response for the below? 

I am working my way through your posts as quickly as possible trying to answer the questions truthfully. Documenting then working to gather information to counter the point you make if I disagree. A counter to the direction you are trying t take is not always the truth as basic cause to negligence in united state preservation of constitution.

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Altered life trajectory

Numerous prospective and longitudinal studies reveal that teens who smoke marijuana grossly under achieve in life. One such longitudinal study (10 years) showed that teens who used marijuana at least twice per week are 5 times more likely to drop out of high school, 3 times more likely to be incarcerated or unemployed, earn significantly less money as adults, and have multiple failed significant relationships. Additionally, teens who smoke marijuana are 2.6 times more likely to become addicted to opioids.

This is not the whole truth. In order for this number to be this low legislation of chemical pollutants such as refined poppies would had needed to be in effect. The odds are realistically as low as 50-50 and as high as 95 - 5 of an opioid addiction taking place when marijuana is not monitored in a united state constitutional reprteatation, that in consistency to its religious freedom by public use. This the common defense to the general welfare aloud by the states union made within the Union of Constitutional legislation. It, marijuana does meet a quality separating it form other narcotic chemical's as a public pollutant for it is a raw material grown and used as grown.

TKDB

@John_C_87

Do those state's Marijuana Law's, have any of the below stated, in their published laws, that can support your individual statement?

"It, marijuana does meet a quality separating it form other narcotic chemical's as a public pollutant for it is a raw material grown and used as grown."

Again, educate the public, on your reiterated statement, as being a part of those published Marijuana Laws?

Where it explicitly details, about viewing recreational marijuana, as a public pollutant? 

John_C_87

Do those state's Marijuana Law's, have any of the below stated, in their published laws, that can support your individual statement?
It is a united State that is shared in all pollution so before going over the Ex post fact law's it is best we look at the negligence taking place in public opinion fueling the problem. also the issue with law is in all states in a constitutional union, not just those who are allowing the use of marijuana it does include those who restrict such use. What I am looking for is the common defense as to why a pollution issue is not regarded as a pollution issue and find none in your debate. The grievance on marijuana as a substance appears to be unsubstantiated 
by the position of legislated law, and the common defense to illegal law, we are to follow orders as a dictatorship without military authority to relieve a person who demonstrates a lack of understanding of their command as it relates to negligence against preservation of united state Constitution. The support on both sides of legislation is to be able to continual criminal protocol with  changing fact of basic principle after criminal accusation are investigated by law.

"The best available scientific evidence has established that exposure to marijuana’s psychoactive constituent, THC,"
www.drdrewedwards.org www.lakeviewhealth.com. 

TKDB

@John_C_87

Here's the truth, you couldn't find any supportive evidence that the those states, Marijuana Laws, have published within their own words, right?

Or in other words:

Again, educate the public, on your reiterated statement, as being a part of those published Marijuana Laws?

Where it explicitly details, about viewing recreational marijuana, as a public pollutant? 

("The best available scientific evidence has established that exposure to marijuana’s psychoactive constituent, THC,"
www.drdrewedwards.org www.lakeviewhealth.com. )

So what does your shared website have to do with those states published Marijuana Laws? 

The answer, your shared website, it has zero, to do with those states published Marijuana Laws.

That's the whole truth, to your argument.

John_C_87

In the USA it is a constitutional right. A right that should be protected with rigor.

 Yes, it is a Constitutional right, it is also an American Amendment right. How the United State Constitutional right is preserved and how the American first Amendment right are preserved is not the same process, they are not part of the same state of union made on speech. They are two different things.

Where it explicitly details, about viewing recreational marijuana, as a public pollutant? They are in details how THC is released from marijuana. A change in evidence takes place after it is collected Marijuana has THC inside it is not THC. There is a clear transfer being made changing evidence after the fact is enforced by law.

So that there is an understanding as common defense this process has a legal position up to a specific point. Once cross the legality of the process is sacrificed what is to be established by preservation of United State Constitutional pre3servation is the states right to address this matter of state of the union.

Here's the truth, you couldn't find any supportive evidence that the those states, Marijuana Laws, have published within their own words, right? No it is not the truth, it is a statement to hide a inept understanding of responsibility to preserve a United State. The wrong is clear in the truth you are not addressing Law as united in the matters of state, and this is the principle which Ex post fact-o law’s take advantage of for any number of reason, legal and illegal.

