Nev. Votes to Legalize Marijuana

[Never]

Nev. Votes to Legalize Marijuana

Nev. Votes to Legalize Marijuana
http://dailynews.netscape.com/mynsnews/story.tmpl?table=n&cat=51280&id=200106041946000100561


CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - State lawmakers voted Monday to legalize marijuana for medical purposes and relax penalties for possession of the drug.

The Assembly's vote puts the state on a potential collision course with the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that a federal law classifying the drug as illegal includes no exception for medical uses.

The state Senate has already approved the bill, and it is expected to receive Gov. Kenny Guinn's signature.

The bill would allow seriously ill Nevadans to have up to seven marijuana plants for personal use.

It says a person with an ounce or less of marijuana be charged with a misdemeanor and fined up to $600. A second offense would carry a higher fine and placement in a treatment or rehabilitation program; three-time offenders would be charged with a gross misdemeanor and pay a still-steeper fine.

The Senate amended the bill to add felony charges for a fourth or subsequent possession charge.

Under current Nevada law, possession of any amount of marijuana can result in felony charges leading to prison terms of one to four years. But first offenses involving small amounts are usually handled as misdemeanors, with no jail time and fines of a few hundred dollars.

The bill would allow the state to seek federal permission to conduct research into whether marijuana helps ease pain, nausea or other symptoms of seriously ill patients.

The bill would also allow the creation of a state registry for patients whose doctors recommend they use marijuana for medical reasons.

Nevadans voted overwhelmingly in 1998 and 2000 to amend the state constitution to allow marijuana use by those suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and other painful and potentially terminal illnesses. The task of implementing the voters' mandate was left to the Legislature.

Besides Nevada, voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Oregon and Washington have approved ballot initiatives allowing medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the legislature passed a similar law and the governor signed it last year.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personally, I'm for legalizing recrational marijuana use - but this is a step forward, at least.

 

[unusuallyconfused]

This conservative right wing person would love for marijane to be legalized. I am very liberal on that agenda! Would be great to be legal and smoke a joint on a "got your ass kicked again" day. I like it much better than drinking and you don't get a hangover or act like a complete idiot as you do when you are drunk. I think it is ridiculous to disallow it to terminal people and I am definatley PRO Marijuana!

It has a bad rap, it is so different than hard core drugs. I don't use, but I wish I could.

 

[Purple Haze]

Halleluiah, it's about fucking time.

Marijuana was almost legal back in the seventies, until the Reagan administration decided there weren't enough hippies for the murderers to share a cell-block with. His "War On Drugs" was a war on rights.

This is encouraging.

 

[Starfish]

State by state...... Babylon will come tumblin down!

 

[lavender]

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

The support for medical marijuana cracks me up. It's so transparently not about medicine or the treatment of medical illness but as a stepping stone to the complete end of marijuana prohibition. If people were really concerned about pharmicological benefits of THC, (the active chemical in marijuana) why would they want to smoke it in an unrefined form that can give them cancer? Why burn a plant and inhale it into your lungs?

It's kinda strange - as smoking tobacco becomes more and more declasse and socially unacceptable, the opposite is occuring with marijuana. Are we idiots?

So I'm here to join the movement for a new THC pill! Whatdya say, people?!

You with me?

Didn't think so.

 

[Purple Haze]

Hey Oliver, got any cases of marijuana-caused lung cancer?

Didn't think so.

I've known some stoners in my life, but I haven't met one yet that smokes twenty joints per day.

I like brownies too.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Do you think I'm making this up, PH? As scary as it seems to me sometimes, I AM going to be an MD in about 11 months. I do know a little bit about this subject.

A carcinogen is a chemical proven to cause cancer in living things. Tobacco has many carcinogens which vaporize and are delivered into your lungs and then into your blood when you smoke it. It's not JUST a "nicotine delivery device" as the tobacco companies euphemistically labelled cigarettes. It fills you with harmful chemicals as well.

As YES, marijuana has these too. Here's a little piece on benzopyrene, a carcinogen found in both tobacco and marijuana. It's actually found in higher concentrations in marijuana.

http://www.sarnia.com/groups/antidrug/mjmeds/mjcancr.html

and what about tar? Here's a bit from this site:

http://www.math-science.sfasu.edu/pulmonary/internarticles/Lungcancer.html

Marijuana cigarettes contain more tar (a known carcinogen) than tobacco cigarettes and the smoke is inhaled more deeply and held longer than that of tobacco smoke. Marijuana is smoked without a filter, increasing the quantity of tar that gets to the lungs.

