Breaking: YouTube Personality FPSRussia Arrested

FPSRussia, a charismatic YouTube gun personality probably best known for nearly killing himself when he annihilated a pickup truck with tannerite, spent two nights in jail.

So far, there is no confirmation from official sources on why he spent time in jail, although AR15.com users claim to know why. FPSRussia (Kyle Meyers) admitted to spending a couple days in jail in his subreddit. He has made the news in the past for previously being in trouble with the feds.

If unconfirmed internet speculation is true, in Georgia possession of even small amounts of marijuana plant or any amount of other kinds of marijuana products that are not plant material, such as THC oil, is a felony. In addition to being prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms as a felon, he would be prohibited from buying guns in accordance with 18 USC 922(g)(3).

Even if an attorney can plea the charge to something lesser, he could still be a prohibited possessor under federal law, if he is convicted of an offense that could carry a sentence of more than two years. And, of course, if he pleads guilty to any drug related offense, he would be barred from buying guns, no matter how minor the offense.

This should serve as a reminder to the rest of us that there is no tolerance for marijuana at the federal level. Regardless of your personal beliefs on the subject, marijuana is legal for recreational use in a few states and legal for medicinal use in several more. But that status is not recognized by the federal government and they do consider even having a medical marijuana card to be “reasonable cause to believe” that a person is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. And that matters to you, even if you don’t use marijuana because if you allow a friend or family member to have access to a firearm when you reasonably ought to know that they have a medical marijuana card, you are violating federal law. Be careful out there, folks. Oh, and have nice day.



Andrew

Andrew is a combat veteran of OEF and has performed hundreds of ballistic tests for his YouTube channel, The Chopping Block (https://www.youtube.com/user/chopinbloc). He is an avid firearm collector and competitor and lives with his family in Arizona. If you have any questions, you may email him at choppingblocktests@gmail.com


Advertisement

  • Cal S.

    “How the mighty fall”, indeed. It’s too bad, he was a nice guy.

    • Chop Block

      By all appearances, it looks like he’s out. While I didn’t want to inject opinion into the article, I hope that it turns out to be nothing. I understand his wife is quite ill and it could have been for her.

      • Cal S.

        That is unfortunate. Should have moved to Colorado for it, where people used to move just for what the altitude could do for their ailments.

        • Vince

          Should not have to should he?

          • Cal S.

            If it’s illegal where you are, move to where it’s not. I have not been inconsistent.

          • Vince

            So you have to give up job, proximity to family, home town help or relationships etc all because a stupid law? Very hard way to look at things unless those things are not important to you. May even have to give up an oncologist you trust so you can handle chemo? I have had several friends that told me they could not have handled their chemo w/o cannabis which, even though illegal, their doc told them to find and use.

            A couple of these friends had never used cannabis before and did not after their treatment. So easy for an outsider to say “get up and move!!”

          • Cal S.

            You know how many people move to the area around the Mayo Clinic? You know how many Californian low-lives got the gumption to move and forsake all you’ve said just to support a habit?

    • BryanS

      Mighty have fallen?

      I dont know, if you have a coke habit, you might end up being president of the USA, at least for the last 3 (not sure about Trump). Or be 80% of congress.

      But, some animals are more equal, and they have a hell of a way of getting the farm to manage itself, as we can see here.

      • Paul Rain

        Wow hold up there buddy, the last guy was only into the other kind of crack. Bit harsh there.

        • BryanS

          Harsh? Most of our leaders, who would have us jailed for the same behavior they do recreationally, have done or do hard drugs. There are eyewitness accounts that put Obama at doing cocaine in clubs. Sure, he admitted to weed, and wouldnt doubt he still partakes occasionally (and wouldnt blame him for it).

          Certainly no Clinton, who was reported by ex secret service to “have a nose like a vaccum cleaner”.

  • None

    So what percentage of TFB stories come from ARFCOM?

    • Chop Block

      Arfcom is the nexus of all gun information. It is the source of all. All flows from the Hive.

    • Matt Taylor

      Only the ones that make good clickbait.

  • rjackparis

    i don’t smoke, but am i the only one that thinks this entire weed being illegal thing is stupid?

    i mean people drink themselves to death daily, pop xanax like candy and are jumping from pain killers to heroin when they cant get another refill.

    but weed? nah man that’s illegal and so much worse because i said so.

    • Alex Brown

      What we call a ‘felony’ here in the U.S. is insane.

      • J Jac

        What can strip an individual of their civil rights in the U.S. is insane.

        • junyo

          To a decent percentage of our betters, that’s a feature, not a bug.

        • Flounder

          To be fair… A felony is supposed to be a serious and dire offense that hurts other people. Murder, manslaughter, rape, are all felonies right? And I think those people, should not be able to vote or own guns.

          My point is, Weed… Shouldn’t be a felony. It is stupid and does no one any good, except for profit prisons.

          AND! Felons can get their rights restored. FPSrussia sounds like he would be a prime candidate for that.

          • Michael W

            Felonies were for serious things back when the 1968GCA made possession of a gun by a felon illegal… now from what I see now on Jalopnik, doing fishtails in the street is now a felony. Baby boomers would have gotten a stern talking to back in the day for the same behavior and then they wonder why all the kids stay home on their phones.

          • Sunshine_Shooter

            Valid point. I remember hearing stories from guys my age now (mid-20s) when I was in high school (mid 2000s) about what they had done back in their day, and inevitably followed by “if you did that today you’d have the FBI at your house within hours”. Stories about making pipe bombs for fun, or joy riding in teacher’s cars, etc.

            It’s not that millennials can’t function in society like generations before us, it’s that baby boomers (and gen x) grew up in a completely different world than they gave us to grow up in.

          • Johnboy70

            Thats true, it was man hole covers you had to flip over if you did that it was a good explosion. I’m 70 grew up in the 50’s and it was great was never home until 5pm for dinner during the summer. Wasn’t any perv’s back then.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            We didn’t give it to you. It was stolen from all of us. I had nothing to do with this insanity. The Federal government is an out of control criminal enterprise that needs to be shut down. Felonies are supposed to be HEINOUS crimes, not paper crimes or bull crap so called crimes for smoking an herb.

          • Sliced Veggie

            Now that last paragraph – that’s a doozie. Probably the best summation of generational gap/differences that I’ve ever read. Nice job. For a millennial… 😉

          • HSR47

            Eh… Felonies come and go.

            There are various offenses that used to be state-level felonies, and which no longer are; For example, things like first-time DUI and drag racing used to be felonies, and no longer are in many jurisdictions.

            The real issue with the whole “prohibited persons” notion is that it applies lifetime consequences without specific judicial review. I might support the stripping of rights as an add-on penalty that a court may apply, but not as an automatic side-effect applied with no relation to the actual offense committed. Even then, I want there to be a straightforward administrative process by which prohibited persons can challenge their disability. Current statute establishes such a system, but Congress has continually refused to fund it. As such, the process should be turned upside down: A lack of funding or timely response from the government should result in all appeals for relief from firearms disability being automatically approved, rather than automatically rejected — that would force Congress to either endorse mass relief, or to adequately fund the process.

          • LGonDISQUS
          • noob

            Stealing $200 was and is a felony iirc. it wasn’t adjusted for inflation so there it goes.

        • Stuki Moi

          “What can strip an individual of their civil rights in the U.S. is insane”

          THAT someone can strip………. is insane.

          Once past that hurdle, the various whats, are just technicalities and pandering to whatever passes for political correctness at any given moment.

          • Wow!

            Narcotics are not a right. Guns and drugs are not one in the same. Weapons have a specific benefit to society in self defense, narcotics do not except in very specific niche situations.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Why are narcotics not a right? A test of who owns you is what you can consume. So either I own myself and can consume whatever I want or someone else owns me and I am at the behest of their commands and edicts. Which is it? Are we slaves or not? Why should it matter to ANYONE except me what I drink, smoke or eat?? Who is DAMAGED by the action? How can it possibly be considered a crime to smoke something that someone else claims I can’t? WHO GIVES THEM THE RIGHT or AUTHORITY? Let me ask you FIVE questions…

            THE FIVE QUESTIONS
            1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

            2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

            3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

            4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

            5) When there is a conflict between an individual’s own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?

          • Wow!

            You individually don’t get to make up what the law is. That is called a dictatorship if localized, and anarchy if universally applied.

            1. It is called the law
            2. This isn’t about morals, this is about the law and public safety.
            3. Again, not about morals, about legality.
            4. The responsibility is shared. You vote for representatives who then represent their voters. Violation of the law is the only time politicans are to be held responsible.
            5. If you are a citizen of this country you agree to follow this country’s law. Don’t go all sovereign citizen on me. Either leave this country or agree to follow the laws.

          • ActionPhysicalMan

            You don’t have the authority to tell people to leave if they don’t wish to follow the laws. You don’t have the capacity either kid.

          • Wow!

            If they don’t leave then they agree to abide by our laws. If the fail to do this they get arrested. Simple as that. Left wing sovereign citizenship ideology does not hold up in court.

          • ProudAmerican

            It’s two-way contract, Wow. “If you are a citizen of this country”… the US Govt and the its armed enforcers are supposed to honor the social contract, NOT tear it to shreds with neologisms, bad medicine, expansive usurpations, self-serving fiat definitions, or straw man arguments. They broke the contract and continue to break the contract, so we are not obligated to them. “When in the course of human events… etc.”

            Wow, we do not give you authority to force your neologisms and straw man arguments on us.

            “Narcotic,” “addiction,” and the 10th Amendment have medical and plain English meanings.

          • Wow!

            There isn’t a “social” contract. There is a legal contract called the law. You keep trying to deflect from this. You are obligated to follow the law so long as you live in this country.

            Keep your SJW leftist interpretations out.

          • ProudAmerican

            Wrong again. The US Constitution, including the 4th and 9th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, are the foundational contracts of our “legal system,” such as it is.

