2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: hvybarrels on July 13, 2019, 10:18:50 AM
-
On Jan 11 2020 small amounts of recreational cannabis will be decriminalized, and people caught with 3 grams or less will only face $130 fine. Since it would no longer be considered a drug conviction would HPD still have the legal authority to confiscate weapons?
-
On Jan 11 2020 small amounts of recreational cannabis will be decriminalized, and people caught with 3 grams or less will only face $130 fine. Since it would no longer be considered a drug conviction would HPD still have the legal authority to confiscate weapons?
HPD follows (supposedly) Federal Firearms Laws. Pot is still banned federally as a Schedule I Narcotic.
When you fill out the 4473 for a new gun, being a habitual user of pot is a disqualifier:
e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or
decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
Nothing changes. If you smoke pot, no guns. Getting a ticket for possession is enough to take away your 2A rights.
-
ie state's right's only trump federal when its politicaly expedient. :rofl:
-
HPD follows (supposedly) Federal Firearms Laws.
The minimal bar re firearm laws are the Federal laws. The state can, does, and has, obviously, passed many laws far more restrictive than the federal laws. Considering that many of the federal laws themselves are blatantly infringing, all I can say about the state is: fuck them.
-
Where Federal law is silent, states can do what they want.
Where Federal law is in place, states can make additional laws.
But, where Federal law is in place, states must conform.
All these states where marijuana is legal are flaunting Federal law. We've had that situation before, and it ended poorly for the South. I am really curious to see what the future brings on this front. What I hope is that it leads to Federal laws being revised to get marijuana de-illegalized. It was really only ever criminalized because hemp production was threatening the deep pockets of DuPont Chemical and William Randolph Hearst. It has no business being a Schedule 1 narcotic; heck, even the DEA definition (https://www.dea.gov/taxonomy/term/331) of the word "narcotic," and its replacement term, "opiod," are inapplicable to marijuana.
-
The minimal bar re firearm laws are the Federal laws. The state can, does, and has, obviously, passed many laws far more restrictive than the federal laws. Considering that many of the federal laws themselves are blatantly infringing, all I can say about the state is: fuck them.
Puna,
Excellent comment!
I can pretty safely say you and I are the most radical people on this site.
This is a public forum so we have to be careful, but you are right FUCK them!
-
Monsato is getting into the pakalolo market. Leads me to believe that in a few years it will be legal federally. Get in now while the market is cheaper
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I can think of a lot of reasons they would keep prohibition going, but probably the most important one is a huge flow of the funding that goes to law enforcement would dry up overnight. My guess is that is why Trump has not tried to reschedule it already because it would be the ultimate troll move against the Democrats especially after 8 years of Obama. Maybe after the election he can afford to have some agencies freak out on him.
-
No one has ever overdosed and died on MJ. Tripped balls, yes. But not died.
Many have used canabis oil to cure some forms of cancer, seizures, and other incurable ailments.
So I think that Trump like many before him are purposely not removing it as a schedule 1 narcotic. Big pharma will suffer big time. And the fact that since it's status, many universities cannot do studies either. It takes jumping thru many hoops to be able to do so. (My logic and no links to support claim)
-
No one has ever overdosed and died on MJ. Tripped balls, yes. But not died.
Many have used canabis oil to cure some forms of cancer, seizures, and other incurable ailments.
So I think that Trump like many before him are purposely not removing it as a schedule 1 narcotic. Big pharma will suffer big time. And the fact that since it's status, many universities cannot do studies either. It takes jumping thru many hoops to be able to do so. (My logic and no links to support claim)
There's no scientific evidence that cannabis oil has ever cured any form of cancer.
But to extrapolate from this case (and the preclinical evidence) that cannabis oil is a suppressed cure for
all types and stages of cancer is, at best, an innocent inference (educated guess) and, at worst, a delusion
that has gone viral on the internet and is endangering the lives of patients with curable cancer who
might choose to take cannabis oil in lieu of conventional therapy without any scientific follow up with imaging
or surgery.
https://integrativeonc.org/news/research-blog/277-does-cannabis-cure-cancer
-
There's no scientific evidence that cannabis oil has ever cured any form of cancer.
https://integrativeonc.org/news/research-blog/277-does-cannabis-cure-cancer
It's one thing to argue that purported (possibly exaggerated or completely false) benefits should determine a change in legal status.
It's another thing to argue that it's lack of documented harm ("costs"), compared to other completely legal status psychotropic substances (like alcohol and tobacco, etc.), merits it having the same or similar legal status of those legal substances clearly documented as more harmful.
-
There's no scientific evidence that cannabis oil has ever cured any form of cancer.
https://integrativeonc.org/news/research-blog/277-does-cannabis-cure-cancer
IIRC theres a publishing by Nixon's guys who studied it back in the 70's? Then tried to bury it's findings after what they found it does. #tinfoil
-
It's one thing to argue that purported (possibly exaggerated or completely false) benefits should determine a change in legal status.