And also YES, marijuana has been linked to cases of lung cancer. Imagine that! A drug containing known carcinogens causes cancer. This science stuff ain't so hard.

You're right that people don't smoke as many joints as cigarettes, but the evidence shows you don't have to.

Now y'all can kick my ass on politics, but don't question my medical knowledge.

 

[unusuallyconfused]

Now y'all can kick my ass on politics, but don't question my medical knowledge.

I get my ass kicked all the time on here. If you got high sometime, you may understand where people are coming from.

Overall, I think the benefits outweigh the risks. From what I understand, the patients were unable to feel the same relief with THC pills than with smoking. Also, before in my younger days, I had severe nausea and it instantly corrected it before I understood the medicinal effect. I am too smart to use it now because of the legal implications, but I would always use it for nausea if I could.

 

[Weevil]

Hey Oliver, would a vaporizer still be as bad for you?

 

[GuyJD]

THE WAY I SEE IT.............

And have seen it for 14 years working at a drug store, if/when marijuana is legalized, you'll see an increase of illegal and falsified prescriptions being made and possible more burgularies being committed at such drug stores.

 

[Weevil]

I would bet that the legalization of pot(And other drugs) would make the crime rate sink like a stone, if for no other reason then many illegal things would be made legal.

It would free up much of the prison population too

 

[Purple Haze]

Thanks for the Links Oliver, and I wouldn't argue your medical knowledge. It seems that a lot of doctors agree that the benefits outweigh the risks of marijuana, and you'd have to admit that the risks are barely worth mentioning, wasn't peanut butter discovered to have carcinogens?

It kills me to think our government has been too stubborn to allow sick or dying people some relief from their suffering, especially when it comes to a substance that is so relatively harmless.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Good question about a THC inhaler. I don't see why THC couldn't be used effectively in inhaled form. Without the carcinogens which are found in the marijuana smoke there would be no carcinogenic potential (I don't recall THC itself being able to cause cancer). So potentially that would be a good use for the drug.

PH, you're missing my point and proving it at the same time. This whole issue isn't about the legalization of THC, which is the part of marijuana that could actually bring benefit to people. Rather, it's about the legalization of marijuana which is a harmful substance.

Part of the argument for prohibiting marijuana for a long time was that it was a "gateway drug", relatively innocuous in itself but providing the user a starting point from which to progress to "harder" and more dangerous illicit substances. While this is sometimes true and sometimes not, it's clear to me that the medical marijuana issue is the "gateway legalization", a first step in an effort to completely legalize the drug.

I have no problem with the use of THC as a controlled substance. There are plenty of more dangerous drugs with more abuse potential than THC that have been available for years. But the use of these drugs are wisely controlled by only allowing for their use with a doctor's prescription under certain circumstances. If the research bears out the therapeutic utility of THC, I'd be more than happy to see THC join the ranks of these drugs in our pharmacopeia.

Until then, though, I'll speak out against the idea of "medical marijuana", because the movement is disingenuous. It claims to seek to make marijuana available to relieve suffering and treat illness, but it does so by advocating a dangerous and harmful product. It's a disingenous pitch - the first step in an incremental attempt to make marijuana available to the public for purely recreational use.

And yes, there are plenty of foods out there containing carcinogens. If any of them are worse than tobacco and marijuana, please let me know.

 

[Weevil]

Good question about a THC inhaler. I don't see why THC couldn't be used effectively in inhaled form. Without the carcinogens which are found in the marijuana smoke there would be no carcinogenic potential (I don't recall THC itself being able to cause cancer). So potentially that would be a good use for the drug.

YEss!!!!!! I asked a good question

I was mainly asking it for my health but its not a great solution. The amount of weed needed to get a good high from a vaporizer makes it prohibitive.

 

[beckbabe]

I like marajuana you like marajuana we like marajuana too...I smoke pot and I like it alot, legalize marajuana forever!

 

[notenufsx4me]

i would like to say a few things.



1. HOLY SHIT.!'' seven plants is a lot of fucking smoke.! Say grown inside a barn with at least a fourteen foot ceiling min. under metal halide lamps {1000 wat} changing to high pressure sodium for flowering. with all female plants:grown hydroponically.
i would guess dry weight per year about say 3 lbs/yr shake and twenty lbs of buds.