            That you have descended into personal attacks is solid evidence that you have NO EVIDENCE to back up your prohibitionist zealotry. Besides, I am a serious conservative, so you are wrong again.

          • Michael

            Please explain to me how cannabis IS a narcotic? And do you know the reason why cannabis was made illegal? And why is Hemp considered the same as cannabis? Once you’ve done the research you will see that it was the greed of the rich that condemned cannabis.

          • Sliced Veggie

            This. This is what I’ve been trying to say. Weed ISNT a narcotic. The fed gov defines it as “NOT A NARCOTIC.”

          • Wow!

            A narcotic is a substance that changes mood or behavior. It is still a schedule 1 drug.

          • ActionPhysicalMan

            I just looked at 3 different dictionaries and none had the definition you present for narcotic above. If it were accurate caffeine would be a narcotic.

          • Wow!

            That is an obvious lie, you didn’t look up the definition. And yes, caffeine is considered a psychoactive drug, but it is legal because it has relatively low toxicity and very short term effects.

          • ProudAmerican

            Your use of “narcotic” is a neologism, a personal definition that is not accepted by the medical community. See my posts above for the genuine and accepted definitions of “narcotic” and “addiction.”

          • Wow!

            “I’m right, you’re wrong”. Wow, great argument.

          • ProudAmerican

            I provided definitions of “narcotic” and “addiction” from a widely-accepted medical dictionary. You merely offered your made-up definition, a neologism.

          • neoritter

            Yes and the first definition can apply to marijuana. “1: a drug (as codeine, methadone, or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions”

            Marijuana dulls senses, relieves pain, can induce sleep. Overdoses can cause stupor, unconsciousness (instead of coma) and convulsions (via shaking chills or seizures as some sites say).

            Further if you look at a more original definition of narcotic, you see it is a drug that induces narcosis. Which as defined is: “a reversible state of central nervous system depression induced by a drug” This fits marijuana.

          • ProudAmerican

            Marijuana does not cause convulsions. Marijuana SUCCESSFULLY TREATS convulsions. Sleep is not “coma” or “unconsciousness.”

            The euphoriant effect of marijuana is the opposite of “stupor,” “coma,” and “depression.”

          • Wow!

            Read the CSA. Do some research rather than falling prey to the democrats manipulating your own jealousy of the rich.

          • Michael

            You are historically ignorant and that is curable, but stupidity for you is not! William Randolf Hearst was a news paper mogel with timber holdings and while hemp makes better paper and cheaper, he did not want the competition with his timber holdings. So he used his papers to slander both hemp and cannabis. So yes it was the greed of the rich, there was also a goodly slathering of racism as well.

          • Sliced Veggie

            The funniest part is that you don’t even realize the very basis of your argument has a monsterous hole in it.

          • Wow!

            And yet you can’t point out where that monstrous hole is.

          • Sliced Veggie

            That’s right, you need everything spelled out for you so you can do a line by line refute.

          • Wow!

            and you still can’t point it out. Despite how monstrous it is.

        • Wow!

          You have the right to bear arms. You do not have the right to use narcotics. Plain and simple. Narcotics are not a “victimless” crime. It causes a lot of damage to society and they need to be fought whenever possible. The founding fathers wanted armed and clear thinking people. Not a population that can be enslaved by a chemical.

          • Doug73

            We’ve been fighting against drugs for 50 years. The predictable results? Drugs are now cheaper, more potent, and more readily available than ever. And we spent (wasted) hundreds of billions to achieve that result. Beautiful.

            Just like gun control laws don’t stop people from obtaining guns, drug laws don’t stop people from obtaining drugs. Most anti-drug laws were written by people who have apparently never taken an Econ 101 class. The only practical way to lower drug abuse is to do with drugs what we’ve done with smoking cigarettes the last few decades: make it uncool, and keep it legal but make it SO expensive that people literally can’t afford to continue the habit. This approach has lowered the number of smokers dramatically.

            Of course, you can’t control the price of drugs if the market is entirely a black market. Time to legalize and then regulate the hell out of ‘me. That may sound like a dumb solution, but it’s no more dumb than the current approach which has only GROWN the illicit drug market.

          • LouAnnWatson

            open borders fuel the opioid epidemic…dry up the supply and make it too expensive

          • Vince

            Opioid laws have turned pill freaks into heroin addicts. Not opinion. Meanwhile people like me that have broken their backs THREE TIMES have to suffer due to misguided “opioid” laws!!

          • ProudAmerican

            Hmmmm… and the Red Sea parted 3,000 years ago. Cite something relevant.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            So there would be no “black market” if the legal price is so high that it causes people to stop? Yeah, good thinking. Must of been edjewkated in a gooberment skewl.

          • Wow!

            The war on drugs has given us leads on various criminal organizations and helped stop periphery crimes aside from just stopping drugs. Do you know how you fight crime? You don’t just say “today I will investigate rapes”. No, you investigate all signs of crime, gather all the information, and send it to someone who can disseminate that info and figure out leads from the big picture. Ignore one component of crime, you risk losing the whole picture.

            You apparently don’t understand economics. Let say we do what you say and make MJ legal but so expensive people cant afford the habit. What happens? The black market starts AGAIN, but now you have more addicts. Tobacco smoking decreased because the public admitted to itself it was harmful. We are going full circle for marijuana. People saying it is safe despite the obvious reality that it is not.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Admit it Wow! You’re a control freak and either have a job as a gooberment glorified welfare recipient or are simply an insane individual pushing insane peoples objectives. Which is it? Oh wait, I guess I’m being redundant with the comparisons.

          • ProudAmerican

            Or perhaps he is merely exemplifying what we know already about LEO hiring practices.

          • ProudAmerican

            At the risk of repeating myself, marijuana is NOT addictive.

            That verifiable fact is inconvenient to prohibitionists, so they have struggled prodigiously to re-define “addiction.”

          • Wow!

            There isn’t a menu, just you being served.
            americanaddictioncenters(.)org/marijuana-rehab/is-it-addictive/

          • ProudAmerican

            As I said, prohibitionist zealots and doctors-on-the-take have tried to re-define addiction, so far, unsuccessfully.

            The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, the UCSD Cannabis Research Center, and even the stodgy AMA refute you.

          • Wow!

            Of course a cannabis research center would say cannabis is fine. Duh! That is like one of you leftards bringing up a Bloomberg research paper to claim it is “proof” that guns are bad for society.

          • ProudAmerican

            Hilarious and very weak! You pretend that you can wave away the University of California, San Diego; the University of California, Los Angeles; the National Academy of Science; the Institute of Medicine. Why? Because they studied marijuana. Would you be more receptive if I offered marijuana studies conducted by rubber tire researchers? We are discussing marijuana. Of course I am going to cite marijuana researchers.

            Go figure.

            Meanwhile, you have provided textbook examples of at least a dozen fallacies of logic annotated here: en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

          • ProudAmerican

            “The war on drugs has given us leads on various criminal organizations and helped stop periphery crimes aside from just stopping drugs.”???!!!

            Tell us another funny gut buster.

            Your drug war “successes” find 2017 America better that pre-drug war America in exactly what ways?

            How many Drug War agencies colluded with the Sinaloa cartel??? Are Hilary and Podesta in jail???

          • Wow!

            So tell me, how many “drug war agencies”? Again, you don’t fight crime by legalizing it.

            Hillary is a totally different topic. She has evaded justice because of her power in politics.

          • ProudAmerican

            So far you are in deep denial of:
            (1) the important and diverse medical benefits of marijuana
            (2) the safety of marijuana use
            (3) the existence of unenumerated rights safe from government infringement
            (4) the primacy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as our social contract
            (5) the frequent deadly outcomes of militarized police
            (6) the frequent “wrong address” warrants

            and now you deny
            (7) DEA and FBI collusion with the Sinaloa cartel.

            Are you also a “holocaust denier”? (laughing)

          • Jim Thatcher

            The war on drugs has created billionare criminal organizations to feed the demand for the substances made illegal by the war on drugs. That is all it’s done.

          • Wow!

            I bet you also think islamic terrorists only do terrorism because we “forced them”. You think legalization will end a black market. It doesn’t. It just classifies it as white market legally but the damage is still present.

          • Jim Thatcher

            No I don’t, but the majority of crime related to drugs I peripheral crime, or crime that happens because drugs are illegal, I.e. turf wars, without the illegality those things go away. That doesn’t change the fact that I own myself, and any government that seeks to control what I do that doesn’t harm another is authoritarian and the reason we have a second amendment.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            You’re a good boot licking slave, aren’t you? I HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE WHATEVER I WANT! And YOU and your ILK have no RIGHT TO TELL ME OTHERWISE. Do a little research, Mr. Rocket Scientist. The founding fathers almost ALL smoked this herb.

          • Wow!

            No, your rights are conveniently written down in this paper we call the US Constitution and that word of law is what defines us as a republic and not some anarchic mess.

            It is an internet myth that all founding fathers smoked marijuana. They did not know of “marijuana” they grew hemp. Hemp was used as a multipurpose crop for making rope, textiles, paper, etc. It was for UTILITY, not becoming dumb as a doorknob.

          • ShawnCathcart

            Please pick up the nearest copy of The Constitution. Read it. Try to find the article section or amendment that empowers the United States government to ban any substance. Excluding the now repealed 18th amendment. Oh, and then ask yourself why the Constitution had to be amended so that the federal government could ban the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors. Oh, and while you’re at it, ask yourself why the 18th amendment didn’t ban the possession or use of intoxicating liquors. Could it just be that at that time politicians and the people understood that the Federal government does not have the authority to ban any substance? Could it just be that Mark Are Reynolds has hit the nail on the head? You are your own property. You control yourself. No one else has the right to control you, which includes telling you what you can eat, drink, smoke, snort, or inject.

            Drug laws are immoral, are an insult to liberty, and are unconstitutional.