It's another thing to argue that it's lack of documented harm ("costs"), compared to other completely legal status psychotropic substances (like alcohol and tobacco, etc.), merits it having the same or similar legal status of those legal substances clearly documented as more harmful.
It's bogus to argue the "lack of harm" comparison between LEGAL products versus ILLEGAL/BANNED drugs. It's reasonable to assume the number of people choosing the legal substances over illegal is significantly higher. Hence, the instances of harm will naturally be higher among legal substance users/abusers.
There's not enough data yet to scientifically say if the cost and benefits of legalizing recreational pot is better or worse than alcohol. The only measurable impact on legalizing pot so far is in the judicial system. Fewer arrests and convictions for pot possession and distribution means less crowded prisons, more time for police and the courts to clear other cases, and less gang crime related to production and sales of pot. Those are societal impacts, though, not directly related to using pot.
I think anytime you put a chemical compound in your body, especially one that has psychotropic effects, you're going to experience negative side-effects. Increased likelihood of mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have been linked to regular, long-term use of pot. Heavy, long-term use by adolescents has been shown to reduce cognitive development. Many health issues linked to smoking pot are also linked to the patient's genetics - no different than lifelong smokers who never get cancer and alcoholics who never have liver or brain issues. Those who are genetically predisposed to addiction, health problems and mental issues are likewise at higher risk when regularly using pot or other similar drugs.
Time will tell. I find it telling that it's left up to voters to decide on legalizing a DRUG. Voters are not exactly the best group to make such decisions. Most will vote however the media sways them, and we all know the media is biased.
-
IIRC theres a publishing by Nixon's guys who studied it back in the 70's? Then tried to bury it's findings after what they found it does. #tinfoil
And science stopped studying MJ in the 70s.
:rofl:
-
And science stopped studying MJ in the 70s.
:rofl:
The honest science, hence the tinfoil hashtag.
-
The honest science, hence the tinfoil hashtag.
By "honest science", you mean the scientists who were stoned?
-
It's bogus to argue the "lack of harm" comparison between LEGAL products versus ILLEGAL/BANNED drugs.
**** Why is it "bogus"? If one allows that any cost/benefit analysis is germane to decisions about legal availability, why would "lack of harm" be ruled out as a benchmark?
It's reasonable to assume the number of people choosing the legal substances over illegal is significantly higher.
**** You mean like it's "reasonable" to "assume" that more guns means more gun crime? Total fallacy. Plus, you have no evidence that cannabis is not as widely used as alcohol or nicotine delivery systems.
Hence, the instances of harm will naturally be higher among legal substance users/abusers.
**** No one is talking about "raw numbers", that's obviously absurd, just like the fake gun/crime stats. The only valid comparison is "rate per users".
There's not enough data yet to scientifically say if the cost and benefits of legalizing recreational pot is better or worse than alcohol.
**** Yeah, it's been at least since the 1960s (when I became part of the conversation) that people have been saying that. Get real, people who oppose cannabis use, legal or otherwise, will never grant that there is convincing evidence that cannabis is overall less harmful than alcohol, and would thus merit the same legal status as alcohol, be it legal or illegal... and since alcohol will never me made illegal (again), their only option to to attempt to keep cannabis illegal via any forms of lying and ceceit and fraud they can muster. Again, just like the hard core anti-gun people will never admit that defensive gun uses outnumber the harmful uses. They don't care what the Obama CDC or anyone else ever concludes... "guns bad", and in this case "cannabis bad".
The only measurable impact on legalizing pot so far is in the judicial system. Fewer arrests and convictions for pot possession and distribution means less crowded prisons, more time for police and the courts to clear other cases, and less gang crime related to production and sales of pot. Those are societal impacts, though, not directly related to using pot.
**** I don't know if those claims, especially about "gangs", are true... why would you imply that "societal impacts" are not worthy of consideration in any cost/benefit analysis?
I think anytime you put a chemical compound in your body, especially one that has psychotropic effects, you're going to experience negative side-effects.
**** "Only" negative side effects? What if someone wrote: "I think anytime you put a chemical compound in your body, especially one that has psychotropic effects, you're going to experience positive side-effects." Why would it necessarily only be one way? Pretty sure any time any substance capable of being absorbed by the body is ingested it will have effects... and people can then label those as positive or negative as they see fit. Certainly people consuming nicotine, via one delivery device or another, focus on the "positive" effects and believe that the "negative side effects" are worth the risk, if any (e.g. re vapor delivery systems). Is "sugar" a "chemical compound" "that has psychotropic effects" and "negative side-effects"? What about caffeine? What about fat? People that "crave" those chemical compounds clearly experience a psychotropic effect upon consumption, and there are clear negative side-effects from such consumption, especially among those people who use those chemical compounds to "self-medicate". What's the cost to individuals and society of the medical costs incurred by the obvious overconsumption of a percentage of daily calories from those chemical compounds and long term medical consequences (e.g. the "obesity epidemic" and consequent rates of diabetes, heart disease, joint problems, etc.)