2. have you ever done "T" ?

3. what about oil made from the resin the clear honey like grade.?

4. just how many pounds does it take to cause cancer.?

5. How cold does it get in nevada.?

 

[p_p_man]

The UK Govt...

...has been conducting trials for some time now to test the medical benefits of marijuana. The large cultivation site used to be in the South of England somewhere but they had to move it to a secret location when it kept getting raided.

This has all come about because more and more people over here (especially the older generation) have found that marijuana eases their pain from illnesses like athritus and are continuing to use it despite what the law says.

So Oliver over to you...

 

[Purple Haze]

If I were to finance research that basketballs have been linked to blindness, I could find a university somewhere that could prove it. Marijuana is not dangerous, that is one of many myths surrounding it.

http://www.pdxnorml.org/Exposing_index_1095.html

Of course I wouldn't want surgeons and airline pilots performing their duties under the influence of marijuana, but I don't want them to be drunk either. (of course alcohol HAS been proven dangerous time and time again)

Marijuana should have been legalized for everybody a long time ago, and you shouldn't need a prescription to use it.

 

[Starfish]

OLLY!

So I'm here to join the movement for a new THC pill! Whatdya say, people?!

You with me?

Didn't think so.

I will not aruge your opinion on Med. Marijuana..... aside from 1 point....

But before I do, just to let you know (I realize your not becoming pharmacologist), let me say that the new THC pill is called Marinol and it has existed for almost 40 years.
It is used in glaucoma treatment, as a last resort, but is very expensive an difficult to obtain. I wouldn't expect them to cover it in med school.
And so you are aware of my politics....I am an horticulturist and a biology/ecology student, and my support goes to ecological and agricultural hemp cultivation to reduce deforestation (paper), and pesticide use reduction in agriculture (fabric and oil crop). Incidently, the hemp seed is a readily available source of the hard to obtain amino acid, Lysine, which I am sure you are familiar with.
Nevertheless, there is one thing you should realize, and that as you go one in your experiance, you will find, that people WITH cancer are the ones who want to use it.....
They've already got the disease. They are seeking releif from radiation sickness and depression (smoke a joint, you'll see how much happier you suddenly become).

Now, Yes, shit head with a back problem, needs to see a surgeon, not the dope dealer.
So, anyway, I would like to ask what you think is important....

The length of time given in ones a life, or the quality of time given in ones life.

I would rather live happy for 50 years, than forever being miserable.

Just some thoughts brought to you with great consideration.

 

[gleam]

Well

For the record I should probably mention that I have never smoked anything in my life, joint, cigarette or cigar. And I've never used a narcotic either.

Also, I should mention that I have never done any reserach on this topic, so I'm sorta talking out my ear.

That being say, I am all for the legalization of pot. I guess my politics tends towards the liberatrian. As far as I know, the perils of pot smoking, if they exist, end at the person using the stuff.

I realize there may be a problem with second hand smoke, but such is the price we pay for freedom. A smoker (pot, tabacco, whatever) does not have to right light up on a piece of property where smoking is prohibited *by the owner* but, by the same token, non-smokers don't really have the right to a smkoe free environment on a piece of property where smoking is permitted *by the owner*.

I think this discussion of harms and benefits sorta misses the point. The point is not whether pot is harmful or not, but whether somebody has the moral right to light a joint (cigarette, etc) as long as the alleged harm is on one's own property or permissible by the owner of the propety in question.

In fact, I'm for the legalization of pretty much all illegal drugs. Most of the so-called societal harm comes from the war on drugs itself, not the use per se. Yes, I won't argue that these drugs are harmful to the individual. Yes, if you want to make anything of yourself, you'd best not try cocaine. But again, that misses the point.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

originally posted by ppman
The UK Govt has been conducting trials for some time now to test the medical benefits of marijuana. The large cultivation site used to be in the South of England somewhere but they had to move it to a secret location when it kept getting raided.

This has all come about because more and more people over here (especially the older generation) have found that marijuana eases their pain from illnesses like athritus and are continuing to use it despite what the law says.

Your post puts a funny image in my mind - hordes of arthritic seniors raiding cannabis fields for a bit of the “bud”.

