Recreational Marijuana:

TKDB

Marijuana is as safe, as the individual, deems it to be safe.

If some want to play mindgames, with their own health, that is on them.

The proof that marijuana use, is unsafe for an unborn baby, is self explanatory.

The proof that recreational marijuana use, around ones own baby's, toddlers, children, or families in general, is self explanatory.

The proof that a drugged driver, driving while high on recreational marijuana, is unsafe for themselves, and the other sober drivers, who are sharing the same roadways with them, is self explanatory.

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

And does the legalization of recreational marijuana, make it legal, for a lady to use recreational marijuana, while being pregnant? 
(No, the law does not make it legal.)

Nowhere does those laws introduce specific restrictions for any group of adult citizens... None of those laws mention pregnancy... If it is not illegal, then it is by definition, legal.

Now, your Helen Lovejoy syndrome will probably kick in... 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Marijuana is safe. People are unsafe. Marijuana does not harvest itself in the pursuit of happiness. The odds of giving some-one enough marijuana they braid a rope that accidently hangs them is minimal. The idea of providing liberty with error is impossible this is why we have the word independence. Friends don't let friends drive high...….how high, is to high? If you have no understanding of why a lava lamp is not boring or you feel a tongue has hair, you are way to high to drive.

As a commercial driver I would love to just put this Bumper sticker...……….on vehicles driving on the road.

Not stoned bad driver. If the number of bad drivers were all high we would never smell exhaust when driving on the road.

The War on drugs is not about what you think you buy, its about what you don't know you buy. The few pollutants any expecting, or new mother plus one are exposed to the better. We are the United States.

Do I know you?

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

"Nowhere does those laws introduce specific restrictions for any group of adult citizens... None of those laws mention pregnancy... If it is not illegal, then it is by definition, legal."

Prove your argument? 


"If it's not illegal, then it is by definition, legal?

Did you hear any lawmaker, or a courtroom Judge, express your choice words?
Or Is the above, maybe your own opinion, and you have the published statutes to support your opinion? 

(Are you, maybe a defense attorney Plaffelvohfen?)


Look those law's up.

A marijuana user, is legally allowed to use marijuana, around their own kids or their families.

Those same law's, only legalize the individuals recreational marijuana use, in their homes.

Those same law's, as well do not make it legal, for a pregnant lady to use marijuana, while she is pregnant, either.

So if either of those marijuana user's, are using weed, in those situations, they are breaking those same law's, that legalized their own use of marijuana, unto themselves only.

The above points of view, are facts.

Your argument, is not supported by those law's.

@John_C_87

Your same arguments, are not supported by those same law's either.

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

I'm wondering why you mentioned Helen Lovejoy, in a forum about recreational marijuana?

You're off topic, with that irrelevant choice of words. 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Here is the integral article of law...

Colorado Constitution of 1876 Art. XVIII, § 16 Personal use and regulation of marijuana

(1) Purpose and findings.

(a) In the interest of the efficient use of law enforcement resources, enhancing revenue for public purposes, and individual freedom, the people of the state of Colorado find and declare that the use of marijuana should be legal for persons twenty-one years of age or older and taxed in a manner similar to alcohol.

(b) In the interest of the health and public safety of our citizenry, the people of the state of Colorado further find and declare that marijuana should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol so that:

(I) Individuals will have to show proof of age before purchasing marijuana;

(II) Selling, distributing, or transferring marijuana to minors and other individuals under the age of twenty-one shall remain illegal;

(III) Driving under the influence of marijuana shall remain illegal;

(IV) Legitimate, taxpaying business people, and not criminal actors, will conduct sales of marijuana;  and

(V) Marijuana sold in this state will be labeled and subject to additional regulations to ensure that consumers are informed and protected.

(c) In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations.

(d) The people of the state of Colorado further find and declare that it is necessary to ensure consistency and fairness in the application of this section throughout the state and that, therefore, the matters addressed by this section are, except as specified herein, matters of statewide concern.

(2) Definitions.  As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires,

(a) “Colorado Medical Marijuana Code” means article 43.3 of title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes.

(b) “Consumer” means a person twenty-one years of age or older who purchases marijuana or marijuana products for personal use by persons twenty-one years of age or older, but not for resale to others.

(c) “Department” means the department of revenue or its successor agency.

(d) “Industrial hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis.

(e) “Locality” means a county, municipality, or city and county.

(f) “Marijuana” or “marihuana” means all parts of the plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or its resin, including marihuana concentrate.  “Marijuana” or “marihuana” does not include industrial hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product.

(g) “Marijuana accessories” means any equipment, products, or materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, composting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, vaporizing, or containing marijuana, or for ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana into the human body.

(h) “Marijuana cultivation facility” means an entity licensed to cultivate, prepare, and package marijuana and sell marijuana to retail marijuana stores, to marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and to other marijuana cultivation facilities, but not to consumers.

(i) “Marijuana establishment” means a marijuana cultivation facility, a marijuana testing facility, a marijuana product manufacturing facility, or a retail marijuana store.

(j) “Marijuana product manufacturing facility” means an entity licensed to purchase marijuana;  manufacture, prepare, and package marijuana products;  and sell marijuana and marijuana products to other marijuana product manufacturing facilities and to retail marijuana stores, but not to consumers.

(k) “Marijuana products” means concentrated marijuana products and marijuana products that are comprised of marijuana and other ingredients and are intended for use or consumption, such as, but not limited to, edible products, ointments, and tinctures.

(l) “Marijuana testing facility” means an entity licensed to analyze and certify the safety and potency of marijuana.

(m) “Medical marijuana center” means an entity licensed by a state agency to sell marijuana and marijuana products pursuant to section 14 of this article and the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code.

(n) “Retail marijuana store” means an entity licensed to purchase marijuana from marijuana cultivation facilities and marijuana and marijuana products from marijuana product manufacturing facilities and to sell marijuana and marijuana products to consumers.

(o) “Unreasonably impracticable” means that the measures necessary to comply with the regulations require such a high investment of risk, money, time, or any other resource or asset that the operation of a marijuana establishment is not worthy of being carried out in practice by a reasonably prudent businessperson.