So what does your shared website have to do with those states published Marijuana Laws?  Are you trying to pass as credible an answer in informal in debate that is to be form me? Ex post Facto of it being directed to me? Like stated earlier we know gambling is an epidemic addiction and most law stops short on abuses this addiction has on United State Constitutional legislation.

So what does your shared website have to do with those states published Marijuana Laws?  It is showing an understanding known as truth, THC is the basic principle in question of harm, and not a pharmaceutical processed chemical manufactured without permission.

Do pollution laws exist?

How long have they existed?

What is the reason as common defense to the general welfare and tranquility they had not been used?

Would it have made a difference on the attacks of (sabotage) terrorism made against the United States of America?

https://www.usa.gov/pollution

SpyralTheRool

I mean, any substance that changes the way that you naturally act or speak, and only used for pleasure is normally not good. Either way, cannabis costs a ton if you are a heavy smoker.

TKDB

@John_C_87

Your argument has no basis, being that none of the laws in those states, that legalized weed for recreational use, can't be used justifiably support your whole truth argument?

Now show the public, where the below linked information, is explicitly mentioned, in those states Marijuana Laws? 

From your shared web-page:

"Pollution Issues

Learn about the different types of pollution in your community and what you can do about them.

On This Page

• Environmental Laws and Regulations
• Report Environmental Emergencies and Violations

Environmental Laws and Regulations

Learn which state and federal agencies manage environmental protection and regulation.

Open All +

• Air Pollutants, Clean Water, and Safe Drinking Laws

• Wildlife and Endangered Species Protection

• Laws Governing Pesticide Use on Food

• Environmental Concerns at Work

• Find State, Local, and Tribal Offices That Handle Environmental Concerns "

You don't have an argument, because its all John's opinion. 

John_C_87

(TKDB said) Your argument has no basis, being that none of the laws in those states, that legalized weed for recreational use, can't be used justifiably support your whole truth argument?

You mean other than the very first issue of marijuana not ever being proven as either illegal as a united state, or written set legally on the basic principle to be used as evidence against the suspected.

Now show the public, where the below linked information, is explicitly mentioned, in those states Marijuana Laws? 

This is our discussion not a trial civil or criminal, my direction in debate is to establish that you are not using a freedom of speech as there is both an assigned cost and a self-value being applied to this public religious persecution. There is a profound and notable difference between filed grievance made publicly or made private in court, and any freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion.

The relevance is that law does not have protection under freedom of press which is somehow suggested by the use of legislation, the filed grievance is hindering the establishment of a person’s civil liberty by connecting confiscation to private property ownership. These united states are ignored by a claim of unknowing, or ignorance and it is not excusable principle in the burdens of command in these lines of United State Constitutional preservation.

TKDB

@John_C_87

Your argument has no basis.

You're argument, is sustained, by your own opinion, only.

"Pollution Issues

Learn about the different types of pollution in your community and what you can do about them.

On This Page

• Environmental Laws and Regulations
• Report Environmental Emergencies and Violations

Environmental Laws and Regulations

Learn which state and federal agencies manage environmental protection and regulation.

Open All +

• Air Pollutants, Clean Water, And Safe Drinking Laws

• Wildlife And Endangered Species Protection

• Laws Governing Pesticide Use On Food

• Environmental Concerns At Work

• Find State, Local, And Tribal Offices That Handle Environmental Concerns "

You don't have an argument, because its all John's opinion, still.

Where are you deriving your opinion from?
Your own mind?

"You mean other than the very first issue of marijuana not ever being proven as either illegal as a united state, or written set legally on the basic principle to be used as evidence against the suspected."

What states Marijuana Law, are you basing your above opinion on John?

Same question for this opinion from you:

No, its not (Our) discussion.

This forum is Global because the internet, has made it a public forum, and not a, John, and whoever else he's having a conversation with?

My guess, is that some of law enforcement, has read, some of  these forums, along with former, and current attorneys, are reading these forums, along with those probable marijuana user's, who are smoking marijuana, while reading these forums, in those states, that legalized recreational marijuana, for those marijuana user's.
And I'll guess, that some of the pro marijuana industry talking heads from NORML, have read these forums as well?

And the parents from Parents Opposed to Pot, and CALM, Citizens Against the Legalization of Marijuana, have read these forums also?