Don’t get my previous posts wrong. I don’t blame people suffering from legitimate medical illnesses for seeking out whatever kind of relief they finds helps them. My profession’s highest aspiration is to heal and when that’s not possible, the relief of suffering becomes our primary goal.

However, just because a drug serves our purposes and relieves the symptoms of an illness doesn’t necessarily mean it’s appropriate to use. To use your example of arthritis, our best narcotics, including morphine and fentanyl and their illicit cousin, heroin, will obliterate the pain of arthritis much more completely than marijuana or any of our current treatments for arthritis could ever hope to. This begs the question: should we make heroin legal for the treatment of arthritis? Should we prescribe morphine?

The answer to these questions is intuitively “no”. But why is that? Because, I believe, we recognize that the medical authorities and society in general have determined that the abuse potential for these drugs outweighs even their considerable potential medical benefit. Thus, it’s reasonable that morphine and the other legal narcotics be reserved for more serious kinds of pain than arthritis (for which other, less-abuseable classes of drugs will not work), while heroin is prohibited outright because its abuse potential completely overrides its beneficial properties.

Marijuana obviously has far less abuse potential than the legal narcotics, though, so this is obviously an imperfect analogy. Research shows that marijuana is psychologically addictive, but isn’t actually physically addictive. (Then again, research has shown the exact same thing for cocaine. Nicotine and opiates, however are both physically and psychologically addictive). Marijuana doesn’t seem to incite criminal activity in the user, nor does it cause violence. So what’s the harm in it, right?

This question brings me to a related point made on this thread:

Originally posted by Gleam
As far as I know, the perils of pot smoking, if they exist, end at the person using the stuff.

Any drug (including alcohol and marijuana) that causes mind-altering states potentially alters our behavior. As members of a social species living with other people, our behaviors obviously extend beyond ourselves. Therefore, doesn’t it stand to reason that if a drug alters one mind and one’s behavior the consequences of these altered behaviors could be suffered upon those around the user? Among these consequences could include threats to bodily safety and health as well as to property and other rights of fellow people. The quote that Laurel likes to use comes from John Stuart Mill, which loosely paraphrased is “one person’s rights end where another person’s rights begin.” When person A’s right to use a mind-altering substances comes into conflict person B’s right to life and property (as well as those of society in general), person A’s right ceases to be a right and his drug use may be forbidden. This is the one of the philosophic bases of DWI laws, regulations forbidding drug use on the job, and drug prohibitions in general.

The most important and relevant question to this issue of course then follows as such: “Is marijuana a substance which, when used by individuals, threatens the rights of others?" There is obviously conflicting evidence here. The website Purple Haze cites criticizes much of substantial research that points out the harms of marijuana for being politically-motivated. I suspect, though, that the makers of that site are themselves motivated by the political goal of legalizing marijuana.

Whose science, then, are we to believe? Where is the truth? I don’t claim to know enough on the subject to say one way or another, so it looks like I have a little more reading to do. But from what I’ve seen of this drug in my life so far, it’s not something I think I want to see next to Marlboro lights behind the counter of the local Circle K.

Originally posted by Gleam
I think this discussion of harms and benefits sorta misses the point. The point is not whether pot is harmful or not, but whether somebody has the moral right to light a joint (cigarette, etc) as long as the alleged harm is on one's own property or permissible by the owner of the property in question.

There are certainly many things in our society that are not prohibited by law that are more dangerous than marijuana, and to a certain extent, the moral justification for not prohibiting these things is that human beings should be free to make stupid decisions. I’m personally torn about this idea and am far from a resolution. However, the idea that personal property rights should allow us to do whatever we want on our property seems inappropriate (If I’m allowed to “set the rules” for my property and allow marijuana to be smoked, why can’t I do whatever ELSE I want on my property? Shouldn’t I be able to segregate my restaurant if I want to? No, you say? But why not? Because other people are harmed by your segregation…)

I’ve rambled far too long. Off to try to be productive!

GR: thanks for the info on Marinol. Hadn’t ever heard of it before. Guess this means I won’t get my Nobel Prize for Medicine now, huh?