(3) Personal use of marijuana.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Colorado law or the law of any locality within Colorado or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Colorado law for persons twenty-one years of age or older:

(a) Possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting marijuana accessories or one ounce or less of marijuana.

(b) Possessing, growing, processing, or transporting no more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants, and possession of the marijuana produced by the plants on the premises where the plants were grown, provided that the growing takes place in an enclosed, locked space, is not conducted openly or publicly, and is not made available for sale.

(c) Transfer of one ounce or less of marijuana without remuneration to a person who is twenty-one years of age or older.

(d) Consumption of marijuana, provided that nothing in this section shall permit consumption that is conducted openly and publicly or in a manner that endangers others.

(e) Assisting another person who is twenty-one years of age or older in any of the acts described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this subsection.

(4) Lawful operation of marijuana-related facilities.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Colorado law or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Colorado law for persons twenty-one years of age or older:

(a) Manufacture, possession, or purchase of marijuana accessories or the sale of marijuana accessories to a person who is twenty-one years of age or older.

(b) Possessing, displaying, or transporting marijuana or marijuana products;  purchase of marijuana from a marijuana cultivation facility;  purchase of marijuana or marijuana products from a marijuana product manufacturing facility;  or sale of marijuana or marijuana products to consumers, if the person conducting the activities described in this paragraph has obtained a current, valid license to operate a retail marijuana store or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee or agent of a licensed retail marijuana store.

(c) Cultivating, harvesting, processing, packaging, transporting, displaying, or possessing marijuana;  delivery or transfer of marijuana to a marijuana testing facility;  selling marijuana to a marijuana cultivation facility, a marijuana product manufacturing facility, or a retail marijuana store;  or the purchase of marijuana from a marijuana cultivation facility, if the person conducting the activities described in this paragraph has obtained a current, valid license to operate a marijuana cultivation facility or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee, or agent of a licensed marijuana cultivation facility.

(d) Packaging, processing, transporting, manufacturing, displaying, or possessing marijuana or marijuana products;  delivery or transfer of marijuana or marijuana products to a marijuana testing facility;  selling marijuana or marijuana products to a retail marijuana store or a marijuana product manufacturing facility;  the purchase of marijuana from a marijuana cultivation facility;  or the purchase of marijuana or marijuana products from a marijuana product manufacturing facility, if the person conducting the activities described in this paragraph has obtained a current, valid license to operate a marijuana product manufacturing facility or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee, or agent of a licensed marijuana product manufacturing facility.

(e) Possessing, cultivating, processing, repackaging, storing, transporting, displaying, transferring or delivering marijuana or marijuana products if the person has obtained a current, valid license to operate a marijuana testing facility or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee, or agent of a licensed marijuana testing facility.

(f) Leasing or otherwise allowing the use of property owned, occupied or controlled by any person, corporation or other entity for any of the activities conducted lawfully in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (e) of this subsection.

(5) Regulation of marijuana.

(a) Not later than July 1, 2013, the department shall adopt regulations necessary for implementation of this section.  Such regulations shall not prohibit the operation of marijuana establishments, either expressly or through regulations that make their operation unreasonably impracticable.  Such regulations shall include:

(I) Procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of a license to operate a marijuana establishment, with such procedures subject to all requirements of article 4 of title 24 of the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act or any successor provision;

(II) A schedule of application, licensing and renewal fees, provided, application fees shall not exceed five thousand dollars, with this upper limit adjusted annually for inflation, unless the department determines a greater fee is necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this section, and provided further, an entity that is licensed under the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code to cultivate or sell marijuana or to manufacture marijuana products at the time this section takes effect and that chooses to apply for a separate marijuana establishment license shall not be required to pay an application fee greater than five hundred dollars to apply for a license to operate a marijuana establishment in accordance with the provisions of this section;

(III) Qualifications for licensure that are directly and demonstrably related to the operation of a marijuana establishment;

(IV) Security requirements for marijuana establishments;

(V) Requirements to prevent the sale or diversion of marijuana and marijuana products to persons under the age of twenty-one;

(VI) Labeling requirements for marijuana and marijuana products sold or distributed by a marijuana establishment;

(VII) Health and safety regulations and standards for the manufacture of marijuana products and the cultivation of marijuana;

(VIII) Restrictions on the advertising and display of marijuana and marijuana products;  and

(IX) Civil penalties for the failure to comply with regulations made pursuant to this section.

(b) In order to ensure the most secure, reliable, and accountable system for the production and distribution of marijuana and marijuana products in accordance with this subsection, in any competitive application process the department shall have as a primary consideration whether an applicant:

(I) Has prior experience producing or distributing marijuana or marijuana products pursuant to section 14 of this article and the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code in the locality in which the applicant seeks to operate a marijuana establishment;  and

(II) Has, during the experience described in subparagraph (I), complied consistently with section 14 of this article, the provisions of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and conforming regulations.

(c) In order to ensure that individual privacy is protected, notwithstanding paragraph (a), the department shall not require a consumer to provide a retail marijuana store with personal information other than government-issued identification to determine the consumer's age, and a retail marijuana store shall not be required to acquire and record personal information about consumers other than information typically acquired in a financial transaction conducted at a retail liquor store.

(d) The general assembly shall enact an excise tax to be levied upon marijuana sold or otherwise transferred by a marijuana cultivation facility to a marijuana product manufacturing facility or to a retail marijuana store at a rate not to exceed fifteen percent prior to January 1, 2017 and at a rate to be determined by the general assembly thereafter, and shall direct the department to establish procedures for the collection of all taxes levied.  Provided, the first forty million dollars in revenue raised annually from any such excise tax shall be credited to the Public School Capital Construction Assistance Fund created by article 43.7 of title 22, C.R.S., or any successor fund dedicated to a similar purpose.  Provided further, no such excise tax shall be levied upon marijuana intended for sale at medical marijuana centers pursuant to section 14 of this article and the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code.

(e) Not later than October 1, 2013, each locality shall enact an ordinance or regulation specifying the entity within the locality that is responsible for processing applications submitted for a license to operate a marijuana establishment within the boundaries of the locality and for the issuance of such licenses should the issuance by the locality become necessary because of a failure by the department to adopt regulations pursuant to paragraph (a) or because of a failure by the department to process and issue licenses as required by paragraph (g).