The Internet has become a global church of communication, and the pro marijuana crowd, and the pro family parents, who place their kids, and families, above any type of illegal marijuana use, around their children, and families, are the other individuals, who venture to this global church, to see what the pro marijuana crowd, and their advocates, and activists, are saying in regards to their pro marijuana rhetoric.

"This is our discussion not a trial civil or criminal, my direction in debate is to establish that you are not using a freedom of speech as there is both an assigned cost and a self-value being applied to this public religious persecution. There is a profound and notable difference between filed grievance made publicly or made private in court, and any freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion."

"The relevance is that law does not have protection under freedom of press which is somehow suggested by the use of legislation, the filed grievance is hindering the establishment of a person’s civil liberty by connecting confiscation to private property ownership. These united states are ignored by a claim of unknowing, or ignorance and it is not excusable principle in the burdens of command in these lines of United State Constitutional preservation."

John_C_87

If it had been just opinion. Which it is not, it is an observation to which a common defense is being ask for. What we are debating is the imposed cost and self-value created by not treating the narcotic drugs as a chemical pollutant which it is by basic principle.

Whereas TKDB has a United State Constitutional right to freedom of speech it does not apply to law. Law’s do not have a united state constitutional right to freedom of press. What is opinion is that you do not have knowing knowledge of the Ex Post Facto presentation in evidence to legislation on marijuana in general as law legal or not.

Narcotics are a chemical pollutant this is basic principle prove otherwise or please continue on in explaining the common defense to your detail of grievance.

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations

 

Let me help get the time line straight of just how long ex post Facto law has been abused.

“As detailed in a Frontline report from 2000, federal and local practices regarding property seizure in drug cases shifted in 1984, when federal law created forfeiture funds for property seized by the DEA and FBI, and allowed local law enforcement to share proceeds from the sale of property seized.”

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/10/property-seizure-in-the-war-on-drugs.html

TKDB

@John_C_87

John, is any of the below, written as a part of those states Marijuana Laws?

Why don't you reach out to NORML, and ask them to interview, the DEA, ATF, and the FBI, and question, them about your below linked website information?

 "The Supreme Court heard arguments
today in a case about the extent to which police can seize property connected to drug crimes without offering any procedure for owners to contest the seizure.

The scenario of concern in the case happens across the U.S. Police, while investigating or making arrests in a drug case, seize property that may be connected to the case, like cars. What happens next depends on state law, but in many places, property owners go months or even years without their property, even when no charges are filed against them.

In his brief summary of the case before the Supreme Court (Alvarez v. Smith), George Mason law professor Ilya Somin points out how state seizure laws can threaten innocent property owners whose car or other property gets swept up in the War on Drugs. In Illinois, state law offers no procedure to challenge the seizure, and requires no proof from police that seizure is necessary to preserve evidence.

And as with this lawsuit's original plaintiffs, this can happen even when the owners are never charged with violating any law.

As Professor Somin points out, those whose property is seized are often poor -- meaning that the loss of a car for months on end is a very big deal.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether by not providing a procedure to challenge seizure, Illinois has violated its the right to due process of those whose property is seized. The court of appeals below ruled that the seizure law does in fact deprive property owners of due process.

We'll see whether the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, decides to overturn it, or throws the case out on procedural grounds (oral arguments today hinted that some justices may view the case as moot because the car owners involved have gotten their cars back and no class action has been certified).

Some, including professor Somin, worry that law enforcement may be too tempted to seize property first and ask questions later, as law enforcement often auctions off seized property later and keeps the proceeds.

As detailed in a Frontline report from 2000, federal and local practices regarding property seizure in drug cases shifted in 1984, when federal law created forfeiture funds for property seized by the DEA and FBI, and allowed local law enforcement to share proceeds from the sale of property seized.

While states struggle to find a balance between not allowing accumulation of property through crime and protecting the civil rights of property owners, some wonder whether law enforcement agencies have become addicted to the property they seize in drug cases. "

John_C_87

John, is any of the below, written as a part of those states Marijuana Laws?

We are not addressing the same issue TKDB.

Is any condition being made by basic principle against self-exposure to a chemical pollutant part of marijuana law? No.

 look at structure of written law applied publicly like it can be part of a freedom of speech, a freedom of press allowed by First amendment of united states constitution is not the idea of united state free speech. In truth all law is united state grievance made before any change of constitution by first amendment happens or can take place. 