Increased likelihood of mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have been linked to regular, long-term use of pot. Heavy, long-term use by adolescents has been shown to reduce cognitive development. Many health issues linked to smoking pot are also linked to the patient's genetics - no different than lifelong smokers who never get cancer and alcoholics who never have liver or brain issues. Those who are genetically predisposed to addiction, health problems and mental issues are likewise at higher risk when regularly using pot or other similar drugs.
**** So are you arguing that since cannabis is just like (or possibly less harmful than) alcohol and tobacco/nicotine that it should share the same legal status: legal?
Time will tell. I find it telling that it's left up to voters to decide on legalizing a DRUG. Voters are not exactly the best group to make such decisions. Most will vote however the media sways them, and we all know the media is biased.
**** Yeah, "voters" don't have a clue... well, at least a significant proportion of them, if it comes to "objectively" evaluating the "scientific" evidence. Unfortunately, much of the "science", as with "climate science" ("97% of climate scientists agree...") or "gun violence research", the researchers themselves often have overt biases, as to the people or entities that fund the research and expect the researchers to come up with a result that reinforces their predetermined position on any issue. Plus, as I think you mentioned earlier, law enforcement opposes legalization because keeping it illegal provides them huge amounts of money. With many billions of dollars at stake, it's going to be difficult, if even possible at all, to filter all the "data" into degree of true or false or real rates of "danger".
-
It's bogus to argue the "lack of harm" comparison between LEGAL products versus ILLEGAL/BANNED drugs.
**** Why is it "bogus"? If one allows that any cost/benefit analysis is germane to decisions about legal availability, why would "lack of harm" be ruled out as a benchmark?
I was going to engage your rebuttals, but, reading through your diatribe, it's obvious you just want to argue. Your analogies with guns, Climate Science and the Obama CDC have no bearing on the topic. Just because one, five or even ten issues were mishandled by government or "science" isn't evidence they are wrong about this one. Maybe you have proof they are wrong? That would bee a pleasant change from taking the default position that gov't and drug studies are all 100% biased and inept -- no exceptions. That's a very lazy and incorrect position to take, but you do it all the time.
Everything you wrote is your personal opinion. At least the stuff I posted can be supported by reputable sources. I would have posted the links, but why help someone who's too lazy to learn how to use Google?
-
Anytime you use a drug you take a risk.
Even an Aspirin.
The war against drugs is a jobs program
for Democrat Union cops and Jail keepers.
I'm sure lawyers and Judges have better things to do.
There are some drugs so dangerous they should be
very controlled, but the idiots that take them don't
live very long, so no great loss.
Society would be better off if the drugs were cheap
and widely available.
It is called "natural selection" survival of the fittest.
I really don't care if someone OD's I wouldn't
waste the money to save their life.
Everybody has an expiration date.
-
What we all need to fear is when the FEDS loosen their stance. This will allow a foothold into banking allowing cartel to buy businesses, property, political and police protection. American kids will be Fat. Stoned. Texting. Disarmed. Transgendered and whatever hashtag that trends next.
Sounds paranoid? The cartel soldiers are seeking "asylum" now. Don't be shocked when they want 2nd amendment rights for "asylum" to defend themselves from racist citizens with guns.
For the record I am Hawaiian. A brown man to be accurate. Proudly American.
Semper Fidelis
-
American kids will be Fat. Stoned. Texting. Disarmed. Transgendered and whatever hashtag that trends next.
Too late :rofl:
https://youtu.be/WgheGP_RZGQ
-
Its all about People control.
-
I don't understand why it is so difficult to have weed legalized. Blue states and red states alike. You would expect, as conservatives, republicans to be all for legalization, especially federally. One of those contradictions among republicans.
No, I don't say this because I want to smoke weed. I hate the smell.
-
I don't understand why it is so difficult to have weed legalized. Blue states and red states alike. You would expect, as conservatives, republicans to be all for legalization, especially federally. One of those contradictions among republicans.
No, I don't say this because I want to smoke weed. I hate the smell.
You really love to paint all conservatives with the same broad brush when it suits you.
Your argument is more inline with Libertarian views, not Conservatives.
So there's that.
-
You really love to paint all conservatives with the same broad brush when it suits you.
Your argument is more inline with Libertarian views, not Conservatives.
So there's that.