(f) A locality may enact ordinances or regulations, not in conflict with this section or with regulations or legislation enacted pursuant to this section, governing the time, place, manner and number of marijuana establishment operations;  establishing procedures for the issuance, suspension, and revocation of a license issued by the locality in accordance with paragraph (h) or (i), such procedures to be subject to all requirements of article 4 of title 24 of the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act or any successor provision;  establishing a schedule of annual operating, licensing, and application fees for marijuana establishments, provided, the application fee shall only be due if an application is submitted to a locality in accordance with paragraph (i) and a licensing fee shall only be due if a license is issued by a locality in accordance with paragraph (h) or (i);  and establishing civil penalties for violation of an ordinance or regulation governing the time, place, and manner of a marijuana establishment that may operate in such locality.  A locality may prohibit the operation of marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing facilities, or retail marijuana stores through the enactment of an ordinance or through an initiated or referred measure;  provided, any initiated or referred measure to prohibit the operation of marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing facilities, or retail marijuana stores must appear on a general election ballot during an even numbered year.

(g) Each application for an annual license to operate a marijuana establishment shall be submitted to the department.  The department shall:

(I) Begin accepting and processing applications on October 1, 2013;

(II) Immediately forward a copy of each application and half of the license application fee to the locality in which the applicant desires to operate the marijuana establishment;

(III) Issue an annual license to the applicant between forty-five and ninety days after receipt of an application unless the department finds the applicant is not in compliance with regulations enacted pursuant to paragraph (a) or the department is notified by the relevant locality that the applicant is not in compliance with ordinances and regulations made pursuant to paragraph (f) and in effect at the time of application, provided, where a locality has enacted a numerical limit on the number of marijuana establishments and a greater number of applicants seek licenses, the department shall solicit and consider input from the locality as to the locality's preference or preferences for licensure;  and

(IV) Upon denial of an application, notify the applicant in writing of the specific reason for its denial.

(h) If the department does not issue a license to an applicant within ninety days of receipt of the application filed in accordance with paragraph (g) and does not notify the applicant of the specific reason for its denial, in writing and within such time period, or if the department has adopted regulations pursuant to paragraph (a) and has accepted applications pursuant to paragraph (g) but has not issued any licenses by January 1, 2014, the applicant may resubmit its application directly to the locality, pursuant to paragraph (e), and the locality may issue an annual license to the applicant.  A locality issuing a license to an applicant shall do so within ninety days of receipt of the resubmitted application unless the locality finds and notifies the applicant that the applicant is not in compliance with ordinances and regulations made pursuant to paragraph (f) in effect at the time the application is resubmitted and the locality shall notify the department if an annual license has been issued to the applicant.  If an application is submitted to a locality under this paragraph, the department shall forward to the locality the application fee paid by the applicant to the department upon request by the locality.  A license issued by a locality in accordance with this paragraph shall have the same force and effect as a license issued by the department in accordance with paragraph (g) and the holder of such license shall not be subject to regulation or enforcement by the department during the term of that license.  A subsequent or renewed license may be issued under this paragraph on an annual basis only upon resubmission to the locality of a new application submitted to the department pursuant to paragraph (g).  Nothing in this paragraph shall limit such relief as may be available to an aggrieved party under section 24-4-104, C.R.S ., of the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act or any successor provision.

(i) If the department does not adopt regulations required by paragraph (a), an applicant may submit an application directly to a locality after October 1, 2013 and the locality may issue an annual license to the applicant.  A locality issuing a license to an applicant shall do so within ninety days of receipt of the application unless it finds and notifies the applicant that the applicant is not in compliance with ordinances and regulations made pursuant to paragraph (f) in effect at the time of application and shall notify the department if an annual license has been issued to the applicant.  A license issued by a locality in accordance with this paragraph shall have the same force and effect as a license issued by the department in accordance with paragraph (g) and the holder of such license shall not be subject to regulation or enforcement by the department during the term of that license.  A subsequent or renewed license may be issued under this paragraph on an annual basis if the department has not adopted regulations required by paragraph (a) at least ninety days prior to the date upon which such subsequent or renewed license would be effective or if the department has adopted regulations pursuant to paragraph (a) but has not, at least ninety days after the adoption of such regulations, issued licenses pursuant to paragraph (g).

(j) Not later than July 1, 2014, the general assembly shall enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing and sale of industrial hemp.

(6) Employers, driving, minors and control of property.

(a) Nothing in this section is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing of marijuana in the workplace or to affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.

(b) Nothing in this section is intended to allow driving under the influence of marijuana or driving while impaired by marijuana or to supersede statutory laws related to driving under the influence of marijuana or driving while impaired by marijuana, nor shall this section prevent the state from enacting and imposing penalties for driving under the influence of or while impaired by marijuana.

(c) Nothing in this section is intended to permit the transfer of marijuana, with or without remuneration, to a person under the age of twenty-one or to allow a person under the age of twenty-one to purchase, possess, use, transport, grow, or consume marijuana.

(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person, employer, school, hospital, detention facility, corporation or any other entity who occupies, owns or controls a property from prohibiting or otherwise regulating the possession, consumption, use, display, transfer, distribution, sale, transportation, or growing of marijuana on or in that property.

(7) Medical marijuana provisions unaffected.  Nothing in this section shall be construed:

(a) To limit any privileges or rights of a medical marijuana patient, primary caregiver, or licensed entity as provided in section 14 of this article and the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code;

(b) To permit a medical marijuana center to distribute marijuana to a person who is not a medical marijuana patient;

(c) To permit a medical marijuana center to purchase marijuana or marijuana products in a manner or from a source not authorized under the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code;

(d) To permit any medical marijuana center licensed pursuant to section 14 of this article and the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code to operate on the same premises as a retail marijuana store;  or

(e) To discharge the department, the Colorado Board of Health, or the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment from their statutory and constitutional duties to regulate medical marijuana pursuant to section 14 of this article and the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code.

(8) Self-executing, severability, conflicting provisions.  All provisions of this section are self-executing except as specified herein, are severable, and, except where otherwise indicated in the text, shall supersede conflicting state statutory, local charter, ordinance, or resolution, and other state and local provisions.