A list of relevant information which might help set a legal United State in legislation of the grievance made publicly. Law is not the determination of guilt the process of Constitutional trial is, all proof needed on any accusation is shared. The group which holds accusation of crime holds a united state for marijuana as a harmful substance by its own threat not the threat to health made by group accusation. Marijuana has legal use outside creating of pollution by what is claimed as a written law of substance ownership. There is a transition that is taking place by state of the union that change to substance which is legal until proven illegal in a way the looks at person who pollutes.  A person not company creates Pollution. By the people, for the people. This is a whole truth that is explained in a united state for a general care of tranquility. Address this by not giving a common defense as to the nature of crime under suspect and a person agrees and is fully aware marijuana is a pollutant by United state. 

Chemicals and Toxics Topics

EPA uses sound science to develop ways to help produce safer chemicals and regulate harmful substances. EPA also provides information about specific chemicals and how you can protect yourself, your family and your community.

Regulatory Information by Topic: Air

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA sets limits on certain air pollutants, including setting limits on how much can be in the air anywhere in the United States.

Six Criteria Air Pollutants:

Carbon Monoxide, Ground-level Ozone, Lead, Nitrogen Oxides, Particulate Matter, and Sulfur Dioxide

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common air pollutants. EPA must designate areas as meeting (attainment) or not meeting (nonattainment) the standard. States are required to develop a general plan to attain and maintain the NAAQS in all areas of the country, and a specific plan to attain the standards for each area designated nonattainment for a NAAQS.

 

Laws and Regulations

·         National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): standards and implementation information for each of the six common air pollutants. Find information on sources for each pollutant, why the pollutant is of concern, health and environmental effects, and current efforts to help reduce the pollutants

https://www.epa.gov/regulatory-information-topic/regulatory-information-topic-air#criteriapollutants

PCP

phencyclidine

 [fen-si´klĭ-dēn]

a central nervous system DEPRESSANT, introduced as an anesthetic in the early 1950s but later abandoned because of unpredictable side effects such as agitation, disorientation, and hallucination. The drug is easily synthesized by anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry and has become one of the drugs most frequently used by drug abusers. (See drug abuse.) It has a variety of street names, including “angel dust,” “animal tranquilizer,” “PCP,” “peace pill,” “crystal joints,” and “peace weed,” with the name often reflecting the form in which it is taken. It can be smoked, “snorted” through the nose, ingested, or taken intravenously. There is always danger from the poor and erratic quality of the product illegally sold on the streets. It can produce a schizophrenia-like syndrome, neurologic and cognitive dysfunction, coma, convulsions, and respiratory arrest.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/PCP

What is cocaine?

Cocaine is a powerfully addictive stimulant drug. For thousands of years, people in South America have chewed and ingested coca leaves (Erythroxylon coca), the source of cocaine, for their stimulant effects.1,2 The purified chemical, cocaine hydrochloride, was isolated from the plant more than 100 years ago. In the early 1900s, purified cocaine was the main active ingredient in many tonics and elixirs developed to treat a wide variety of illnesses and was even an ingredient in the early formulations of Coca-Cola®. Before the development of synthetic local anesthetic, surgeons used cocaine to block pain.1 However, research has since shown that cocaine is a powerfully addictive substance that can alter brain structure and function if used repeatedly.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/cocaine/what-cocaine

Hashish is a potent form of cannabis (marijuana) produced y collecting and compressing trichomes, the most potent material from cannabis plants. Trichomes are the fine growths on cannabis plants that produce a sticky resin. Marijuana is a green, brown or gray mixture of dried, shredded leaves, stems, seeds, and flowers of the hemp plant cannabis sativa. There are over 200 street names for marijuana including pot, herb, dope, reefer, grass, weed, ganja, Mary jane, boom, gangster and chronic. Sinsemilla, hashish and hah oil are the stronger forms of marijuana. It is usually smoked as a cigarette (called a joint or nail) or ion a pipe or bong. In recent years, marijuana has appeared in blunts, which are cigars that have been emptied pf tobacco and refilled with marijuana, sometimes in combination with another drug, such as crack. Something users also mix marijuana into foods or sue it to brew tea.

The main active chemical in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol). Marijuana’s effect on the user depends on the strength or potency of the THC it contains. Hashish contains the same active ingredients as marijuana, like THC and other cannabinoids, but with higher concentrations.

https://www.drugs.com/illicit/hashish.html

united

1.   made one.