          • Wow!

            Article 1, Section 8 to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.
            The very problem with narcotics is that you cannot control yourself when under it’s influence. Your entire argument crumbles under this fact. Narcotics are an insult to liberty. It compromises our faith in people to act like humans.
            I find it laughable that you call drug enforcement immoral. You should tell that right to the face of those affected by the improper use of narcotics.

          • ShawnCathcart

            Article 1, Section 8 describes exactly those powers granted to the congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Those powers do not include the ability to ban any substance. Drug laws are immoral because it it wrong to punish anyone for ingesting what they please. I understand that you believe drug use is wrong and harmful, if so you are free not to use drugs, but you have no right to exercise control over the property (body) of others. If you don’t like people who use drugs don’t associate with them. You have no right to decide for others what is proper or improper regarding use of narcotics.

            If you would like to read some more on this subject I recommend “The War On Drugs Is A War On Freedom” by Laurence M. Vance and “Chasing The Scream: The First And Last Days Of The War On Drugs” by Johann Hari.

          • Vince

            You have very obviously never been around drunks and alcohol users. I have never seen a cannabis user become violent but there is a thing called “bar fights” and I have seen a number of men beat up women after to much alcohol.

            By the way i do not use either.

          • Wow!

            Then you have obviously not been around those under the influence of weed. The mechanism that alcohol and weed act is very different too, with cannabis having longer term mental effects. Plasticity can avoid short term damage from being apparent, but this is why long term users are so screwed up suddenly. The brain runs out of undamaged neural circuits to rewire to.

          • ProudAmerican

            Wow, Your 1930’s vintage medical “understanding” completely discredits all the Reefer Madness that you spew here.

          • Wow!

            Funny how despite that, you fail to show where I am discredited.

          • ProudAmerican

            See the several prestigious reviews I have posted from the National Institute of Science Institute of Medicine, the UCSD Cannabis Research Center, AMA, etc.

          • Wow!

            And you didn’t read any of the articles yourself, nor did you pay attention to the fact that they are outdated.

            9th Amendment- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the people.

            Which is expanded on in the 10th amendment as to what those retained rights are:
            The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          • gabriel brack

            How many of those were forced to use them and how many had no self control and let the addiction control them?

          • Wow!

            Sorry, I believe in personal responsibility. You have no one to blame but yourself for taking recreational narcotics. The one situation where the individual is blameless is when they are prescribed drugs that we later find to be harmful in the long run. In that case, they should not try to scour black market drugs, but go seek professional help to beat their addiction.

          • gabriel brack

            Exactly my point. No one is forced to take drugs, so their improper use is just that. Theirs and theirs alone. And I believe that Shawn was meaning the laws against use and possession being immoral because lots of people are addicted and can’t help themselves as you yourself pointed out. Addiction is a real and horrible thing and instead of criminalizing it we should be helping people beat it. Help get them back to being productive members of society instead of outcasts and criminals for the rest of their lives.

          • Michael

            The Bill of Rights: is an enumeration (a list) of some of your rights. Based on what you have written and the way you wrote it, those are our only rights and they are NOT! And again you have made an assumption about which you know nothing! Cannabis was known to our founders, as was cocaine and other narcotics. Apothecaries used all of these compounds to make medicinal drugs. Also Hemp has both THC and CBDs in it although the THC levels are so low that you could smoke a ton of it and never get high. But smoking Hemp would still allow you to benefit from the CBDs.
            Medical note, Our own bodies make both THC and CBDs and as such our bodies have receptors for both.
            “dumb as a doorknob” Really? This alone tells me that you know nothing about cannabis except the bullshit you’ve been fed by the government! The same government who has 3 patents on cannabis and has just announced that cannabis does in deed kill cancer cells and can be used as a prophylactic for cancer and numerous other ailments.

          • Wow!

            10th amendment- The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

            Medical note, you have steroid receptors too. Does that mean any steroid is safe to take? The body is a carefully balanced system. If you screw it up enough your body will have trouble adjusting.

            Also the reports of it killing cancer cells is in vitro and still cannot be reliably reproduced in peer reviews.

            The gov researched it as a riot control agent in the form of DMHP for chemical warfare in the Edgewood Arsenal human experiments. That hardly makes it a good idea to take.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            What is it with people like you thinking you own us? Go flush your head down the toilet. You and your ilk are control freaks that think we are your children and that you can tell us what to do. Drop by in person and try to tell me what to do and I’ll kick your ass into next week.

          • Vince

            Do you realize that the U.S. imprisons a higher percentage of the population than any other major country including China and Russia!! Guess why more people are in prison than any other topic. You are scary!

          • Wow!

            So what is that supposed to mean? Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. Legalizing crime because crime exists is a silly train of thought.

          • Diana John Butera

            Wow you be Wrong!!! I have known people who have Cured!!!! Yes cured their cancer with Cannabis. Study the Endocannabinoid System and then maybe you will understand the symbiotic relationship of Health that cannabis and humans have!

          • Wow!

            No one has cured cancer. They have killed cancer cells IN VITRO (that means out of the body), but even then no one has been able to replicate those findings consistently. You can kill cancer cells with muriatic acid. Does that mean we are going to inject that into our bodies?

            Do you know what symbiosis is? It is a long term close relationship between two BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS which can be mutually beneficial, parasitic, or commensalistic. Last I checked, cannabinoids are a class of molecules, not a living thing. Taking marijuana has no benefit to health.

          • ProudAmerican

            @ Wow

            Wrong again. I know of at least 8 patients who cured advanced or aggressive cancers.

          • ProudAmerican

            You need a course in language, logic, and rhetoric. Either condition— “not in the constitution” OR “prohibited by the states”—is sufficient to prevent the federal government from usurping powers.

          • Wow!

            And yet my citation kind of subverts your assumption about the law.

            You obviously don’t know what homeostasis is. It does not guarantee the conditions, it tries to encourage returning to a fixed condition. Your body tries to maintain a certain level of water in your body ( this is “homeostatic”) and yet water poisoning is a thing. The most common example is body temperature. Despite having mechanisms to warm or cool down, hypothermia and heat exhaustion is still a thing. Your body has limits.

          • ProudAmerican

            Oh, i do indeed “have a grip” on medical matters, homeostasis included.

            You have a very limited grammar school level understanding of homeostasis.

          • Wow!

            That would be more believable if you didn’t already demonstrate your failure in the previous comment.

          • ProudAmerican

            (sigh) Yet another “argument by assertion.” One of your most used fallacies.

          • gabriel brack

            Taken properly steroids are generally beneficial and safe.

          • Wow!

            Yes, but only IF taken properly, which means prescribed by someone who understands their effects. We wouldn’t encourage people to take steroids whenever they feel like it (not to mention the class of this molecule is diverse and most can’t tell the difference).

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            My rights are written down on a piece of paper? Now I know you have mental issues. Oh, and BTW, the Constitution doesn’t apply to ME. It applies to the GOVERNMENT and what they are supposedly allowed to do or not to do. Show me where it allows the government to make laws against ANYTHING that has no victim. Where was the amendment passed by the several states to outlaw MJ? Like they did for prohibition? Oh, wait, maybe THEY are violating the law, not someone who smokes the stuff. Which one of the two guys in Dumb and Dumber did you play?

          • ProudAmerican

            As I demonstrated above, you bowdlerized the language of the 10th Amendment. Your Procrustean analysis is untrustworthy.

          • Wow!

            As I replied above, you didn’t even read your own citation. Sorry, the law is procrustean. We don’t have double standards for individuals (or at least, it isn’t supposed to).

          • ProudAmerican

            Non-responsive. Mere bluster on your part.

          • Wow!

            Sorry, you don’t get to be the dictator and change laws as you see fit. Read the US Constitution some day.

          • ProudAmerican

            Straw man argument. I never asked to be dictator. I never asserted authority to “change laws as I see fit.”

            You have no reputable evidence to support your prohibitionist zealotry, you you are reduced to logical fallacies and personal insults.

          • ActionPhysicalMan

            The constitution is/was in no way a list of individual rights. Obviously you don’t even know what it is. What grade are you going to be in this fall? Maybe they will cover it then.

          • Wow!

            Of course not. Which is why the 9th and 10th amendment and enumerated powers exist. However. The supremacy clause along with the 10th amendment does establish the hierarchy of laws. Aside from that which is Constitutionally established, you have the rights that is not already specified by the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Federal or State governments.

            The individual cannot go against the Federal or State government unless he is acting on the word of a law higher than these two levels, the Constitution.

          • ProudAmerican

            “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” —Ninth Amendment the US Constitution

          • Wow!

            Read the 9th amendment, again, then read the 10th amendment. Again, you don’t get to make up what rights you have.

          • ProudAmerican

            Argument by assertion—yet another logic fallacy you use.

          • Michael

            That is a rather blanket statement, and exactly how do you know what the founders wanted in reference to drugs? I have not found any writings on the subject. In point of fact, cocaine, cannabis and several other drugs were used in medicines that were freely purchased over the counter!

          • Wow!

            If they wanted narcotics to be a Constitutional right, they would have made it so. Prohibition was a hot topic back then, yet you don’t see the protection of alcohol like there is with weapons. Weapons are beneficial to society, narcotics rarely are except in very niche situations (aka medicinal purposes, not recreational).

          • Vince

            Drug laws were passed for population control. Cannabis was passed to control the Mexicans, cocaine was passed to control the blacks and opium laws were passed to control the Chinese after they built our railroads.

          • Wow!

            That is a myth propagated by pro marijuana websites. What you refer to is the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, and it had zero capacity to target anyone by race. The rest of your comment is nonsensical. Explain how these drugs targeted races because as far as I know, everyone has equal susceptibility to being under the influence.

          • ProudAmerican

            Oh puh-leez, your ignorance of the history of marijuana legislation is showing. The racialism that motivated marijuana prohibition is as well-documented as the racial roots of gun control.

