ummm I have the Right To Pursue Happiness and im only happy when im high so, I am garenteed the right to smoke Pot under the Constitution Of the united States Of America so dont tread on meh
[-(
blue turbins
From Those Fishes - I Fingered An Old Bitch (i got Aids on my finger)
If you truly believe that, watch Rick Simpsons "run from the cure" Look into some of the work being done with cannabinoids and cancer. I could show you literally THOUSANDS of cases proving otherwise. Oh and see United States Patent number 6,630,507, October 7, 2003. The fact that the US Government itself has a patent on marijuana as a medicine truly and effectively negates the DEA and ONDCP claims that there is no medicinal use for marijuana. :-P
ummm I have the Right To Pursue Happiness and im only happy when im high so, I am garenteed the right to smoke Pot under the Constitution Of the united States Of America so dont tread on meh
That's a legit defense but it never works. One should also be able to smoke for religious reasons of the choose too.
To judge what is religion is not to be on narrow restrained view. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5(7)(A) states, "The term 'religious exercise' includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to the RFRA in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 (2005), to mean the standard in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 (1965) ("courts in this sense are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them 'incomprehensible.' Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious.")
This is a result of a little known case where a medical necessity case was won by the defendant resulting in dismissal of criminal charges related to growing and possessing marijuana. The case was not appealed by the government and therefore stands United States v. Randall, Crim. No. 65923-75, (Super. Ct. D.C. 1976) "Upon the foregoing discussion the Court finds that the defendant Robert C. Randall(deceased 1948-2001) has established the defense of necessity. Accordingly, it is the finding of this court that he is not guilty of a violation of D.C. Code §33-402, and the charge against him must be and hereby is DISMISSED" http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/ran... ; see also Randall v. US, "In 1978, federal agencies, disquieted by Randall's outspoken opposition to the medical prohibition, sought to silence him by disrupting his legal access to marijuana. In response, Randall, represented pro bono publico by the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson, brought suit against FDA, DEA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health, Education & Welfare. Twenty-four hours after the suit was filed, federal agencies requested an out-of-court settlement. The resulting settlement provided Randall with prescriptive access to marijuana through a federal pharmacy located near his home."
I know there's plenty of people who need it to deal with the pain for diseases and etc. I'm talking about the people who don't have anything wrong with them and trying to play it off like they NEED it for medicinal purposes. I just think it's silly that some people have to make up excuses like that to justify legalizing it.
I'm with you, dude. I just get annoyed with a lot of potheads I've met who make up dumb excuses like that.
stopping me from smoking pot is cruel and unusual punnishmentState v. Olsen, 99 Wis.2d 572 (Ct. App. 1980): court identified the four elements which comprise the necessity defense –In this case, (1) depression and physical pain, aging and cancer are natural physical forces, (2) depression, cancer and diseases do great bodily harm resulting in premature death, (3) there is no alternative medicine that acts on depression and does what the US government Patent number 6,630,507 says Cannabinoids do as far as anti-aging and research says about shrinking tumors and preventing cancer etc.(4) these beliefs are certainly reasonable. Also Wisconsin §961.34: Controlled substances therapeutic research, states in similar words, that marijuana/cannabis is and should be available by permit to doctors (practitioners), yet even with an Internet full of information Driessen cannot find one doctor from Wisconsin who has written one prescription for marijuana let alone find one to write him a prescription. So then for simply seeking relief and using a natural plant medicine known by the government to be anti-oxidant, anti depressant, pain relieving, cancer shrinking and preventing, being criminally sanctioned and jailed is crewel and unusual within the meaning of the US 8th Amendment see: "Exposure to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future health is a basis for a cause of action for cruel and unusual punishment..." Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S.25, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993), also: State v. Davis, 2005 WI App 98 698 N.W.2d 823, 281 Wis. 2d 118, 04-116
Did I specifically point out you? I believe I said a few need it but the abuse number greatly outweighs. Don't be stupid, but I guess that is hard to do when you're high all the time.
You tryin to be a hero fool? You wanna see badass mother fucker?! I'll show ya a badass!!!
Did I specifically point out you? I believe I said a few need it but the abuse number greatly outweighs. Don't be stupid, but I guess that is hard to do when you're high all the time.