2.   relating to or produced by joint action.

3.     being in agreement.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/united

state

1.     mode or condition of being.

2.     condition of mind or temperament,

3.     a condition of abnormal tension or excitement

4.     a condition or stage in the physical being of something.

5.     any of various conditions characterized by definite quantities (as of energy, angular momentum, or magnetic moment) in which an atomic system may exist.

6.     social position.

7.     elaborate or luxurious style of living.

8.     formal dignity.

9.     a body of persons constituting a special class in a society.

Verb

1.   to set by regulation or authority.

2.     to express the particulars of especially in words.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state

 "The Supreme Court heard arguments
today in a case about the extent to which police can seize property connected to drug crimes without offering any procedure for owners to contest the seizure.

Its not about contesting the taking of property, seizing. The issue in state of a union for preservation of constitution object’s taken when paid in a Federal Reserve Note as it is a registered receipt, as a legal tender for all debt. While the waiting period takes place on any legal concern of properties seized. When taking the property said evidence a state can fabricate selling property regardless of ownership, at minimal the issuing of a registered receipt for the use of criminal evidence to a crime. A receipt of some kind must exchange hands in Federal State and local municipalities showing that legal ownership has not ever taken place prior to any sale. Owner is the accused of property before the taking of any sale, so true value is conditional and unstable for the purpose of any public final sale. The debate topic here in basic principle is over leasing of evidence to reduce cost of legally holding evidence in wait of trial.

In principle a topic of debate is the taking of property that is contaminated with chemical drugs or is not contaminated and just damaged form the illegal storage of any waste chemical pollutant. As an improperly manufactured pharmaceutical.

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Basic principle is justice cannot take Federal Reserve Notes it is not money, the notes in basic principle within united state are registered receipt for all dep't. Not dept. only law may choose fit for payment. All notes legally seized from their holder in an economy by acts of justice would be required by law to be returned to the Federal Reserve as lost property of the Federal Reserve Bank.  Position is not nine-tenths of the law on any receipt that ;is marked by its legal owner and issuer.

Cars, houses, and personal belongings are all other issue, the Federal Reserve Note is simple a receipt traded for those items by people it cannot ever be held in connection legally to a crime, the note is only held illegally by its user in connection to a crime. All money taken from a person is insured by the Federal Reserve Bank and that person who has lost payment can contacted the bank for its return proving the loss by damage. When money is taken it is the obligation of the justice system to have that money returned to the Reserve bank with documentation of common defense on any insurance claim pending regarding the notes. Money taken from a drug dealer and spent by a part of the justice system is theft by basic principle even the federal Reserve Bank cannot allow the notes to be kept this way legally.

TKDB

@John_C_87

You still don't have a legitimate argument.

Just your self pushed opinion. 

jesusisGod777

The blood–brain barrier acts effectively to protect the brain from circulating pathogens.

THC’s chemical structure is similar to the brain chemical anandamide. Similarity in structure allows drugs to be recognized by the body and to alter normal brain communication.

The neurological effects of marijuana are caused by harmfull pathogens that pass through the blood to brain barrier , which deposit pathogens in brain tissue, later form tumors and causing death.

It should be illegal because it is lethal overtime.

John_C_87

jesusisGod777 said:

The blood–brain barrier acts effectively to protect the brain from circulating pathogens.

THC’s chemical structure is similar to the brain chemical anandamide. Similarity in structure allows drugs to be recognized by the body and to alter normal brain communication.

The neurological effects of marijuana are caused by harmfull pathogens that pass through the blood to brain barrier , which deposit pathogens in brain tissue, later form tumors and causing death.

It should be illegal because it is lethal overtime.

So marijuana is the pollution which cause the exposure of pathogens from other sources to increase.

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@John_C_87

You still don't have a legitimate argument.

Just your self pushed opinion. 

Of curse there is legitimate argument of debate here, in basic principle I state clearly as fact marijuana is an air pollutant, waiting for introducing of any fact that would contradict that truth, while all narcotics are a chemical pollutant which has been created by a industry. The debate at this juncture is looking for basic principle, that is the basic idea that creates a category addressing truth and fact in evidence for all criminal investigation.