          • Wow!

            Funny how I am ignorant in the history and yet I am the one to actually know the laws, as opposed to you who makes it up as you go.

          • ProudAmerican

            Yet another “argument by assertion.” You are, as the saying goes, “a legend in your own mind.”

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            WOW is mentally damaged people. Don’t feed this troll, you are wasting your bandwidth.

          • Wow!

            I didn’t realize I was more than one person. That is kind of cool.

          • ActionPhysicalMan

            The constitution described the form or and enumerated the powers of the federal government. Apparently, also, you have never read the 9th or 10th amendments in the bill of rights.

          • Wow!

            And obviously you still haven’t read either.

            Article 1 Section 8
            “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States”

            9th amendment- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the people.

            Amendment 10 – The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          • ProudAmerican

            (sigh) “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”—Ninth Amendment, Bill of Rights

          • Wow!

            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the people.

            Then read the 10th amendment which describes those rights.

          • Hoppla

            Why is alcohol still legal ?

          • Wow!

            21st amendment of the US Constitution.

          • ProudAmerican

            Interesting that you got to the 21st Amendment, but bypassed the 9th Amendment.

          • ProudAmerican

            It is PROHIBITION that damages people, not marijuana.

          • Wow!

            If prohibiting something caused more problems, does that mean legalizing human trafficking would reduce human trafficking? Would legalizing murder stop murder? Sure you can call any crime on paper “legal” but that doesn’t actually change reality.

          • ProudAmerican

            Apparently you cannot (or will not) discern the difference between a right to control one’s own body with the crime of enslaving another’s body.

            What straw man or other illogic won’t you use to spew your prohibitionist zealotry?

          • Wow!

            You don’t understand what is a right. Then again, most leftists don’t. You do not get to make it up as you go like a sovereign citizen, it is written in law. If everyone could just make up what laws they want to follow we get anarchy.

          • ProudAmerican

            Your crystal ball is cloudy. I am a serious conservative. A right, my sad interlocutor, is something you may do for yourself, not something that you can force others to do.

          • Jim Thatcher

            But what did alcohol prohibition accomplish? Nothing but making criminal gangs rich and government gangs fat on taxpayer cash.

          • J Jac

            Get up on out of here and back to /POL/ You alt right anime weaboo with that fascist nonsense.

            The Drug war has brought us nothing but a drastic loss of liberty. This is an undeniable fact.

          • Wow!

            Wow you sure showed me. “Undeniable fact”, boy, what solid logic. What flawless debating skills. Amazing feat of mental skill!

            Go back to CNN leftard.

          • J Jac

            I know the outside world is scary but adults have these things called “Jobs” that you should look into.

            Given your spam in this comment section I think it’s time for mommy to kick you out of her basement and make you live like a real man on his own. Hey, you might even meet an actual 3D girl too.

          • Wow!

            I’ve got two jobs. It seems you do have inferior reasoning considering you have to deflect the main topic rather than defending your inane comment.

          • J Jac

            If you really have two jobs your supervisor is really lacking in the taskmaster department. Maybe you should give me your employers number so I can alert them that they have idle employees posting on company time? Surely you won’t have a hard time posting such identifying information if you’re so proud of your employment status!

            There comes a point where debate is fruitless. We passed that point the moment you outed yourself as being in possession of a room temperature IQ.

            Moral crusaders have no place in a free Western society. Leave religion and fascism in the dustbin of history where it belongs or get ready to take a helicopter ride. 😀

          • J Jac

            Heh, I noticed that you didn’t correct me on the lack of a woman part.

            How does it feel to be a forever alone weaboo loser?

      • Mystick

        Indeed. That term should be reserved for “heinous” crimes… not victimless transgressions of archaic legislation designed to drive the penal industry.

        • NukeItFromOrbit

          Here comes to the crackpot conspiracy theories.

          • Mystick

            What “conspiracies”? Too many minor crimes without victims are classed as “felonies”. There is a powerful lobby from the prison industry – most of which are privatized – to favor laws increasing the scope of punishment. This is a fact.

          • Johnboy70

            You elect the turds the lobbyists pay them off WTF are you going to do.

          • Wow!

            Dude, get off of CNN. The prison industry doesn’t make that much money if any. Individuals get paid well because no one wants to work in that field, but the actual establishment running it only strains budgets when more people have to be housed. If what you say was true, that it was a money making scam, we wouldn’t have states like CA RELEASING people because of over crowded facilities.

          • Vince

            They are releasing people because too many were put there to start with!!

          • Wow!

            When you have overcrowded facilities you increase capacity. Legalizing a crime is a stupid response.
            If a hospital consistently is overpacked do they say “gee, lets start not admitting certain patients. Sorry, we won’t take care of your broken leg.” No, they expand their facilities.

          • Cory C

            As a matter of historical accuracy, he’s entirely right. A common law felony was a big-boy crime, something that was deemed evil by its very nature. Nowadays, legislators use it to mean “a fairly serious crime.” First degree murder and possession of marijuana aren’t even in the same ballpark.

        • Major Tom

          Archaic legislation yes, but not designed to drive any industry.

          It was a moralistic statute.

          • retfed

            It may be moralistic, but it does have some practical value.
            In states where it has been decriminalized, traffic accidents and deaths have risen. We already have problems with alcohol, so why add something else?
            If you’re sitting on your couch watching the football game with your
            minor child, and you’re drinking a beer, your kid isn’t drinking a beer, too. But if you’re smoking a joint, so is your kid.
            Something to think about.

          • Edeco

            I’d be for primacy of the individual if it doomed us all. The fact that to the contrary it’s usually practical is a nuissance, allows utilitarianism to cling to it and thrive in its wake.

            The bright side with the devil’s lettuce is we might end up releasing inmates convicted for it. My first choce would be to have each and every one return to a clean, adaptive life but chances are some will be real criminals now. It can be a character-building opportunity for society.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Really? So show me the statistics for Colorado.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            WRONG, do some research. The paper companies wanted it done away with because it conflicted with their profits.

        • Wow!

          I don’t know about you, but marijuana is involved in many heinous crimes. It is not victimless by any stretch of the imagination.

          • Adrian Psychedelix

            so a plant is committing crimes now? you DO realize how retarded you sound, right?

          • Wow!

            This isn’t guns kill people. Guns don’t alter a person’s mind and judgement. Narcotics do by definition. Use some critical thinking.

          • LouAnnWatson

            oh the legalize weed freaks always gravitate to any discussion concerning their favorite drug

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Fact is, some of us don’t use or have used any drug except for prescription. BUT we see the insanity of caging people or murdering them for the possession of an herb. So if that makes me a freak? What are you for promoting the murder of people and caging them for innocuous acts that harm no one? Except a FREAK that WORSHIPS the STATE.

          • Wow!

            Follow the law and the DEA won’t come knocking at your door “caging” or “murdering” you. This isn’t the same issue with guns. Weapons are a Constitutional right. Narcotics are not.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Funny, Wow!, I read something called the Declaration of Independence that lays out rights. Seems that dummy Thomas Jefferson said that we had the RIGHT to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. As long as my PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s right to life, liberty and property then what I do is my business. So NARCOTICS and the use there of is a RIGHT.

            What I do with my own body is none of YOUR filthy busybody business or anyone else. Your a bit of a control freak aren’t you? The Constitution doesn’t lay out rights. It tells the government to leave what already exist alone. Seems to me that sometime not to far in the past people could go and get MJ without having to get shot or caged. So what made the difference? A “law” that some slimeball psychopath politician passed? Haaaa…you wouldn’t know a right it it bit you in the rear end.

          • ProudAmerican

            Oh really? Evidently you have not seen the nearly weekly news reports of people inured and killed by careless cops serving warrants at wrong addresses.

            An example, the infant whose face was blown off by a cop’s grenade AT THE WRONG ADDRESS.

            You and your witless rhetoric make you an enabler of such monstrosities.

          • Wow!

            Typical of a left wing cop hater. Funny how the news never talks about the overwhelming majority of cases were cops succeed, not to mention the people who get shot play stupid games, and they win stupid prizes.

            The flashbang story was bad though. Most departments are much tighter on pyrotechnics due to that. It did only happen due to poor tactics though. Flashbangs aren’t supposed to be thrown into a room, but dropped in front of the threshold.

          • ProudAmerican

            Wrong again. I am quite conservative. In fact, I rather like conserving the 4th Amendment, so that we may be secure from unreasonable, even deadly, searches and conserving the 2nd Amendment to oust tyrants.

            I am amused that you find a true statement regarding “nearly weekly reports…” to be evidence of hate. True to form, consider this: “Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth.”

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            You, obviously need to do some reading up on the words “critical thinking” because you are NOT coming across as a critical thinker. You’re coming across as a blithering idiot.

          • Doug73

            Guns are involved in many heinous crimes, too. Gun ownership is not victimless by any stretch of the imagination.

            (Do you see the flaws with this line of reasoning?)

            BTW, do you understand that drugs are involved in many heinous crimes precisely BECAUSE they’re illegal?? Prohibition rarely works; a fact economists have long known. And the “drugs cause crime” argument is a case of circular logic.

          • Wow!

            Guns stop other guns. Good guys fight bad guys. I have never seen a drug stop a person from an addiction.

            (Do you see the flaws with this line of reasoning?)

            BTW, do you understand that drugs are illegal because they are involved with crime? Legalizing crime rarely works, a fact law enforcement have long known. And “legalizing a crime to reduce the crime” argument is failed logic.

          • Michael

            I’ll say it again, educate yourself and stop spewing your worthless, mindless, irrational opinions

          • Wow!

            Great argument. You sure showed me.

          • Sliced Veggie

            There is a drug called Buprenorphine and it stops people’s addiction from opiates. Amazing substance that gives an addict a chance of a normal life.