(9) Effective date.  Unless otherwise provided by this section, all provisions of this section shall become effective upon official declaration of the vote hereon by proclamation of the governor, pursuant to section 1(4) of article V.

------------------------------------------------------------

Only section 3 pertain to the use of cannabis so, show us where it is explicitly stated that it is illegal to use cannabis around children or while pregnant... 

I'll give you a hint, it is not in there... And before you jump to conclusions regarding section 3 (d), here's something from the American Bar Association...

Tennessee is the only state with a statute that specifically makes it a crime to use drugs while pregnant, but since cannabis possession and use is still illegal in Tennessee, it's irrelevant in this discussion, not that I think it will matter to you anyhow, relevance not being your forte...

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Show me, where your shared Colorado Marijuana Law, says, it's legal for a pregnant lady to USE marijuana with a unborn baby in her womb?

What section of the law states explicitly that a pregnant lady can justifiably use marijuana? 

Show me, where your same shared law, says, it's legal for ca marijuana using mom or dad, to use their marijuana around an unborn baby, toddlers, kids, or other family members?

Section (3) Personal use of marijuana.  

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Colorado law or the law of any locality within Colorado or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Colorado law for persons twenty-one years of age or older:

(a) Possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting marijuana accessories or one ounce or less of marijuana.

(b) Possessing, growing, processing, or transporting no more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants, and possession of the marijuana produced by the plants on the premises where the plants were grown, provided that the growing takes place in an enclosed, locked space, is not conducted openly or publicly, and is not made available for sale.

(c) Transfer of one ounce or less of marijuana without remuneration to a person who is twenty-one years of age or older.

(d) Consumption of marijuana, provided that nothing in this section shall permit consumption that is conducted openly and publicly or in a manner that endangers others.

(e) Assisting another person who is twenty-one years of age or older in any of the acts described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this subsection. 

Section D) Explains things clearly.

And you reinforced the lacking of the legalization of a pregnant lady using marijuana while a baby is in her womb?

And the lack of a mom, or dad, using marijuana around their unborn baby's, toddlers, children, or families in general, with this very statement by you:

"Only section 3 pertain to the use of cannabis so, show us where it is explicitly stated that it is illegal to use cannabis around children or while pregnant... 

I'll give you a hint, it is not in there... And before you jump to conclusions regarding section 3 (d), here's something from the American Bar Association..."

Is the ABA, a part of those states Marijuana Law's?

I don't believe so, so your mentioning of the ABA, is irrelevant to those state's Marijuana Law's.

So you can share you ABA article written by this lady, but it doesn't make her opinion right does it?

"Illegal Drug Use While Pregnant is Not Child Abuse

By Nicole Johnson "

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Care to show me where it is stated that it is illegal? 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Why not reach out to NORML, and see if they can assist you with your question?

"Care to show me where it is stated that it is illegal?"

Why not reach out to Parents Opposed to Pot, or CALM (Citizens Against the Legalization of Marijuana) and they could maybe assist you as well? 

It's amazing, that some of the marijuana user's interest, continues, to be placed, above an unborn baby's interests, or a toddlers, or kids, or over their own families interests? 

Just to use their marijuana, regardless of who's maybe living with both, their illegal, and their legalized marijuana use? 

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

Okay, so to simplify my Constitutional argument, grievance marijuana is not properly proclaimed as anything legal in a united state by the people of anywhere, everywhere U.S.A. even Coloradan, or their representation top united state constitution. Reasons can be given clearly that use while at liberty defines all legalities as a United Sate by rule under constitutional order, under axiom named as law. In translation of a declaration of United State, the people of Colorado by representation with preservation of United State Constitution move to regulate all marijuana by the severity of threat it creates to the General Welfare and tranquility of the state of Colorado. The quality of air and the concerns it brings to the general public are all which need direction of liberties to insure justice. This is a Presidential state of the Union, it is not a Presadera state of the union as under oath a male could not speak as witness for all woman in general understanding while maintaining a high standard of whole truth, pun intended to the fact straight truth not being equal in height to whole truth, height the persons distance from head to foot.

Marijuana does not share any United State with Alcohol other than their religious undertones. 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Why not answer my question? 

Are you unable or unwilling to address this?

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

"Why not answer my question? 

Are you unable or unwilling to address this?"

Is it fair for a lady, to smoke marijuana while pregnant?

Is it fair for a mom, or dad, or a couple to smoke marijuana around their families?

Or is the Legalization of Marijuana, you primary answer to those unborn babies rights, or the rights of the families, putting up with a marijuana users, drug use? 


Your answer:

Why not reach out to NORML, and see if they can assist you with your question?

"Care to show me where it is stated that it is illegal?"

Why not reach out to Parents Opposed to Pot, or CALM (Citizens Against the Legalization of Marijuana) and they could maybe assist you as well? 

It's amazing, that some of the marijuana user's interest, continues, to be placed, above an unborn baby's interests, or a toddlers, or kids, or over their own families interests? 

Just to use their marijuana, regardless of who's maybe living with both, their illegal, and their legalized marijuana use? 

TKDB

@John_C_87

You still have no argument John.

Just your own thought up rhetoric.

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Still unwilling to answer?? Or maybe you are actually unable to? 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Are you maybe unwilling or unable, to speak up for the rights of those unborn babies, or the rights of those families, who are living with a marijuana user's drug use?

Or maybe, your primary cause is to speak up for the marijuana user's drug use only? 

For a THIRD time.

"Why not answer my question? 

Are you unable or unwilling to address this?"

Is it fair for a lady, to smoke marijuana while pregnant?

Is it fair for a mom, or dad, or a couple to smoke marijuana around their families?

Or is the Legalization of Marijuana, you primary answer to those unborn babies rights, or the rights of the families, putting up with a marijuana users, drug use? 


Your answer:

Why not reach out to NORML, and see if they can assist you with your question?

"Care to show me where it is stated that it is illegal?"

Why not reach out to Parents Opposed to Pot, or CALM (Citizens Against the Legalization of Marijuana) and they could maybe assist you as well? 

It's amazing, that some of the marijuana user's interest, continues, to be placed, above an unborn baby's interests, or a toddlers, or kids, or over their own families interests? 

Just to use their marijuana, regardless of who's maybe living with both, their illegal, and their legalized marijuana use? 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Still unwilling to answer?? Or maybe you are actually unable to? 