Again Law is not part of the First Amendment the specification is the introduction of fact, these fact should be in basic principle and follow legal precedent. Preserving United State Constitution it is not politicking, it is not writing as a profession, the need and quest for fame, money, or power. Even if this truth is opinion it is a legitimate grievance and this right has liberty to peacefully assemble in a state of the union. Regardless of negligence or right which may have taken place or transpired before its discovery.

TKDB

@John_C_87

Look at the below Colorado Marijuana Law, and see if it mentions anything about POLLUTION??

"Of curse there is legitimate argument of debate here, in basic principle I state clearly as fact marijuana is an air pollutant, waiting for introducing of any fact that would contradict that truth, while all narcotics are a chemical pollutant which has been created by a industry. The debate at this juncture is looking for basic principle, that is the basic idea that creates a category addressing truth and fact in evidence for all criminal investigation.

Again Law is not part of the First Amendment the specification is the introduction of fact, these fact should be in basic principle and follow legal precedent. Preserving United State Constitution it is not politicking, it is not writing as a profession, the need and quest for fame, money, or power. Even if this truth is opinion it is a legitimate grievance and this right has liberty to peacefully assemble in a state of the union. Regardless of negligence or right which may have taken place or transpired before its discovery."

Now you do the WORK, and you find the POLLUTION argument, within the published words of Colorado's Marijuana Law? 

You want to be your own Attorney, then you can, go find your argument yourself? 

I read the Law, your pollution rhetoric, isn't in the law. 


https://www.coloradopotguide.com/marijuana-laws-in-colorado/

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

(TKDB said)  I read the Law, your pollution rhetoric, isn't in the law. 

Then you concede the laws of regulating marijuana are not truly in united state by basic principle as a united state? This means current legal state and past legislated illegal state share the same changing of evidence.

The state owning marijuana is equal to a state of creating pollution with marijuana in the form of THC? Yet, it is well known rope and sails hade been made using marijuana long before the pollution issue came into focus.

Ex Post Facto takes place when law states the ownership of any marijuana is Illegal. Evidence is collected on the ownership of marijuana being the danger to the public. Why had we been looking at all evidence was to support pollution which is self-ingested in the form of THC, for an effect of high, this is what's to be regulated correct the high? As it is the basic principle of concern.

To translate what is being said for clarification by you. The United States of America is created only by those states none as pieces of land mass forming a nation. The United States of America are not the series of legal formed united state created within law structure using constitutional foundation preserving basic principle and legal precedent?

TKDB

@John_C_87

I didn't concede anything.

Did you physically read with your own eyes, where those states Marijuana Laws, support your Pollution, or ex post facto law points of view?

They do not exist, in those published, and copyrighted Marijuana Laws.

"To translate what is being said for clarification by you."

"The United States of America is created only by those states none as pieces of land mass forming a nation. The United States of America are not the series of legal formed united state created within law structure using constitutional foundation preserving basic principle and legal precedent?"

John, you dont have anything that needs to be translated for me.

I read the Laws, while you're shoveling your usual rhetoric, for the sake of yourself. 

jesusisGod777

I'll make it simple.

Thc passes through the membrane in your neck, which nothing is suppose to so your brain is protected from anything in your body so you don't die.

Marijuanas bad because it causes brain tumors.

It's like pouring out acid on your brain and saying no negative side effects. Does this post make it easier to what I said?

Jesus is Lord.

John_C_87

jesusisGod777 said:

I'll make it simple.

Thc passes through the membrane in your neck, which nothing is suppose to so your brain is protected from anything in your body so you don't die.

Marijuanas bad because it causes brain tumors.

It's like pouring out acid on your brain and saying no negative side effects. Does this post make it easier to what I said?

Jesus is Lord.

You could make it even simpler it is still saying pollution issue.

John_C_87

@TKDB ;
John, you don't have anything that needs to be translated for me. I read the Laws, while your shoveling your usual rhetoric, for the sake of yourself. 
This isn't true. I am well aware that many parts of many religion can be interpreted as illegal by united state created in unconstitutional legislation, it is taken at face value. There is a added burden this creates in working within the bounds of preservation of constitutional principle and those who strive to do likewise. We address the assigned cost placed on an object that often have personal self-value as a pivot of principle, Law can be used as a weapon just as easy as a gun, there is precedent to addressing religious liberty. There is a defense 2nd amendment right to bear arm taking place. A group of people are asking to believe that a united state has been proven on all ownership of marijuana as illegal, under all condition. There is not one mention of the process of this explained in the law either.