            Also, SBR s are illegal, suppressors are illegal, machine guns are illegal. Yet, they can be legalized via tax stamp. But that never works, right?

            See what it boils down to? Money. That’s it. Legalized weed in Colorado worked brilliantly. Tax it and reap the rewards of those who want to use.

          • Wow!

            Buprenorphine is also very addictive. Replacing one drug with another. Bravo.

            Weapons are a Constitutional right, narcotics are not. Weapons can stop other weapons, but drugs don’t stop themselves.

            Yeah, legalize crime for money. Boy, that sounds like a great idea.

          • Sliced Veggie

            Seriously? Did you just Google that and find the first article that supported your view? Legalize crime? What the f. You realize the government is a business right? You realize that wash, or and Colorado have all legalized marajuana and taxed it and have reaped rewards from it right? You are saying crime equals smoking weed right? And you loosely swap words to make your point and are the definition of attacking the strawman.

          • Wow!

            If the government was in the business they would have legalized it and received the tax money, public safety be damned.

            Again, know your rights, don’t make them up.

          • ProudAmerican

            I know hundreds of patients who have weaned themselves off opioids by using MJ.

          • ProudAmerican

            Why “tax it”? Bureaucrats will just piss away more taxpayer money.

            Working people benefit when politicians and bureaucrats have LESS tax money, not more.

          • neoritter

            SBRs, suppressors, and machine guns are not illegal. If it was illegal you couldn’t own it, even with a special stamp. UNREGISTERED versions of those are illegal.

          • ProudAmerican

            “…do you understand that drugs are illegal because they are involved with crime?”

            Do you understand the meaning of “circular illogic”?

          • jack daugherty

            Wow! Your dumb! God gave man every seed bearing herb for food and medicine. If the gubmint ain’t selling it (heroin) or can’t tax it, it’s going to be illegal. Nuff of this bullshit, says I.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Heck I thought I was the only one on here that saw how DUMB “Wow!” is. I guess not. Congratulations, there are more then one of us that actually have figured it out.

          • Wow!

            Recreational use of narcotics isn’t medicine buddy. Do you really think God would want you using “the devils lettuce”? If you think that, have a good ol serving of this poison hemlock too.

          • Michael

            Ahh, now I see, you are an indoctrinated fool. Fine, i’ll use your logic. GOD made Cannabis, God made poison hemlock, god made apples. Since medical science has proven that cannabis does not kill us and in fact medicinal your argument is moot!

          • Wow!

            Wow, cannabis doesn’t kill us. What a great threshold of safety it reached.
            Doc: “Hey I got a bottle of pills for you to take”
            Patient: “What is it for?”
            Doc: “Well it hasn’t killed anyone yet”

          • Sliced Veggie

            It’s been proven you can’t overdose on weed. You CAN overdose on narcotics. This is a conversation about marajuana, not opiates or narcotics.

          • Wow!

            You don’t have to overdose on something for it to be damaging. It is basically impossible to die from marijuana, but it does cause neural damage. Your brain has plasticity so it can wire away from damaged nerve cells which is why it seems in the short term to not have lasting damage, but eventually you run out of untouched pathways which is why long term marijuana users suddenly change.

          • Sliced Veggie

            What? Ok, show me that research or article. I’ve never heard about this “sudden” change. I’ll believe it if I see it.

          • Wow!

            Go to CSAM under “public policy”.

          • neoritter

            It is entirely possible to overdose on weed, specifically using edibles.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Oh, so that’s it…it’s “The devils lettuce”. Well what did he feed you to fry your tiny lemming brain?

          • ProudAmerican

            Patients frequently self-treat with what is available recreationally. By carefully selecting what strains of marijuana they use, for example, depressed, anxious, and pain patients frequently self-medicate with recreational MJ thereby avoiding the prescription use of real narcotics like benzodiazepines and opiates, drugs that, unlike MJ, do kill.

            The more you “hold forth” with your zealotry, the more you reveal how bereft you are of knowledge and understanding.

            Your ignorance of medicine and constitutional law is an embarrassment for you…. or should be an embarrassment for you.

          • Wow!

            What is “gateway drug” for $100. Your claim isn’t supported by what we see in reality.

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Really? Name one crime that marijuana is involved in. And then I’ll tell you about all the crimes that guns are involved in. You have no common sense. PEOPLE do what PEOPLE do. And just because you’re so brain dead that you can’t see that making something illegal that actually in REALITY doesn’t harm anyone doesn’t make you right. God, people like you make me ill.

          • Wow!

            Tell me about crimes caused with guns and I will tell you about lives saved with guns. Then I will ask you about lives saved with marijuana…

          • Michael

            Now your stupid really comes out. You are just a frightened child who has been fed bullshit all your life and told that it is chocolate and so you believe it. Grow up, do some research and become educated!

          • Wow!

            Another award winning feat of mental prowess. You sure demonstrated your research and education.

          • Vince

            Mr Wow! never in the history of mankind has morality been enforced by law successfully. There was drug addiction in the USSR and Red China but they still had addicts. In many states consensual forms of sex between a man and his wife are unlawful!! Does not change a darn thing when the bedroom door closes nor should it. You can not legislate morality even if this was a moral issue which it is not.

          • Wow!

            Uh, it’s not about enforcing morality. Its about dealing with a threat to society. Is a bear an immoral force? No, but it still has to be put down if it is found in the wrong place.

          • ProudAmerican

            PROHIBITION is a “greater threat to society” than the herb you rail against.

            PROHIBITION KILLS & MAIMS:
            (1) denies cancer, seizure, and demyelinating disease patients life-saving medicine,
            (2) enables cops killing and/or maiming grandma, mom, and kids “serving” warrants at wrong addresses,
            (3) maiming the employability of people over a safe and efficacious herb.

          • Wow!

            1- In vitro.
            2- Listen to an order and you won’t be naturally selected away
            3- No one wants to hire a pothead.

          • ProudAmerican

            1. in VIVO (as my peer-reviewed citations attest)
            2. As if Baby Boo didn’t “follow orders”
            3. Only law enforcement wants to hire amoral, steroid-jacked candidates of sub-normal intelligence.

          • ProudAmerican

            And your imagined mental prowess is based on what?

            Sticking your head in the sand while ignoring over 20,000 peer-reviewed medical studies on marijuana!

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Thank you Michael. Another good description of “Wow!”

          • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

            Good argument, Mr. Rocket Scientist. Why don’t you go live where the totalitarian government is more overt. Instead of here where they try to pretend they are our friends. Why do YOU feel that you or anyone else has the right to tell me or anyone else what we can or cannot smoke, eat or drink? Huh? Try doing it to me without the “government” to back you up and I’d stick my size 15 in your face.

          • Vince

            Do you have any idea how many chemo therapy patients cannabis helps every year? 10’s of thousands every year. Not to mention pain patients and other topics.

          • Wow!

            Yeah, and tell me again about how many cannabis users are actually using it medically and not for recreation? Cannabis isn’t a first pick pain killer, it is a last resort because it causes nervous damage.

          • Sliced Veggie

            Look up the medicinal uses – the real medicinal uses and you might be shocked. Parkinsons, cancer, chronic pain, etc.

          • Wow!

            None of these medicinal uses aside from pain killing has been confirmed in peer reviews. Also note how it is for chronic pain. Marinol is a last resort option because it causes nervous damage over time.

          • Sliced Veggie

            Nobody is talking about marinol. Stay on subject.

            And yes – the other uses have. Like I’ve did, get out of your bubble and open your mind to the vast amount of research done on the subject.

          • ProudAmerican

            Rubbish. Firstly, it is amusing that your previous “no benefit” claim has morphed into “benefits pain but nothing else.” How callous are you that you allow pain control with DEADLY NARCOTICS, but disallow a safe herb?

            Secondly. Your gratuitous assertion is refuted by the reviews I cited at the beginning of the comments section. Seizure control is obtained with MJ when the usual anti-convulsants have failed. Nausea and vomiting have been controlled when the usual anti-emetics have failed. MRI studies in HUMANS have shown regression of multiple sclerosis plaques correlating with clinical improvement. Regression of the ravages of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (Crohn’s Disease, ulcerative colitis, etc.) is documented. Glaucoma is controlled. :

            University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
            cmcr.ucsd DOT edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf

            Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009. Hazecamp A and Grotenhermen F. Cannabinoids 2010;5(special issue):1-21.

            Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.

            Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine, 1999

            popularized in: Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.

          • Wow!

            Because there is this thing called a “side effect”. Take some hydrogen cyanide, it will end all illnesses known to man at the side effect of death.

          • ProudAmerican

            Your trajectory into the ridiculous is undeniable.

          • ProudAmerican

            As I cited above, comprehensive reviews by the National Association of Science Institute of Medicine, the UC San Diego Cannabis Research Center, and the AMA completely discredit your “no benefit” claim.

            Most honest readers will value the opinion of such professionals over your own gratuitous claims.

          • Wow!

            Yeah, and Bloomberg research says guns are the devil. Group’s research doesn’t override the consensus on marijuana, which is that right now, it only as a function as a pain killer, and a poor one at that due to the side effects.

          • ProudAmerican

            You are the guy who claimed guns and weed are different. Now that the peer-reviewed in vivo evidence of diverse benefits of marijuana has you cornered, you make a puerile non-sequitur about guns.

            Not just pain, but also seizures, cancer, vomiting, inflammatory bowel disease, demyelinative disorders, glaucoma, etc.

          • Michael

            Proof? show me the data, verifiable and repeatable data?

          • Blue Centurion

            I’ve been a LEO for over 30 years, and I can guarantee you that:

            1. Alcohol kills far more than weed does each and every year.
            2. The majority of home invasions in my jurisdiction are over the illicit marijuana trade.
            3. The arguments against legalization just do not add up, especially when we have someone overdosing on legally prescribed pain medication every 18 minutes in the USA.
            4. Our jails are full of prisoners who were busted one way or another due to Marijuana and we’re paying for them. Legalize and tax it.

