Feds Threaten Crackdown if Prop 19 Passes and California Legalizes Cannabis

This is based on the assumption that the press would cover it... not guaranteed. A friend of mine has an acquaintance who does some freelance photography for an area newspaper- this paper's ownership (Newhouse Newspapers- a division of Advance Publications) holds a conservative editorial stance and circulated an internal memo weeks before the '04 presidential election that forbade any story about the Iraq war being any where on the front page until after the election... it was made clear anyone of the papers under the corporate umbrella not heeding the directive would be doing so at the risk of the editorial staff's careers. Papers carry what they are told to carry because the consuming herd (us) need to be managed.

I have little doubt that some very telling truths are held back from public consumption because those affected do not want to deal with backlash. I can see something like this meeting the criteria for a story to be killed. Knowledge IS power and those in charge do not want us to get too much of it.

 

has anyone mentioned that the fed may oppose it because it would drastically slash the price of pot in the US and cost them covertly more than it would make them legally?

 

Doesn't the government already have enough problems with Texas? This country needs to stop picking at its self. Let some scabs heal, maybe.

 

So far as I know, marijauna advocates have never claimed that THC use slows down or helps cure cancer. It is merely a pleasant pasttime which takes some of the edge off the dying process. Please correct me if I'm wrong, citing reputable sources.

 

Yes, Erwin Rosenfelt had these dangerous & problematic bone tumours. Medicinal marijuana probably saved him.

Penn & Teller on war on drugs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RymKMhOhd8
Look out for parts 1 & 2 as well.

 

Rosenfelt never said marijuana 'probably saved' him. He said that over a 21 year period, it made him feel better. He never said it helped or caused a remission of osteosarcoma. I wish him luck. I wish smoking or orally ingesting THC would cure or slow down osteosarcoma, which is a sort of slow explosion of bones from within by uncontrolled growth of stem cells.

Wishing or believing doesn't make it so.

 

I think you're entirely correct, DirtyDog. If marijuana were indeed found to actually cure cancer, that would be major, major news.

 

Here you go;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20053780

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8087

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8289

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142121/more_evidence_that_marijuana_prevents_cancer/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJmQ16cGBHU"]YouTube - Dr. Donald Tashkin Marijuana Lung Cancer Study Pt 1 of 2
part two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6pBw0bgmgA&feature=related"]YouTube - Marijuana Study Shows No Lung Cancer Links

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31Nuj_AvTg&feature=related"]YouTube - Cancer Cure - Cannabis & Cannabinoids,by Robert Melamede,PhD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqQ1gZaAiNY&feature=watch_response"]YouTube - Cannabis Cancer response on 2009 04 22 at 09 12

And there are so many more...
Just do a search for it.

 

Yes... and considering that the treatment of cancer is a highly lucrative business- expect in the "cancer cure scenario" the path to legalization to be protracted using all manner of legal device under the guise of ensuring public health and safety. Big Pharma isn't going to let go of a motivated stream of revenue without a fight and their buddies in congress and FDA would undoubtedly play their game.

 

If Prop 19 passes......The Bolivian leader expelled DEA agents from his county a while back. If Prop 19 makes it, maybe California can follow suit?

 

Considering the huge meth market and production that exists in Ca., I doubt it. Cannabis is not the only drug out there that the DEA is interested in.

 

A state can't throw federal agents out, a country can obviously since DEA has no authority in another country.
The Attorney General is just doing his job but knows its already pointless. If the feds were going to crack down on CA they never would have let it get to the point of basically being legal as long as you have a completely bogus prescription for insomnia.
Not enough DEA agents to even put a dent in it if it passes now, genie is out of the bottle.

 

There's not enough C.A.M.P. officials ether. They're seizing more THC containing hemp than ever before, not because of advancement in their gadgets & gizmos, but theirs more of it - simply.
I reckon its Marc Emery's reasonable. He's achieved his mission, he overwhelmed America with so much Cannabis seeds - therefore plantations, it going to neutralized the drug controllers ability to deal with anything else. That was the theory anyway.

 

They're not talking about DEA agents ... they're talking about cracking down on the law itself, assuming it actually passes.

A state can't make something legal that is already illegal by Federal statute. That makes no sense.

 

Constitutionally matters such as drug laws are the purview of the state, not federal government. As I already mentioned, current drug laws are based on medical efficacy and have as their origin the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, and have more to do with the FDA than any other branch of government. Investigate the loopholes Nixon had to find and go through in order to enact the current drug SCHEDULING laws. The reason why they are based on medical efficacy is because the outlawing of a substance from personal use by the citizen is supposed to be controlled by the state government, not federal. By targeting medical efficacy, they were able to include any substance they wanted and because of the Pure Food and Drug Act, it allowed such restrictions to fall under federal jurisdiction and not state. State rights is one of the primary hot topics regarding the legalization of cannabis, especially now that it has been conclusively shown to have valid medical efficacy.

Here is a good book about the drug laws in the U.S.;

http://www.libertary.com/book/41/1719

 

The current drug scheduling laws are based on their ability to get you high. Not on their ability to cause addiction and death, that's just window dressing.:2thumbsup:

 

If THC related drugs, psychoactive or not, can slow the growth of glioblastoma and other cancers, that is a step in the right direction. Studies with large sample sizes (or careful sample selection to eliminate effects of other independent variables) should be done to compare case outcomes of glioblastoma cases with and without THC consumption. That would be the purpose of the clinical trials proposed.

 

The problem with the synthetic drugs is they usually target a single symptom. THC can stymied a hole bunch of things, no wonder the pharmaceutical companies hates it - unless its Marinol.

 

On November 2, 54% of California voters rejected conditional legalization of marijuana as provided by Proposition 19.

A Postmedia News article in the Calgary Herald November 4 states that both California and British Columbia growers were relieved that prohibition of this substance continues. Kind of reminds me of Al Capone.

Link is http://www.canada.com/entertainment...zation+movement/3767281/story.html?id=3767281