I read the Law, your pollution rhetoric, isn't in the law. Correct, yet it is only the basic principle on which all punishment is to be legally proven as united state. A person is either contaminating themselves or others as a safety issue in basic principle. After the fact of evidence for ownership is collected the system is using the persons admission as negation to guilt to limit cost. As united state all those who have religious interest vested can be persuaded to admit a guilt which is not true. There are common defense principle of law which can address this contradiction of the past so they do not give liberty to perpetuate similar abuses into the future. The similarities of religious confession are real that are taking place in the way legislation is being made, it is self-incriminating to the judicial process as a whole.

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

The loss of basic principle is the same in both state's, one united state allows marijuana, by ration, and one united state does not allow marijuana by ration, both state can be regulate as pollution by level of THC. The most convent way to regulate marijuana was as substance and still appears to be the favored convince over the basic principle in united state air pollutant. Abuse is clearly based on THC and the circumstantial evidence makes any use of marijuana illegally or wrong in the present united state. There are also issues of monopoly as how marijuana grows natural in its quantity is not consistent recognized with documented regulation. The idea is GOD has right to representation by law, this means GOD can be declared as a axiom independent for religion legally as a freedom of religion. It also mean religion can manipulate law to try and set illegal god like authorities of civil liberties. The separation that is undertaken between the two is not an opinion.

https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-18-406.html


We are asked to look and bear witness to a united state in basic principle of what is wrong and what can be corrected. the evidence of marital which creates a pollutant is not equal to an amount of pollutant that may be created by the destruction of a material. 

TKDB

@John_C_87

What explicitly does your non argument statement, have to do with those states published Marijuana Laws?

"This isn't true. I am well aware that many parts of many religion can be interpreted as illegal by united state"

Your argument has zero support, from those same states, Marijuana Law's. 

John_C_87

TKDB asked: What explicitly does your non argument statement, have to do with those states published Marijuana Laws? In answering explicitly what is the principle behind what is argued neither side is a united state in constitutional union. The two united state appear to be payment for use of marijuana. The quantity which a person is allowed before payment must be made in sale.

This is self-incriminating as the legal argument for all regulation is over the pollution created by marijuana to which is something Latin to legislators.

John_C_87

This sarcasm after the fact as Ex Post Facto questions does there needs to be a law which states clearly a person who owns marijuana must consume marijuana before they are criminal; charged with using marijuana by just having ,marijuana. THC pollution created can be held in a united state with substance in place of ownership for the crime of polluting in a united state. It means only the litigation must actual have evidence that matches a crime. Holding marijuana is never the crime unless a law is someday past specific insisting on its use when owned. Those who believe ownership of marijuana is legally enough are simply addicted to gambling as the gamble risk has paid off so far. This is not fair to the officer of law or the united states constitutional union which stand as a common defense in protection to serve with the public.


As always I enjoy our communique…….in this time of solum Civil War.

TKDB

@John_C_87

You still have no argument.

You have sadly failed to address, where those states Marijuana Laws, specifically address, Pollution within theirir individually published laws? 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

There is no failure to address the basic principle of ownership of Marijuana, the united state that is shared equally between the two sides of this debate may be limited to one topic ownership. It is negligent. The ownership principle has nothing to do with all the materials that are collected to be used as evidence of a crime, realistically being enforced by legislation. The United State which shared with other crime of the constitutional union are not held in place by freedom of press, freedom of speech in these matters. The best basic principle is pollution, quantity is only the easiest and most convenient way to address the issue of pollution, an amount being how much pollution can be created in total, this bad had as short cut created addition bad habits of its own.

Ex post Facto must demonstrate that evidence asked to be collected by legislation does not match the crime a person is accused with. This is done so the rules for a creation of justice can be changed as a principle of possession is believed enough to rush conviction for the releasing of pollutant THC. United State Constitution is a standard to which two or more can debate the best basic principle and legal precedent to which law can be prescribed, undertaken in writing to the creation of common defense and tranquility. It is these characteristics which are in writing highlighting American United State Constitution.

Again, rope is marijuana a person own’s marijuana. they did not create THC with the rope, they are not arrested and charged with a the ownership of marijuana.

TKDB

@John_C_87

You still have no argument.

You have sadly failed to address, where those states Marijuana Laws, specifically address, the various non supported arguments that you continue to think up?