Federal weed legalization fits perfectly within the conservative ideology as well as libertarian ideology. The issue is we have social conservatives whose views conflict with conservative ideas about government and create the aforementioned contradiction. No, I don't expect that all conservatives are going to be the same on all issues but my point that you missed is that this is among a number of contradictions within the republican party.
-
Federal weed legalization fits perfectly within the conservative ideology as well as libertarian ideology. The issue is we have social conservatives whose views conflict with conservative ideas about government and create the aforementioned contradiction. No, I don't expect that all conservatives are going to be the same on all issues but my point that you missed is that this is among a number of contradictions within the republican party.
Give examples of the "contradictions" if you can. Just saying it is so isn't evidence.
-
Well don’t really give a shit either way. Too old to smoke anymore too old to care but tax the living shit out of it! :geekdanc:
-
I wonder whatever happened to the guys who had their firearms returned by hpd after they were initially turned in for having a medical mj card.
Id imagine that if a federal agency followed up and wrote them a letter or showed up to confiscate the guns we would have heard about it.
https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2017/12/07/hpd-confirms-error-over-controversial-cannabis-gun.html
-
"I don't need this shit - I am reality"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bw8UM1eLFo
-
Give examples of the "contradictions" if you can. Just saying it is so isn't evidence.
Republicans have taken a number of stances which go against the general nature of conservatism which includes less spending, smaller government, and states rights.
Republicans resisted gay marriage
Bush was not fiscally conservative, they passed the bailouts after the 2008 stock market crash
Republicans take harder stances on drugs at a federal level
Time and time again republicans have supported various subsidies. The farm bills come to mind but there are others.
There are a few examples off the top of my head for you.
-
Well don’t really give a shit either way. Too old to smoke anymore too old to care but tax the living shit out of it! :geekdanc:
Can always try edibles.
-
Republicans have taken a number of stances which go against the general nature of conservatism which includes less spending, smaller government, and states rights.
Republicans resisted gay marriage
Bush was not fiscally conservative, they passed the bailouts after the 2008 stock market crash
Republicans take harder stances on drugs at a federal level
Time and time again republicans have supported various subsidies. The farm bills come to mind but there are others.
There are a few examples off the top of my head for you.
You're kind of simpleminded. You think SOME Republicans taking a given stance on a given instance is an example of all Republicans.
Obama opposed Gay Marriage.
Hillary opposed Gay Marriage.
Kamala Harris made a name for herself throwing hundreds in prison for low-level drug charges.
Democrats are contradictory to their own stances, I guess.
You seem to believe labels are somehow carved in stone, and if you don't adhere to that label's definition of an ideology or issue position, you're not being a true [ fill in the label ] .
Maybe labels are bad. But it's how the press and the Left tend to pigeonhole people so they can support or attack them. Treating everyone as individuals with a cross-section of ideological beliefs doesn't make your life as simple as you want, does it?
You seem to toss around labels pretty often when trying to push a narrative against Conservatives, Republicans and the Right. I wonder why that is?
-
You're kind of simpleminded. You think SOME Republicans taking a given stance on a given instance is an example of all Republicans.
Obama opposed Gay Marriage.
Hillary opposed Gay Marriage.
Kamala Harris made a name for herself throwing hundreds in prison for low-level drug charges.
Democrats are contradictory to their own stances, I guess.
You seem to believe labels are somehow carved in stone, and if you don't adhere to that label's definition of an ideology or issue position, you're not being a true [ fill in the label ] .
Maybe labels are bad. But it's how the press and the Left tend to pigeonhole people so they can support or attack them. Treating everyone as individuals with a cross-section of ideological beliefs doesn't make your life as simple as you want, does it?
You seem to toss around labels pretty often when trying to push a narrative against Conservatives, Republicans and the Right. I wonder why that is?
And you revert to whataboutism because you can't defend against the points I made. And it is not just some republicans, you really think marijuana is still federally illegal because a couple of republicans are holding out? Just a couple of republicans resisted gay marriage?
I made my point well enough but you want to quibble because that's what you do and everyone here knows it. I am not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. :closed: :stopjack:
-
And you revert to whataboutism because you can't defend against the points I made. And it is not just some republicans, you really think marijuana is still federally illegal because a couple of republicans are holding out? Just a couple of republicans resisted gay marriage?
I made my point well enough but you want to quibble because that's what you do and everyone here knows it. I am not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. :closed: :stopjack:
You started digging that hole, and now that you can't win the fight, you declare the rabbit hole off limits?
Typical troll. It's no fun when the victim makes you look bad.
-
Cannabis is also good for relieving tension. Just saying
-
It's no fun when the victim makes you look bad.
I am sorry, did I make you look bad? (I'm not actually sorry)
-
I predict that pakalolo will be legal in 5 years. Because Monsato is getting into it. Get in now while cheap and they have some control in DC.