Why not contact NIMH for help in resolving your inabilities to answer simple questions?? 

John_C_87

You are still correct its not an argument. It is a description of direction for preservation to united State Constitution. The goal is not to win it is to establish a realistic opportunity for whole truth to be heard, by the people, for the people, as United State. To critique the telling of history, our American Civil War was the bloodiest War in American history. The American part in the Drug War is a share held in the most deadly Civil War in World History.

 @TKDB

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

That's the best response you have?

"Still unwilling to answer?? Or maybe you are actually unable to? 

Why not contact NIMH for help in resolving your inabilities to answer simple questions?? "

Are you maybe, scared to answer the questions?

Because, maybe your answers would outright incriminate, your pro marijuana user cause, wouldn't it, Plaffelvohfen? 
It's a simple question.

Your concerns, are for the marijuana user only right, Plaffelvohfen? Yes or No? 

You don't care about an unborn babies rights, when the lady carrying that very baby, is using marijuana, right Plaffelvohfen? Yes or No?

And you, maybe don't care, about those same newborn baby's, toddlers, children, or those families, who have been unjustly living with the mom's, and dad's, or parents marijuana use, right, Plaffelvohfen? Yes or No?

Do you, maybe know why, those states Marijuana Law's, don't go about mentioning, a marijuana user's marijuana use, around their own families?

My belief, is that those law's, were maybe, carefully crafted, to focus primarily on the marijuana user specifically, and avoided drafting any language, that would place an unwanted spotlight, on why those same Marijuana users, would be, in a sense, allowed to smoke their marijuana, around their families, or while being pregnant, to avoid the public in general, from questioning, or challenging the legitimacy of those same Marijuana Laws? 

I wonder how many probable defense attorneys, were brought in, per state, to help draft those fledgling marijuana laws, behind closed doors, before they were finally signed into law? 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

That's the best response you have?
You're scared to answer the simple questions?

On another note, did you know that the vast majority of households in the US have no children?? The share of adults living without children has climbed 19 points since 1967 to 71.3%... From the US census bureau... 

So even if I grant you that pregnant woman and mothers could be restricted from using cannabis, how do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children? 

Anything to say about this or will you let your Lovejoy syndrome take over once again?

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

"You're scared to answer the simple questions?"

I'm defending the unborn babies, and those same families of the marijuana user?

Who, does it appear to be that you are defending, the marijuana user, only? 


Why is it so hard, to talk about a marijuana users drug use around their own kids?

Or, to talk about a pregnant lady, using marijuana while she is pregnant? 

Or just avoid, talking about those unborn baby's rights, or the marijuana user's family rights, outside of their rights?

Those poorly written laws, only legitimize those marijuana user's rights only, don't they? 

While unjustifiably, ignoring the rights of those unborn babies, and the rights of the marijuana user's family?

That, basically amounts to legalized, marijuana user fraud, doesn't it?

But instead you, come back with some more, of your irrelevant pro marijuana word play?

"On another note, did you know that the vast majority of households in the US have no children?? The share of adults living without children has climbed 19 points since 1967 to 71.3%... From the US census bureau... 

So even if I grant you that pregnant woman and mothers could be restricted from using cannabis, how do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children? 

Anything to say about this or will you let your Lovejoy syndrome take over once again?"

You are just as chronic, with your rhetoric, as some of the other pro marijuana supporters are, with their own pro marijuana, rhetoric stances? 

The more that a pro marijuana supporter, explains their individual stances, the public becomes continuesly educated, on the mindsets of some of the defense strategies, utilized by some, of the pro marijuana individuals, to in a sense, defend the recreational marijuana user's themselves?

Please Plaffelvohfen, continue to educate, the public more? 

Eventually the public in general, is going to catch on, to how the legalization of recreational marijuana, really works, and who it's really benefitting, verses who it doesn't benefit? 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children? 

Anything to say about this or will you let your Lovejoy syndrome afflicted persona take over once again?

I'm defending freedom from self-declared authority via internet connection and individually auto-proclaimed individual puritan mindset??

Still unwilling to answer?? Or maybe you are actually unable to? Nothing to say about the currently above? 

What about the beef??

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Keep going, you've yet to fail to continue to keep pushing, your pro marijuana rhetoric with each additional response.

You are just as chronic, with your rhetoric, as some of the other pro marijuana supporters are, with their own pro marijuana, rhetoric stances? 

The more that a pro marijuana supporter, explains their individual stances, the public becomes continuesly educated, on the mindsets of some of the defense strategies, utilized by some, of the pro marijuana individuals, to in a sense, defend the recreational marijuana user's themselves?

Please Plaffelvohfen, continue to educate, the public more? 

Eventually the public in general, is going to catch on, to how the legalization of recreational marijuana, really works, and who it's really benefitting, verses who it doesn't benefit?  

Another internet provided chapter, from your very own keyboard, to educate the public with right, Plaffelvohfen? 

You're defending freedom from your individual self declared authority, via your own individual computer?

Yeap, just like the other chronic pro marijuana supporters do, day in, and day out, from behind the anonymity of your name, "Plaffelvohfen?"



"I'm defending freedom from self-declared authority via internet connection and individually auto-proclaimed individual puritan mindset?? "

And I'm still pro unborn baby, and pro family oriented, in the very face of those poorly written, Marijuana Laws?

While you're pro you, and a pro marijuana user supporter?

Now the public, knows our stances. 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

https://nypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/nypost.com/2019/06/24/rise-in-marijuana-use-among-pregnant-women-linked-to-premature-births/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://nypost.com/2019/06/24/rise-in-marijuana-use-among-pregnant-women-linked-to-premature-births/ 

"Rise in marijuana use among pregnant women linked to premature births"

By Melissa Malamut

June 24, 2019 | 10:30am

“Cannabinoids can readily cross the placenta and enter the fetal bloodstream,” Walker says. “These compounds can disrupt fetal development and may have lasting effects on the child.”

Some of the adverse outcomes Walker notes are related to “reduced fetal growth and development,” which can lead to a baby being born smaller in size than average. There is also the added risk of prematurity in the children and a host of other medical problems that may require neonatal intensive care, he says.