 

[Weird Harold]

However, just because a drug serves our purposes and relieves the symptoms of an illness doesn’t necessarily mean it’s appropriate to use. To use your example of arthritis, our best narcotics, including morphine and fentanyl and their illicit cousin, heroin, will obliterate the pain of arthritis much more completely than marijuana or any of our current treatments for arthritis could ever hope to. This begs the question: should we make heroin legal for the treatment of arthritis? Should we prescribe morphine?
...
GR: thanks for the info on Marinol. Hadn’t ever heard of it before.

A couple of points from the viewpoint of one who voted YES on the measue that allowed the Nevada lw to be passed:

Marinol was not mentioned by name in the public debate on this issue, but "THC extracts" were. The supporters of medical MJ claim that there is some evidence that THC is not the ONLY thing in MJ that makes it useful for medical purposes, citing studies that "THC extract" isn't as effective as smoking unadulterated MJ. I have no idea whether the claims are true or not. I suspect there is a psycologicaal component to smoking MJ that factors into the anti-depressive effects.

A Second, and very telling point for me, is the cost differential between "THC extract" and growing your own MJ. I don't particulary believe in Todd's infamous "Pharmacological Cartel", but the people who most need MJ therapy can least afford an additional contribution to pharmacy profit margins. Especially, not for what in some parts of the world is a weed. (hence the nickname.)

I think the legalize MJ toehold aspect was NOT lost on Nevada voters, because most would vote for outright legalization anyway. I have expressed my personal views on that subject elsewhere and will gladly debate legaalized drugs again on another thread. This thread is about the medical uses.

MJ is a low cost, natural remedy for a wide vaariety of pains and conditions. It does not require processing and refining to do what is claimed for it. I don't regret the loss of potentil pharmacy profits one bit in this case.

 

[gleam]

Marijuana obviously has far less abuse potential than the legal narcotics, though, so this is obviously an imperfect analogy. Research shows that marijuana is psychologically addictive, but isn?t actually physically addictive. (Then again, research has shown the exact same thing for cocaine. Nicotine and opiates, however are both physically and psychologically addictive). Marijuana doesn?t seem to incite criminal activity in the user, nor does it cause violence. So what?s the harm in it, right?

This question brings me to a related point made on this thread:

Any drug (including alcohol and marijuana) that causes mind-altering states potentially alters our behavior. As members of a social species living with other people, our behaviors obviously extend beyond ourselves. Therefore, doesn?t it stand to reason that if a drug alters one mind and one?s behavior the consequences of these altered behaviors could be suffered upon those around the user? Among these consequences could include threats to bodily safety and health as well as to property and other rights of fellow people. The quote that Laurel likes to use comes from John Stuart Mill, which loosely paraphrased is ?one person?s rights end where another person?s rights begin.? When person A?s right to use a mind-altering substances comes into conflict person B?s right to life and property (as well as those of society in general), person A?s right ceases to be a right and his drug use may be forbidden. This is the one of the philosophic bases of DWI laws, regulations forbidding drug use on the job, and drug prohibitions in general.

All true. Except the smoking of pot, in and of itself, does violate anyone's rights. The act itself isn't a cause for alarm.

I would be very interested to see what evidence exists to show that people are more likely to commit violent acts while high. Like you, I have not done any reading on this topic.

I mean, one could make a similar argument about alcohol - except that not everyone is violent when they're drunk. Those that *do* become violent are put in jail, where they belong (or should be).

Even if one could show that smoking pot incites some people to become violent, this wouldn't necessarily lead to an argument for its prohibition. We've all heard of people being trampled to death by mobs in soccer matches. Should we ban soccer matches?

The point is, if I can smoke pot and not become violent, why on earth shouldn't I be allowed to? Personally, I think the spectre of a violent pot addict is far less dangerous than the spectre of a paternalistic beauraucracy trying to control our lives, allegedly for our own good.

The most important and relevant question to this issue of course then follows as such: ?Is marijuana a substance which, when used by individuals, threatens the rights of others?" There is obviously conflicting evidence here. The website Purple Haze cites criticizes much of substantial research that points out the harms of marijuana for being politically-motivated. I suspect, though, that the makers of that site are themselves motivated by the political goal of legalizing marijuana.

Whose science, then, are we to believe? Where is the truth? I don?t claim to know enough on the subject to say one way or another, so it looks like I have a little more reading to do. But from what I?ve seen of this drug in my life so far, it?s not something I think I want to see next to Marlboro lights behind the counter of the local Circle K.

Well, like I said, I'd be very interested to see some evidence of the violence-inducing power of weed that isn't motivated strictly by a desire to ban the stuff.