          • Vince

            Amen!!

          • Sliced Veggie

            Real world knowledge? Get outta here with that logic…. Sheesh. 😉

          • Wow!

            -More people are hooked on alcohol than weed and you don’t have to die for something to be a serious problem.
            -Legalizing a crime, won’t stop crime. You assume that by legalizing marijuana the issues caused by marijuana will stop. The black market will only stop if legal drugs are cheaper than illicit (which is unlikely since people say to tax it). And then it doesn’t stop the actual problem that people under the influence of marijuana often act irrationally.
            -So because the prescription pain medications are an issue, we are going to compound the problem by adding another substance to the mix? The issue with prescription drugs is due to the fact that many people who can write a prescription don’t always know the best way to target pain, and that the patient can lie in order to obtain and abuse the medications in the first place. Fixing the way pharmaceuticals are issued does not mean anything about legalizing marijuana. Marinol is one of those last resort options, it does not replace existing pain killers.
            -Overcrowded prisons is no excuse to legalize a crime. That means two things, either we need to expand capacity, and/or we need a new method of rehabilitation. (Aside from the other issue that prisoners are often poorly segregated by the severity of their crimes)

          • ProudAmerican

            Right. Marijuana is such a danger that we have higher rates of incarceration than even the %^&*( Red Chinese.

            Go figure.

            Unfortunately, Wow’s zealotry is typical of what passes for thought in government circles.

          • Blue Centurion

            Your argument is overrated. You might as well buy more stock in Big Pharma although I would imagine your more interested in Anime than wall street. I’m stating fact based on experience, you are here to argue and get the last word. You failed…this is my last word.

          • Wow!

            “Overrated”. That is a new one. Hard to see how I failed when you had to resort to a personal attack. A weak one at that.

          • Jim Thatcher

            Or it means someone profits from making otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

          • Wow!

            When you break the law you are no longer law abiding buddy.

          • Jim Thatcher

            You need to wash the taste of boot out of your mouth and try to remember FREEDOM. The government has no legitimate power to regulate what I do with my body, therefore all laws doing so are illegitimate. Now what do we do with illegitimate laws? Ignore them, and fight back when confronted. Have a great day, I’m done with you troll.

          • ProudAmerican

            Why “tax it”? Why tax a plant?

            So that more pigs can feed at the trough of taxpayer dollars?

          • Blue Centurion

            Brilliant. Now go get yourself a tat that says “Born to be Thumped”.

          • Jim Thatcher

            Thank you!

          • Mystick

            …because the victims can’t go to the police. It drives an underground contraband economy. The same was seen after the Volstead Act and the enormous violent criminal activity generated by that prohibition on alcohol, which was eliminated with the repeal of the 18th Amendment and subsequent repeal of the Volstead Act. Prohibition of a popular substance always increases criminal activity outside the bounds of the trade in the proscribed substance.

          • Wow!

            You are using the same arguments democrats use to justify crime such as illegal aliens. You are assuming legalizing of crime will reduce it. If that is the case why are we not legalizing all kinds of crime like murders or human trafficking?

            Did lifting prohibition stop the gangs? No, they continued and just shifted to a new line of work. The only thing that subdued the era of gangsters was a new approach to law enforcement where information networks were made between LEAs so coverage of crimes went beyond a city’s borders.

            I can understand why you might think that way since we always say to legalize guns. The difference is that weapons are a Constitutional right (which is superior to federal and state law) and also that guns counter other guns by means of self defense, while narcotics only proliferate itself and don’t solve the problem.

          • ProudAmerican

            Your logic is severely deficient, hence the analogies you proffer are inapt.

          • Wow!

            Great refutation.

          • ProudAmerican

            The peer-reviewed, double-bind, crossover, in vivo studies refute your Reefer Madness zealotry.

          • Sliced Veggie

            Heinous crimes? Name one heinous crime marajuana was involved in and was the root cause. Just one. Also, remember, coincidence doesn’t not prove causality.

          • Wow!

            Law enforcement is all about coincidence because we can’t read minds. When you see a masked man running out of the bank with cash you don’t say “Boy, that upstanding citizen sure made a large withdrawal.” When patterns happen, it stops becoming just a coincidence. We call it getting a clue.

          • ProudAmerican

            Logic, puh-leez. You cannot cite evidence for causality. Some of the perpetrators of those “heinous crimes” were wearing black shoes. Do you claim that black shoes also “caused” the “heinous crimes”?

      • Klaus Von Schmitto

        I know right? She swore she was 18.

      • Johnboy70

        I agree and what is the name of the asian country that just kills you if you are caught with it.

        • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

          Whatever country that is, go live there if you like that kind of response to people committing no crime for all intents. SHOW ME THE VICTIM, I’ll show you a crime. No one is a victim if they do something and don’t harm anyone while doing it.

      • supergun

        Very true. But there are reasons for this when dealing with the 2nd Amendment. That is their back door to gun control.

    • Al Wise

      Yep.

    • int19h

      You’re not the only one. The most recent polls from April this year give support for unqualified (i.e. not just medical) legalization at 61%. And even more – 71% – believe that the federal government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating it either way, and should allow states to legalize or not as they see fit. 88% believe that it should be legal as a prescription drug.

      Federal non-interference is such a popular position, it’s the majority even for the Republicans (which is notable, because otherwise they are mostly still in favor of prohibition).

    • Flounder

      It is super stupid. But when was the last time a government made in their policies?

    • Marcus D.

      Marijuana is classified as the same level of dangerous drug as heroin, and that is why it carries the felony penalty. Further, despite much evidence that it is nowhere near as potent or harmful, the federal government/congress seems disinclined to change the law for any reason.

      • Chop Block

        Yes. While marijuana and heroin are schedule 1 drugs, cocaine is a schedule 2 drug.

        • Marcus D.

          Cocaine has well documented and long established medical uses, particularly in otolaryngology. At the time these laws were passed, heroin and marijuana did not. That is why they are classified differently.

      • Wow!

        Its not as harmful as heroin, but it still isn’t safe. Its like the caliber debate. A 22 is weaker than a 50BMG, but do you want to catch any of them? Also marijuana has different risks than heroin.

        • LouAnnWatson

          the weed of today is much more powerful that that of my youth

          • Vince

            I am 65 and can promise you this is not true. The power has not increased much since the 1980s. Even if it was true you just do less. Back in 1970 you smoked 2 joints. In 1985 you smoked two HITS and put the pipe away or you went to sleep!!

          • neoritter

            There’s been numerous comparisons of government controlled marijuana crops and marijuana that is being sold on the streets. The weed out in the “wild” is more potent than it was in the 60s and 70s.

      • Sliced Veggie

        No, no it’s not. Look up the federal controlled substances act.

    • It’s almost as if Congressmen who are heavily invested in the private, for-profit prison industry have a material interest in maintaining an archaic form of Prohibition which can be used as a federal blank check to lock up huge numbers of mostly poor and minority citizens for mala prohibida “crimes” which incidentally strip those citizens of federal financial benefits and fundamental civil rights like voting and armed self defense.

      • Darren Hruska

        Precisely. Furthermore, it appears that crime needs to exist to justify the existence, and thus funding, of federal “law enforcement” agencies, such as the BATFE. It not only benefits the prisons. So, what do you do when people aren’t committing actual crimes (murder, assault, rape, theft, vandalism, etc)? You create more criminals out of mundane crap. “Crime fighters” become “crime protectors” when the lack of crime threatens their revenue.

        • LouAnnWatson

          yeah none of those dealers carry illegal guns…check the murder rate in chicago. i bet nearly everyone of those shooters smokes weed and carries an illegal weapon

          • Rogertc1

            Agree

        • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

          From Atlas Shrugged: “Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

          • Jim Thatcher

            A beautiful quote, and accurate. It seems that is the current state of affairs here in the US. Anyone interested in learning more should read “Five Felonies a Day” by Harvey Silverglate

      • Wow!

        Your tin foil hat is on a little too tight. Weapons are a Constitutional right. Narcotics are not. The founding fathers wanted armed and clear thinking populations. Not high populations enslaved to chemicals.

        Voting was not made a right by the founding fathers because the vote should only belong to people invested and educated about the country. By letting universal suffrage, they feared politicians would promise bribes in return for votes, which is exactly what you see left wing politicians doing today.

        • Ha ha wow, dude, you get many people willing to come right out and out themselves by arguing against universal suffrage like that– gg, G.

          • ProudAmerican

            Hmmmm… I’d be willing to disenfranchise EVERYONE who feeds at the taxpayer’s trough. They have too much self-interest to “do the right thing” for the nation.

          • gabriel brack

            Disabled veterans and retired service members?

          • ProudAmerican

            Do they receive government checks?

          • gabriel brack

            So you believe those that have served this country shouldn’t have a vote?

          • ProudAmerican

            I believe that anyone who receives a government paycheck has a “conflict of interest” to propagate their cash flow at the expense of taxpayers. Being on the dole provides support. Their vote is necessary to their survival.

            Besides. there is the question whether or not fighting banksters’ wars is “serving the country.”

          • gabriel brack

            Disabled vets are “exceptions” to the constitution? The ones that put their lives on the line to defend it shouldn’t be afforded its protection when they are injured during their service to it? Or retired after dedicating the majority of their lives serving it? You are a piece of work.

          • ProudAmerican

            You beg the question. Is fighting banksters’ wars “serving” the nation?

          • ProudAmerican

            How do drone attacks from a comfy desk 4,000 miles from the wedding party (including non-combatant women and children) being bombed constitute “putting their lives on the line”?

          • gabriel brack

            Well to be honest, I think the drone program is more trouble than it’s worth. But I was referring to the service members injured by direct combat. Or those injured and killed in insider attacks. Guys like Travis mills, a quadruple amputee due to injuries sustained in combat. You think he shouldn’t be able to vote because he gets a check from the government?