But, fortunately, not all the blame can be placed on women. Researchers at Duke University recently found that cannabis use in men of reproductive age can alter DNA in sperm, including methylation, a process essential to normal development.

“What we have found is that the effects of cannabis use on males and their reproductive health are not completely null, in that there’s something about cannabis use that affects the genetic profile in sperm,” said Scott Kollins, Ph.D., professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke said in a statement."

The evidence, continues to grow.

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children? 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

What adults are you talking about?

Because the marijuana smoking pregnant ladies, you've no concern over? 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

What adults are you talking about?

What pregnant ladies are you talking about?

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

What is air pollution?

Air pollution is a mix of particles and gases that can reach harmful concentrations both outside and indoors. Its effects can range from higher disease risks to rising temperatures. Soot, smoke, mold, pollen, methane, and carbon dioxide are a just few examples of common pollutants.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution/

Climate 101: Air Pollution PUBLISHED February 4, 2019  Written By Christina Nunez

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Do you mean those disproportionate adults who got themselves into trouble with the police or the law, because they indulged in marijuana, and went to jail or prison, because of their marijuana addictions, dealing in marijuana, or being in possession of marijuana? 

"How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?"

And then you have disproportionate numbers of unborn babies, who are being exposed to their mothers marijuana use?

Is that fair and equal treatment, by those pregnant ladies?

"Rise in marijuana use among pregnant women linked to premature births"

By Melissa Malamut

June 24, 2019 | 10:30am

“Cannabinoids can readily cross the placenta and enter the fetal bloodstream,” Walker says. “These compounds can disrupt fetal development and may have lasting effects on the child.”

Some of the adverse outcomes Walker notes are related to “reduced fetal growth and development,” which can lead to a baby being born smaller in size than average. There is also the added risk of prematurity in the children and a host of other medical problems that may require neonatal intensive care, he says.

But, fortunately, not all the blame can be placed on women. Researchers at Duke University recently found that cannabis use in men of reproductive age can alter DNA in sperm, including methylation, a process essential to normal development.

“What we have found is that the effects of cannabis use on males and their reproductive health are not completely null, in that there’s something about cannabis use that affects the genetic profile in sperm,” said Scott Kollins, Ph.D., professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke said in a statement."

TKDB

@John_C_87

Educate the public, where your argument, is mentioned in those state's Marijuana Law's?

"What is air pollution?

Air pollution is a mix of particles and gases that can reach harmful concentrations both outside and indoors. Its effects can range from higher disease risks to rising temperatures. Soot, smoke, mold, pollen, methane, and carbon dioxide are a just few examples of common pollutants."

Do those state's published Marijuana Law's, have air pollution, as being explicitly mentioned in those law's?

No, they don't.

John_C_87

Educate the TKDB, where your argument, is mentioned in those state's Marijuana Law's?

 In basic principle the united state shared by past law and new law on marijuana is all about marijuana ownership. Yet, all concerns of public abuse are along the line of pollution in whole truth, there is no evidence set by medical science that established a marijuana plant or a bag filled with marijuana creates harm...None! In our interview there is no address to fact, American is a nation of United State and law is simply one of those things which can be set in united state by a basic principle.

While not addressing united state correctly there is a growing public concern that a steady rising in assigned cost is being used to create a problem of United State Constitutional separation by the judicial process. A states prosecution rate is driven by result of conviction not exposure to pubic complaint in basic principle to harm created by criminal intention. The public is involved in Civil War, the Drug War is a Civil War, the burden for all police and court is this is a Armed Service matter as well as civil matter.

TKDB

@John_C_87

You still have no argument.

Being that your argument, isn't even being supported by the very language, that was crafted into those state's Marijuana Laws?

Is this language from you, a physical part of those same states Marijuana Law's?

"The public is involved in Civil War, the Drug War is a Civil War, the burden for all police and court is this is a Armed Service matter as well as civil matter."

No, they aren't. 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Are you referring to those marijuana using adults, of all races, who got themselves incarcerated in jail, or prison, because they are or were marijuana dealers, marijuana user's, and or,  for being in possession of marijuana, at the time of their arrests? 

So because their crimes were non violent, they view themselves, as being treated in disproportionate manner?

"How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?"

Plaffelvohfen

TKDB said:

@Plaffelvohfen

Are you referring to those marijuana using adults, of all races, who got themselves incarcerated in jail, or prison, because they are or were marijuana dealers, marijuana user's, and or,  for being in possession of marijuana, at the time of their arrests? 

So because their crimes were non violent, they view themselves, as being treated in disproportionate manner?

"How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?"

No... I'm obviously referring to the 71.3% of american adults who live without children...  Reading problems? You do understand the meaning of  "living without child", right? 

So, waste of time as you obviously cannot address this question but I'll reiterate; How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children? 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Is it, or was it justifiable, via those states that legalized recreational marijuana, to make money off of their marijuana addictions, in those same states, maybe, in a sense to suit the self created marijuana user's, drug use issues? 

Is or was it justifiable for those same Marijuana users to use marijuana where it's still illegal to do so? 

"How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?"

So in a sense, the legalization of recreational marijuana, puts the public, at risk, via a marijuana addict, driving while drugged up on marijuana? 

Being that some of the pro marijuana crowd, likes to push the rhetoric talk, of treating marijuana like alcohol?

Both user's treat recreational marijuana, and alcohol, in the same manner?
They both abuse both with the same unlawful efforts?

And because there are marijuana addicts, who smoke weed, before going to work, smoke it again, while at work (Maybe as a nurse, or with some probability, a Surgeon?
A brain surgeon, or a heart surgeon, as examples?)
And then smoke again, on their way home after work?

What about an athlete, who maybe smokes marijuana, before a game?

Is it practical, or safe, for an athlete, to play a game, while high?

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Questions are not answers... You have not answered as usual...

So again...

How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

I answered your question.

As broadly as possible:

So the adults you're talking about have been discussed.

(Google your posed question, and see what Googles response is?)

"How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?"

You question seems a bit vague?

Is it, or was it justifiable, via those states that legalized recreational marijuana, to make money off of their marijuana addictions, in those same states, maybe, in a sense to suit the self created marijuana user's, drug use issues? 