There are certainly many things in our society that are not prohibited by law that are more dangerous than marijuana, and to a certain extent, the moral justification for not prohibiting these things is that human beings should be free to make stupid decisions. I?m personally torn about this idea and am far from a resolution.

Well, it's not so much that humans should be free to make stupid decisions. It's that humans should be free to decide what's stupid and what's not for themselves as individuals. It's not the same thing. I mean if we really could - I mean really could - know what was stupid and what was not for our fellow man, why on earth should we allow them to be stupid? What would be the point? The answer is that we don't know - not really - what's stupid and what's not for our fellow man. I think Thomas Jefferson (or one of the founding fathers, I dunno) said something along the lines of "It is said that man cannot be trusted with the governing of himself. How, then, can he be trusted to the governing of others?"

The minute we start saying things like "Oh, well, this act is SOOOOO OBVIOUSLY stupid that no one in their RIGHT MIND would EVER want to do it!" and use that as an excuse to violate someone's rights is the minute we begin down a VERY dangerous slope.

However, the idea that personal property rights should allow us to do whatever we want on our property seems inappropriate (If I?m allowed to ?set the rules? for my property and allow marijuana to be smoked, why can?t I do whatever ELSE I want on my property? Shouldn?t I be able to segregate my restaurant if I want to? No, you say? But why not? Because other people are harmed by your segregation?)

Well, I know I'm going to get rapped over the mouth for this, but YES, that is the logical conclusion to reach when we start out with the notion that people should be allowed to do whatever they want (short of murder, etc) on their own property.

Before anyone says anything, no I'm not racist, I have never belonged to any racist group, I don't subscribe to Aryan nation, blah, blah, blah. My neck isn't red, I have black friends, as well as a whole slew of oriental, indian and european friends. I hail from Toronto, the most multicultural city in the world!

I just happen to believe that a person has a right to do whatever he or she likes on her own property, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If a restauraunt owner wishes to segrate blacks and whites into different sections of the building, he should be free to do so. From my vantage point, it would be a very stupid thing to do, but it is his/her right.

Consider a slightly different scenario. Suppose a black man only allowed black people into his restaurant. My knee jerk reaction would be one of anger, but I would never even THINK of questioning his right to do so.

And, just to cut off an obvious objection at the pass: no, you don't have the right to eat in a restaurant that isn't segregated, IF THE RESTAURANT OWNER WISHES TO SEGRATE THE RESTAURANT, for EXACTLY the same reason that you don't have the right to smoke a joint or a cigarette on a piece of property owned by someone who doesn't permit it.

 

[SouthernSiren]

oliver i am sighing and shaking my head at you.i don't know what's more disturbing the fact that people believe what they are told without any personal experience whatsoever or the american government who actively deceives it's public.hello retards i'm sure the beer and tobacco not to mention pharmaceutical lobbyists had nothing to do with the virtual explosion of laws concerning marijuana just prior to the end of prohibition.joe and sally america will pop five pills a day with side effects that look like a goddam witches spellbook but i can't grow a plant.ok that makes sense.i can raise rattlesnakes if i wanted to but i can't grow a plant that even if i ripped the bitch out the ground and ate the motherfucker the only thing i would have to worry about is a nap and perhaps some bathroom time.it is technically roughage you know.it's simple propaganda and brainwashing reefer madness anyone?and all this about gateway drug and carcinogens is ridiculous nitwittery.sugar and caffeine are fucking gateway drugs.ever seen a 5 year old after cotton candy?delirium.you are a fool.i breathe more carcinogens on the freeway than smoking the biggest hogleg i can roll.and lets not forget the industrial uses of hemp god people do your freaking research.grow hemp for the war?world war 2 buffs?people down this a way remember when the man came in and overtook the farms to grow hemp for everything.boots uniforms parachutes paper rope all kinds of shit.why because it takes 20 years to grow a tree it takes 3 months to grow hemp.need i go on?so there you have it smoking it is fine growing it is fine and there will come a day when you will question whether or not this is truly a FREE COUNTRY THAT OUR FATHERS AND GRANDFATHERS AND BROTHERS AND UNCLES AND SISTERS AND MOTHERS HAVE FUCKING LAID DOWN THEIR LIVES FOR.and that day my friends is not as far off as you think.charlie's right around the corner.