          • ProudAmerican

            Asked and answered.

          • Wow!

            Universal suffrage is a relatively new thing. The founding fathers did not establish that for a reason because people who are poor can have their vote bribed, and non-citizens have no right to the political destiny of our country.

        • ProudAmerican

          Your medical knowledge is vintage 1930’s…almost as bad as your recollection of the wording of the 10th Amendment.

          MJ does NOT meet the criteria for addiction.

          That said, people like you are trying to redefine addiction (and related terms), so they can continue to profit from arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating PATIENTS and recreational users of a substance that CANNOT kill, has NO physical withdrawal, and has accumulated solid evidence of diverse medical benefits—benefits that are unmatched by standard allopathic approved drugs.

          Meanwhile the enforcers of stupid MJ laws make deals with the cartels who deal not only in MJ but in deadly drugs.

          As I said, “both sides of the street,” profitable for the people in government costumes on one-side of the street (machine guns, helicopters, big budgets) and on the other-side of the street (sell dope directly, kickbacks from cartels, etc.).

          • Wow!

            Funny because there isn’t a “criteria” for addiction according to the DSM and there aren’t any confirmed medical benefits. There is a lot of research, but none can replicate findings consistently in peer reviews.

            And yet the addictive symptoms are still there. americanaddictioncenters(.)org/marijuana-rehab/is-it-addictive/

            Nice appeal to conspiracy theories though.

          • ProudAmerican

            As for your easily dispatched claim that MJ has no proven medical uses, there is a mountain of evidence against you. Start with the 1999 National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine Medicine report “Marijuana and medicine: assessing the science base.” See also the reports by the University of California, San Diego, Center For Medicinal Cannabis Research.

          • ProudAmerican

            DSM is a compilation of fantasies that pathologizes nearly the entire range of human existence, except perversion. Addiction is a non-psychiatric syndrome, so you have looked in the wrong place.

            Definition of addiction
            merriam-webster DOT com/dictionary/addiction

            1 : the quality or state of being addicted addiction to reading

            2 : compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (such as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawall; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

          • Wow!

            Outdated, and a single report is not proof of anything. Anyone can say anything when published. The key is if others can duplicate findings. So far this has not been done.

          • ProudAmerican

            Honest readers here may verify for themselves the conclusions of the reviews I have cited. Meanwhile, you have cited not even a single peer-reviewed study.

            You are so desperate and so bereft of medical support that you have now descended below mere ignorance, hysteria, and logical fallacy, but into outright dishonesty. The reviews cite bibliographies that corroborate each other. That is what a review study does. It reviews where studies agree and disagree.

          • ProudAmerican

            Despite immense institutional hostility and prejudice, over 20,000 peer-reviewed medical studies document that marijuana is safer than any common over-the-counter medicine, safer than aspirin, safer than Tylenol, far safer than alcohol, far safer than any allopathic drug prescribed. Cannabis reduces pain, nausea, and wasting, but research also suggests curative effects in a variety of medical conditions.

            As far back as 1988, after an extensive review of the research, the DEA’s own chief administrative judge Francis L. Young concluded: “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known.” The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine found similarly. The DEA ignored the research. In 2010, at least 15 double-blind crossover studies, the Gold Standard of research, are among the 20,000 studies showing the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis and NO evidence it causes cancer—more supportive research for marijuana than any drug ever approved by the FDA! In 2009, forced by the overwhelming weight of research evidence, the American Medical Association overcame its previous hostility to support “that marijuana’s status as a federal Schedule I controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines.” The supportive 2010 University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research Report to the Legislature also demonstrates numerous benefits and safety of marijuana.

            Primarily because of irrational marijuana laws, America has more people behind bars per capita than Red China! The current black market status of marijuana denies patients safe access to a useful medicine, but profits only drug cartels, the prison industry, and wastes enormous law enforcement resources, your money. We can no longer afford to keep such a safe and useful drug illegal.

          • Wow!

            It is NOT SAFER. It is less toxic. You should read sources yourself rather than copy pasting from pro marijuana lobbies. There is a key difference. It is very difficult to die from cannabis, but it does still cause damage. It’s only possible use is currently as a pain killer, and right now that is still considered a last resort because you are trading pain relief for nervous damage.

            Cannabis doesn’t cause cancer as is, but ANY smoke can cause pulmonary failure which can lead to cancer.

            And again, people incriminated means nothing. Legalizing crime because you encounter crime is idiotic.

          • ProudAmerican

            Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam)

            Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.

            Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – “I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false.”

            Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore; sometimes confused with proof by assertion

            Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

          • ProudAmerican

            Definition of addiction merriam-websterDOT com/dictionary/addiction
            1: the quality or state of being addicted addiction to reading

            2: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (such as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

          • Wow!

            “…persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful.”

            Look up the symptoms of marijuana withdrawal.

          • ProudAmerican

            There is no physical withdrawal from MJ, hence “not addictive” by accepted MEDICAL standards. Of course, enthusiasts of government force are happy to re-define anything as long as it suits the control agenda.

          • Rob in Katy

            I found stopping cigarettes much more difficult than just stopping MJ. Never woke up dreaming of smoking a joint, but boy, it was a year of waking up in the middle of the night looking for the cigarette that I dreamt I dropped.

          • Sliced Veggie

            Omg. There are ample proven medical benefits. Talk to a cancer, pain or any medical research specialist about the benefits. You’ll be enlightened.

          • Wow!

            Its a chronic pain killer and that is about it. You trade relief for nervous damage. Research isn’t the same as practice.

      • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

        Almost as if? I bet if you look closely there is no doubt about it.

      • ProudAmerican

        …and govt agencies that “work both sides of the street” for black ops money.

    • James Young

      Did you just make the point that weed should be legal and then compare it to things that cause irreparable harm to people? So if I’m following the logic…we have legal drugs that kill people, so why not make another easily and socially acceptable to everyone, so…more DUIs and more lung cancer.

      Hmm, may want to reconsider your approach to making points. But look, you got tons of up votes regardless.

      • Wow!

        Agreed. Its like saying that I’ll take a 22lr to the face because it is weaker than a 50 caliber.

        • Cactus Air Force

          I would say we’re already taking a 22lr to the face, every single day.

          Tobacco kills around 480,000 people in the US each year, and alcohol and related incidents kills 90,000, according to the CDC. In 2006 the CDC estimated the society cost of alcohol related incidents to be 221.5 billion dollars.

          The DEA Drug Fact Sheet states that there has never been a recorded case of death from Marijuana toxicity alone, so we must look at associated deaths instead. The only place, and I mean the only place, I could find ANY numbers were from the Family Policy website, which quoted as “According to well-publicized FOIA responses, from 1997 to 2005 the FDA recorded 279 marijuana-related deaths–long before Colorado voters decided to legalize the drug.” Its a bit outdated, but it’s a figure.

          So 279 over ten years, vs 570,000 each year. And both Alcohol and Tobacco have no societal use other than recreation, whereas marijuana has a medical use. Regardless of how minimal you believe the medical utility of marijuana may be – there is a use.

          Your argument is the equivalent of people who want to ban firearms because of mass shootings and gang violence. We take risks in America to ensure the greatest degree of freedom. Marijuana should be legal, and those incarcerated due to marijuana related crimes should be given restitution.

          • Wow!

            So because pharmaceuticals are a problem, should compound it with another problem? You don’t have to pick one or the other. You can still get pharmaceutical reformation without legalizing marijuana. They are two separate issues.

            Firearms are a Constiutional right. Marijuana is not. Firearms give people freedom by right of defense. Narcotics steal that freedom by disrupting the mind. Legalizing crime is not freedom, that is anarchy. And things don’t have to kill you to be harmful.

        • Sliced Veggie

          Actually, no, it’s not. Not at all.

          • Wow!

            Actually, yes, it is. Completely.

      • Sliced Veggie

        So, uh, you know weed doesn’t cause lung cancer right? Hopefully you were referring to cigarettes. Also, slippery slope you got there…

    • Paul Rain

      No. It isn’t.

      Here’s why. Smoking weed doesn’t make you a bad person, but A LOT of bad people smoke weed.

      Hence, by selectively enforcing laws against weed, cops can take a lot of s**tbirds off the street. This is why most people who talk about ‘nonviolent drug offenders’ getting long prison sentences need to shut the hell up.

      There is an alternative to criminalizing weed- get rid of the federal government interference in local law enforcement*, get rid of the pansy ass judges, and empower cops to “administer instant punishment” (in the words of the great libertarian Murray Rothbard).

      Personally, that sounds better to me. Until then- we need laws against drugs.

      * i.e. the entire DOJ

      • gusto

        So you Paul want judge dredd basically?

        • Paul Rain

          Nah bro. I _want_ Mayberry. Having the police be allowed to target criminals regardless of any nonsense about ‘disparate impact’ is how you get Mayberry.

      • Hilmer Lindberg

        Did you just quote Rothbard and promote granting government even more arbitrary powers in the same post? Lol. What the actual f.

        Also, by the same logic, 100% of rapists and murderers consume oxygen. Why not make that illegal? Then local law enforcement would be even less hindered in their righteous and all knowing crusade against sh**birds. They could just “selectively enforce” that law, you know.

        Seriously, have you only ever read that sole paragraph of Rothbard?

        • Peter

          Hell yes, I am in favor of banning oxygen for rapists and murderers.

          • Sunshine_Shooter

            Missed it by a mile.

          • Joshua

            not sure, that may have been the point, if it wasn’t though then it’s even funnier

        • Wow!

          Seriously? You are comparing oxygen to marijuana?

          • Nicks87

            Anime and guns? Maybe you should try smoking weed, you might make some friends and maybe even have sex for the first time.

          • Wow!

            Even though it is called Mary Jane, trying to impregnate your hand under the influence still isn’t sex.