Is or was it justifiable for those same Marijuana users to use marijuana where it's still illegal to do so? 

"How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?"

So in a sense, the legalization of recreational marijuana, puts the public, at risk, via a marijuana addict, driving while drugged up on marijuana? 

Being that some of the pro marijuana crowd, likes to push the rhetoric talk, of treating marijuana like alcohol?

Both user's treat recreational marijuana, and alcohol, in the same manner?
They both abuse both with the same unlawful efforts?

And because there are marijuana addicts, who smoke weed, before going to work, smoke it again, while at work (Maybe as a nurse, or with some probability, a Surgeon? IE, A brain surgeon, or a heart surgeon, as examples?)
And then smoke marijuana again, on their way home after work?

What about an athlete, who maybe smokes marijuana, before a game?

Is it practical, or safe, for an athlete, to play a game, while high? 

I'm sorry, if you disagree with the real world responses.

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Stop playing around, evading, dodging, and be precise... I doubt you have the intellectual honesty to do so, you have never shown you even could be intellectually honest, not once... At least if you were, we could probably find something of worth in your arguments...

How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?  This is a very simple question... 

Again, questions are not answers...  But I'll bet you'll disregard that as usual... Typical of intellectual dishonesty... For someone proclaiming to have the moral high ground here, you discredit yourself completely...  
Answer me with questions to prove me right, or without questions to prove me wrong... 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

And the marijuana addicts across the country have been doing what you're claiming that I'm doing for decades now, behind closed doors, against their own families, and as individuals, by breaking the law that made their drug of choice illegal.

So ball me out, all that you want. I dont care, Im pro law, and you can ball me out for that as well?

Because my integrity, and my moral compass remains intact, unlike some who are anti law, and individually required the law making their recreational marijuana legal, because the millions of marijuana user's, without kids, have an issue with their own standards of what integrity, and morality means to them.

"Stop playing around, evading, dodging, and be precise... I doubt you have the intellectual honesty to do so, you have never shown you even could be intellectually honest, not once... At least if you were, we could probably find something of worth in your arguments...,

And who is this "WE," that you are referring to?

Maybe some more of the pro marijuana supporting crowd, who's maybe reading the responses, as we speak? 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Couldn't answer as predicted... lol 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

And look at you Plaffelvohfen?

Just another pro marijuana supporter, lurking from 
behind, an anonymous name, because that's how you prefer to debate?

You could go to a state, that hasn't legalized recreational marijuana yet, to suit, the marijuana user's, of that said state, and protest, that states Capital, and demand that those criminals, or offenders, in jail, because of their marijuana related crimes, who don't have any kids, be released from jail, because you personally protested on their behalf? 

Laughing out loud, at you.

Because, I know you won't do it, predicting, that you'll continue to protest online, because that's how you are.

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

LOL Pathetic ...  

Questions are not answers, as usual...

So again...  How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

, you wanted a platform, using me?

Your words, or arguments, are sad.

"LOL Pathetic ...  

Questions are not answers, as usual...

So again...  How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?"

Laughing out loud, because that's what your pro marijuana argument, is made of, that generic question, that Google, didn't even have a legitimate response for?

Google it, Plaffelvohfen.

A bunch of PDF files come up Plaffelvohfen.

Your question, is a pro marijuana supporter joke, why waste a persons time, with a joke question, that not even the Google search engine, has an answer for Plaffelvohfen.

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

What website, has the information, that you've based your question on?

Please, provide a link to the website?  

So that the public, can educate itself, from that same website? 

For the sake of a debate, to be based on equality? 

Because, if your website, doesn't exist, then I would call your question, a baseless question, that you've been playing games with?

Back your question up, with some equal, and fair, logical support? 

"How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?,

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

From the US census bureau... 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

So what does the below information, have to do with the theme of this specific forum?

Where does it talk about marijuana use? 

Or, why you posed a question, outside of what this forum is about?

"How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?"

There is nothing being expressed about "Justifying Restrictions" for the 71.3% of adults living without children, in your shared article, is there?

It appears, that you just made a question up, based on your pro marijuana ideology, and not what is actually being discussed in this forum, right?

Because I did, express information, that was based on your question, in regards to the adult marijuana user's, who don't have any kids of their own?

(Is it, or was it justifiable, via those states that legalized recreational marijuana, to make money off of their marijuana addictions, in those same states, maybe, in a sense to suit the self created marijuana user's, drug use issues? 

Is or was it justifiable for those same Marijuana users to use marijuana where it's still illegal to do so?

You could go to a state, that hasn't legalized recreational marijuana yet, to suit, the marijuana user's, of that said state, and protest, that states Capital, and demand that those criminals, or offenders, in jail, because of their marijuana related crimes, who don't have any kids, be released from jail, because you personally protested on their behalf? 

Because, I know you won't do it, predicting, that you'll continue to protest online, because that's how you are.

So in a sense, the legalization of recreational marijuana, puts the public, at risk, via a marijuana addict, driving while drugged up on marijuana? 

Being that some of the pro marijuana crowd, likes to push the rhetoric talk, of treating marijuana like alcohol?

Both user's treat recreational marijuana, and alcohol, in the same manner?
They both abuse both with the same unlawful efforts?

And because there are marijuana addicts, who smoke weed, before going to work, smoke it again, while at work (Maybe as a nurse, or with some probability, a Surgeon? IE, A brain surgeon, or a heart surgeon, as examples?)
And then smoke marijuana again, on their way home after work?

What about an athlete, who maybe smokes marijuana, before a game?

Is it practical, or safe, for an athlete, to play a game, while high?

Especially football players?)

"The share of adults living without children has climbed 19 points since 1967 to 71.3 percent.

The biggest change in the last five decades comes from the decline in married households -- down to 44 percent -- and the rise in householders living alone (20 percent) or with a partner (8 percent).

In 1967, 59 percent of adults who lived without their own children lived with a spouse. Another 11 percent identified as a child of the householder, and 14 percent as living in some other arrangement, such as with a boarder or roommate. In addition, 14 percent lived alone, and less than 1 percent lived with an unmarried partner.

Delaying marriage is related to delaying childbirth. The median age at first marriage has gone from 20.6 to 27.4 for women and from 23.1 to 29.6 for men since 1967. Age at first birth increased as well. Most babies are born to a married couple, so it is natural to see shifts in the percentage of adults who live with no children in particular age groups.