Then why do you even want it legalized if you hate the people that smoke it so much?
Did I specifically point out you? I believe I said a few need it but the abuse number greatly outweighs. Don't be stupid, but I guess that is hard to do when you're high all the time.
Then why do you even want it legalized if you hate the people that smoke it so much?
I can sympathize with him. I hate potheads sooooo much. They're usually the most annoying type of person I ever meet.
Did I specifically point out you? I believe I said a few need it but the abuse number greatly outweighs. Don't be stupid, but I guess that is hard to do when you're high all the time.
Yeah, you did lol.
How am I guilty good sir? What statute can I be proven of violating?
That was a question about me.
Because claiming you need weed for medicinal purposes is a bitch excuse for wanting to be able to get high.
This was your response. I'm a stoner,what's. Your excuse gingy?
Pot heads directly affect me and my money. I work for a profit sharing company so when these assholes get high on lunch break come back and fuck up parts it decreases my bonus at the end of the year.
Not to mention several other occurrences that I have discussed in other threads as to why I don't like pot heads
You tryin to be a hero fool? You wanna see badass mother fucker?! I'll show ya a badass!!!
the most retarded people i have ever meet in my life were people who smoked constantly. they also always bitched about not having any money but any they got some they immediately spent on drugs then went around trying to mooch of people.
My excuse is I was joking with the guilty thing considering I didn't read the broken up non sense you posted and that the next part was a generalization
You tryin to be a hero fool? You wanna see badass mother fucker?! I'll show ya a badass!!!
Its you tax dollars being wasted too. Also, marijuana has medical benifits for everybody. But ya, I fucking hate those cancer assholes too. Fuck them. Fuck your grandma's M.S. Fuck those fucks who want an non toxic anti inflamitory.
the most retarded people i have ever meet in my life were people who smoked constantly. they also always bitched about not having any money but any they got some they immediately spent on drugs then went around trying to mooch of people.
That's me. I smoke all day. Wanna compare paycheck stubs, education levels, or housing situations?
Comments
[-(
blue turbins
From Those Fishes - I Fingered An Old Bitch (i got Aids on my finger)
Look into some of the work being done with cannabinoids and cancer. I could show you literally THOUSANDS of cases proving otherwise. Oh and see United States Patent number 6,630,507, October 7, 2003. The fact that the US Government itself has a patent on marijuana as a medicine truly and effectively negates the DEA and ONDCP claims that there is no medicinal use for marijuana. :-P
Regardless, the law is still on my side.
That's a legit defense but it never works. One should also be able to smoke for religious reasons of the choose too.
To judge what is religion is not to be on narrow restrained view. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5(7)(A) states, "The term 'religious exercise' includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to the RFRA in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 (2005), to mean the standard in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 (1965) ("courts in this sense are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them 'incomprehensible.' Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious.")
This is a result of a little known case where a medical necessity case was won by the defendant resulting in dismissal of criminal charges related to growing and possessing marijuana. The case was not appealed by the government and therefore stands United States v. Randall, Crim. No. 65923-75, (Super. Ct. D.C. 1976) "Upon the foregoing discussion the Court finds that the defendant Robert C. Randall(deceased 1948-2001) has established the defense of necessity. Accordingly, it is the finding of this court that he is not guilty of a violation of D.C. Code §33-402, and the charge against him must be and hereby is DISMISSED" http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/ran... ; see also Randall v. US, "In 1978, federal agencies, disquieted by Randall's outspoken opposition to the medical prohibition, sought to silence him by disrupting his legal access to marijuana. In response, Randall, represented pro bono publico by the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson, brought suit against FDA, DEA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health, Education & Welfare. Twenty-four hours after the suit was filed, federal agencies requested an out-of-court settlement. The resulting settlement provided Randall with prescriptive access to marijuana through a federal pharmacy located near his home."
I'm with you, dude. I just get annoyed with a lot of potheads I've met who make up dumb excuses like that.
Not to mention several other occurrences that I have discussed in other threads as to why I don't like pot heads
Also, marijuana has medical benifits for everybody.
But ya, I fucking hate those cancer assholes too. Fuck them. Fuck your grandma's M.S. Fuck those fucks who want an non toxic anti inflamitory.