I’ve never used them together. If used lawfully, all you loose is your 2A. That’s why I turned the card back in , got proof that I turned it back in , and wrote to everybody who’s anybody about how STUPID the whole thing is.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Marijuana and Violence study
- Thread starter jaxyaks
- Start date
And that's the whole issue in my opinion. A super vaccine gets approved in 6 weeks but 100 years of study of medical benefits of Marijuana is met with "we don't have enough research". I have no issue with those who choose it for recreational use, though I'd never advocate for it I'd also never oppose it.
5% THC oil can take the place of a whole lot of Pharma. That’s why it’ll never be legal. Especially when the population is “too high” and all that jazz. But… that’s the way the world goes round
It’s an echo, I know, but yea. Alcohol.
Talking out of my ass here but I'd venture to say alcohol has destroyed more lives and families in the last year than Marijuana has in its entire history save the prohibition of it.
But…but… Nah, I’m out Bud. There ain’t 1 thing we can do to stop Greed. Maybe if there’s another revolution one day they’ll get it right?
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1,886
- Reaction score
- 821
At 3am on a rainy country road I'd MUCH rather the driver of the car coming towards me be stoned instead of drunk. If he's driving stoned that late at night he's concentrating on minute movements of the steering wheel in order to drive straight....in order to keep the po-po from being suspicious! That has been my experience....since I was oftentimes the stoned one paranoid that the po-po was gonna get me!
NoDoubt!!
Simply using marijuana doesn't make you a violent person, the business of marijuana makes for violent people.
I think that's an important point, but I think there are legitimate concerns that there may be a link between marijuana use and psychosis in a small percentage of younger users.
That's not to say that the use of marijuana should be banned RIGHT NOW (because if it saves one life, it's totally worth it, right?), but we should be openminded enough to see where that research goes, and based on those findings, consider whether the right approach to dealing with the medical risk is legislation (i.e. more targeted legislation than we have now or in the past).
I don't like the idea that a percentage of the population could have their rights denied based on a set of medical criteria, but it's probably more honest than a blanket ban "because reefer madness is real"