The largest change in the proportion of adults living without children happened among those aged 18 to 35. In 1967, the majority of 18- to 24-year-olds had children living with them (53.3 percent) but by 2016, less than a third did (31.2 percent).

The changes are even more dramatic among 25- to 34-year-olds. In 1967, 23.9 percent in that age group did not have their own children under their roof. By 2016, the share more than doubled to 61.5 percent."

Please, explain why you posed an irrelevant question, based on a websites information, that doesn't tie in at all, in regards to parents and their marijuana use?

Or a lady using marijuana, while she is pregnant? 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB
Your argument has always been about the children... Well, 71.3% of american adults don't live with children...
How do you justify restricting the use of cannabis to those adults? 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

You still have no argument.

The question to merit of basic principle and legal precedent as filed grievance in all legislation, it is only TKDB whom has no argument in rebuttal. The comparison of United state is a understanding that is visibly measured. Any abuse of why the united state is manipulated to a lesser state of comparison is not what is being questioned. Only that a lesser united state is used with negligence to overall human health.

Being that your argument, isn't even being supported by the very language, that was crafted into those state's Marijuana Laws?

Then you understand the language of law in the matter of marijuana is not currently rested in the best united state possible. There has been no address made by anyone on how the basic principle of ownership of substance translates somehow to threat of life by legal precedent without making a claim on some other evidence supporting pollution made with THC. The vegetation marijuana is edible, the flowers, bud, and plant in general has an aesthetic beauty is there question in law setting threshold in nutritional value or fiber in valumes?

There is a clear  grievance here outside of all others: "The public is involved in Civil War, the Drug War is a Civil War, the burden for all police and court is made here along with any Armed Service matter as well as civil matter." Chemical Weapon and biological weapon are not the same, narcotics are a chemical weapon.

TKDB said: “No, they aren't.” 

Yes, TKDB the public is involved in a Civil War, by description in basic principle it is a Civil War using chemical weapons. The problem is a Constitutional classification does not agree with the idea of substance abuse holding marijuana as a chemical weapon publicly while constitutional principles do hold narcotic as a chemical weapon.

A common conception of a chemical weapon (CW) is of a toxic chemical contained in a delivery system such as a bomb or artillery shell. While technically correct, a definition based on this conception would only cover a small portion of the range of things the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) prohibits as ‘chemical weapons’.

Under the CWC, the definition of a chemical weapon includes all toxic chemicals and their precursors, except when used for purposes permitted by the Convention – in quantities consistent with such a purpose.

 

Toxic chemicals and their precursors

Toxic chemicals are defined as ‘any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals’. 

This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

Precursors are chemicals that are used for the production of toxic chemicals.

https://www.opcw.org/our-work/what-chemical-weapon

TKDB

@John_C_87

No arguments, because they have nothing to do with those states Marijuana Laws.

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Your same answer:

Because your argument, doesn't have any merit.

Good day.

So what does the below information, have to do with the theme of this specific forum?

Where does it talk about marijuana use? 

Or, why you posed a question, outside of what this forum is about?

"How do you justify restrictions for the 71.3% of adult living without children?"

There is nothing being expressed about "Justifying Restrictions" for the 71.3% of adults living without children, in your shared article, is there?

It appears, that you just made a question up, based on your pro marijuana ideology, and not what is actually being discussed in this forum, right?

Because I did, express information, that was based on your question, in regards to the adult marijuana user's, who don't have any kids of their own?

(Is it, or was it justifiable, via those states that legalized recreational marijuana, to make money off of their marijuana addictions, in those same states, maybe, in a sense to suit the self created marijuana user's, drug use issues? 

Is or was it justifiable for those same Marijuana users to use marijuana where it's still illegal to do so?

You could go to a state, that hasn't legalized recreational marijuana yet, to suit, the marijuana user's, of that said state, and protest, that states Capital, and demand that those criminals, or offenders, in jail, because of their marijuana related crimes, who don't have any kids, be released from jail, because you personally protested on their behalf? 

Because, I know you won't do it, predicting, that you'll continue to protest online, because that's how you are.

So in a sense, the legalization of recreational marijuana, puts the public, at risk, via a marijuana addict, driving while drugged up on marijuana? 

Being that some of the pro marijuana crowd, likes to push the rhetoric talk, of treating marijuana like alcohol?

Both user's treat recreational marijuana, and alcohol, in the same manner?
They both abuse both with the same unlawful efforts?

And because there are marijuana addicts, who smoke weed, before going to work, smoke it again, while at work (Maybe as a nurse, or with some probability, a Surgeon? IE, A brain surgeon, or a heart surgeon, as examples?)
And then smoke marijuana again, on their way home after work?

What about an athlete, who maybe smokes marijuana, before a game?

Is it practical, or safe, for an athlete, to play a game, while high?

Especially football players?)

"The share of adults living without children has climbed 19 points since 1967 to 71.3 percent.

The biggest change in the last five decades comes from the decline in married households -- down to 44 percent -- and the rise in householders living alone (20 percent) or with a partner (8 percent).

In 1967, 59 percent of adults who lived without their own children lived with a spouse. Another 11 percent identified as a child of the householder, and 14 percent as living in some other arrangement, such as with a boarder or roommate. In addition, 14 percent lived alone, and less than 1 percent lived with an unmarried partner.

Delaying marriage is related to delaying childbirth. The median age at first marriage has gone from 20.6 to 27.4 for women and from 23.1 to 29.6 for men since 1967. Age at first birth increased as well. Most babies are born to a married couple, so it is natural to see shifts in the percentage of adults who live with no children in particular age groups.

The largest change in the proportion of adults living without children happened among those aged 18 to 35. In 1967, the majority of 18- to 24-year-olds had children living with them (53.3 percent) but by 2016, less than a third did (31.2 percent).

The changes are even more dramatic among 25- to 34-year-olds. In 1967, 23.9 percent in that age group did not have their own children under their roof. By 2016, the share more than doubled to 61.5 percent."

Please, explain why you posed an irrelevant question, based on a websites information, that doesn't tie in at all, in regards to parents and their marijuana use?

Or a lady using marijuana, while she is pregnant?