          • 9niner

            My hand had to go buy plan B form the store. Condom broke

      • This is the stupidest comment I have ever read on this website.

        • DangerousClown

          By “this website”, do you actually mean “the entire internets”?

      • Bradley

        That is the most delusional justification I have ever heard, and that is saying something.

      • TheScrutineer

        Man you just pulled this one straight from your ass. I bet you thought this looked well thought out when you separated your sentences into distinct paragraphs.

      • Nicks87

        “administer instant punishment” WTF? I hope you aren’t serious.

      • Sliced Veggie

        I can’t believe 2 people upvoted that comment.

        • Paul Rain

          I can’t believe someone considers my weed, dude, more important than the safety of the community.

    • Rogertc1

      Move to a State that allows pot. Marijuana is a gateway drug.

      • Bradley

        No, it is not. That’s been proven statistically dubious.

        • Rogertc1

          Afraid too many studies proving it is a gateway drug. NIDA and the NY Times. Sorry.

          • Sunshine_Shooter

            Look at articles in the NY Times about fully semi-automatic, military-style AR-15s, and then tell me that the NY Times is completely biased and 100% knowledgeably about the subject.

          • Rogertc1

            You may google it if you want. I have no desire to. I said marijuana is a gateway drug. I’ve got / assembled 10 AR15’s now. Really fun to do. All in all marijuana is a felon in the USA. I have no desire to give up my gun and voting rights and go to prison..

          • Nicks87

            Good boy, good little doggie. Just keep doing what your masters tell you.

          • Sliced Veggie

            Huh? Are you sure you’re not smoking?

          • 9niner

            AR-15s are a gateway drug. Marijuana is not

          • Rogertc1

            A15 are federally and state legal for me.

          • Joshua

            they are completely biased, that’s the problem, if they were UN-biased, than we’d be getting somewhere

          • Wow!

            Correct, but NIDA is still good, and the rest of the medical community reflects the same opinion that marijuana is a gateway drug. Most also are very skeptical about the medicinal uses of cannabinoids since most findings supporting the benefits can’t be replicated consistently in peer reviews.

          • Nicks87

            Booze and pills are much better right?

          • ProudAmerican

            Repeating your errors over and over again does not bolster your long-ago-discredited claims.

          • Scott Willbanks

            I think you forgot the /sarc tag

          • Kurt

            Are you really quoting NIDA and the NY Times,,,, No I am sorry for you

          • Wow!

            I don’t trust NY Times, but the NIDA is reputable, and the medical community reflects their stance. Marijuana is a gateway drug. You do not want to be taking it.

          • ProudAmerican

            Who are you kidding? NIDA is just another bureaucratic satrapy that pimps junk self-referential “science” and cherry-picks out-of-context fragments to perpetuate itself and bloat its budget.

            The New York Times is… well… good manners prevents me from speaking clearly on that.

          • Vince

            I have seen the studies. Basically if you did cannabis before heroin they call it gateway. They do not ask did you do caffeine? Did you do alcohol? Did you do KoolAid?

          • ProudAmerican

            PROHIBITION exposes consumers to CRIMINALS who are the “gateway” to other drugs.

          • Rogertc1

            SO ONE IS ADVISED NOT TO TRY TO BUY ILLEGAL DRUGS?

        • Wow!

          “Statistically dubious”? lol. Sorry buddy but marijuana is considered a gateway drug and that is accepted throughout the medical community.

          • ProudAmerican

            Excuuuse me. You do NOT speak for the medical community on these topics.

            You have been wrong about the accepted definitions of addiction and narcotic. You are ignorant of the peer-reviewed medical literature on MJ. You have a child’s understanding of homeostasis and pharmacology. You are utterly incompetent to opine on these matters.

            What ever you personally “consider,” PROHIBITION exposes consumers to CRIMINALS who are the “gateway” to other drugs.

        • LouAnnWatson

          practically everyone i know that smoked weed didn’t stop there…

          • Vince

            Practically every one I knew that did pot no longer does which is statistically true.

          • Sliced Veggie

            Anecdotal ‘evidence’ doesn’t mean a thing miss louann.

      • DangerousClown

        A gateway to good times.

      • Nicks87

        A gateway to relaxation and fun.

      • Vince

        Proven wrong

      • ProudAmerican

        PROHIBITION exposes consumers to CRIMINALS who are the gateway to other drugs.

    • RazorHawk

      Weed makes men effeminate, it also shrinks your brain, it slows down your reaction time, causing motor vehicle accidents.

      It is also hallucinogenic, people have been known to commit murder while under the influence of weed.

      Face it, weed is a mind altering drug.

      Just because other mind altering drugs aren’t illegal does not mean weed should be legal.

      • Nicks87

        All total BS. That is the same garbage propaganda that racist, white, rich people were peddling in the 1930s. It’s all been debunked. Weed is less harmful to your mind and body than sugar is.

      • Vince

        ALL BS. No you should not drive on it or any other drug but, again drunk drivers kill many times more people and it is legal.

      • neoritter

        Inhibits testosterone levels and sperm production too.

    • supergun

      I agree with you. I don’t smoke or drink. But to tie the 2nd Amendment up like this is a Constitutional tragedy. We have allowed a group of half~wits to trample on the 2nd Amendment.

    • Jones6789

      I think that all drugs should be legalized, my thought process is that a majority of users do it because it is illegal. also evolution will start to weed (no pun intended) out the weak and addiction prone. I have heard of people that simply don’t get addicted due to chemical and physiological make up of their systems, that have tried pretty much the big three or four and simply get tired of it and stop. if it was legal then treatment centers and plans would abound due to the market. People wouldn’t be stigmatized by the criminal aspect and would obtain treatment. I am most likely wrong but it would stop the Trillions of Dollars wasted by all parties , governments, people, cartels, etc. prohibition didn’t work, and we are insane to thing what we are doing now will stop anything

    • If people could overdose on marijuana, well… there’s a reason it’s illegal. My state has legalized recreational use for anyone of drinking age 21+. I get a little anxious on the roads now because I don’t know who’s driving around high as a kite. Yes, it’s illegal to smoke and drive (cops treat it like a DUI), but how many still do it? Weed is a gateway drug. I used to hang around friends who smoked a lot, and more than one went on to harder drugs like coke and pills. Also, would you want your airline pilot burning one before he takes you on a flight? How many crimes are committed by marijuana users? It’s not ‘harmless’ it effects everyone differently.

      • Vince

        People did not start using cannabis because it became legal. The vast majority already were. If you are nervous now you should have been just as nervous before…

        • True, but now those who were discouraged from regular use, can now do it with impunity, and where I live in the Portland/Metro area, there’s a lot more of it going on. I can’t think of any other time, outside a party, where I can see folks openly doing pot (or smell it). Now the only things that would discourage use is your own morals/convictions, or the lack of $.

      • Sliced Veggie

        Ok… How many people are drunk and driving? You think people are just going to throw all reason out the window because something gets legalized? You think pilots are just going to start burning one before every flight? What is wrong with you people. Knock it off with the logical fallacies(slippery slope anyone?) . By your same logic, the other side of the fence is pushing AGAINST FIREARMS for your same reasoning! They think you are going to shoot up a store just because you have a gun. Now will you? Of course not. Just because weed or booze is legal, it doesnt mean that people will all of a sudden turn full stupid and go off the deep end. What is wrong with your guys logic. It’s like it goes out the window once something you don’t believe in comes up

    • Chaz Spaulding

      I agree Paris. I used to smoke the stuff many years ago. However, I think it’s a waste of time and money. But the law is an ass in this case.

    • ozzallos .

      Alright, I’ll bite. Talk to anybody who lives in a legalized marijuana city. Somebody who isn’t invested one way or the other in the topic. I’ve never heard good things come out of those conversations and in the end there’s still illegal marijuana traffic because if the golden sin tax cash cow.

    • Archie Montgomery

      Like it or not, agree or not, logical or not, and despite conspiracy theories of all manner, the action is illegal and has legal penalties. Much like objecting to the speed limits; going over the limit gets attention.

  • The Mystic Seer

    oh these millennials and there moona-juana.

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      Oh those Baby Boomers, and their draconian prohibition laws that make no sense.

      • Wow!

        Take a look at the damage narcotics cause and tell me again if it makes no sense. We have a right to weapons, not to narcotics for a reason.

        • Sliced Veggie

          We? Who are you including in your we? It can’t be very many people based on your previous comments.

          • Wow!

            We as in Americans, citizens to the US of A that hold certain rights outlined in our supreme law. I guess you are not an American.

      • Vince

        Being 65 I am absolutely a boomer and am all for legalization even though I do not use.

    • You realize that american drug culture really blossomed with the baby boomers, right? You are the generation of Cheech and Chong.

  • LazyReader

    Hasn’t made any videos in a year…………

    • Marcus D.

      Maybe he’s been too stoned.

    • Maybe he spent it all in one place. Douchenozzle + guns + video camera was a hella lucrative equation until Yootoob politicked the revenue stream out from under him, along with all the good firearm content creators.

      • SP mclaughlin

        His activity has been that dead for a while, before YouTube got ruined by sjws.

      • Wow!

        Personally youtube was not intended as a job. It was a way for people to just share videos. “Broadcast yourself”. The best youtubers I have watched don’t do it for a job, but just to spread education or their brand of entertainment. I have no qualms with reducing revenue, I just ad block. The only thing I don’t like about youtube is their PC censorship campaign.

        • Sliced Veggie

          So now you don’t care about people’s income? It’s ok if you make the choice but other people can’t make their own choices? You’re an interesting fellow.

          • Wow!

            Youtube owns their own company. They can “fire” or reduce wages as they like according to the contract YOU agreed to when making an account. Sorry, this isn’t communism where a salary or assets are issued with regularity by the government.

  • Remember, marijuana isn’t “legal” it’s decriminalized.

    It cannot be legal if it is still a federal crime.

    • Chop Block

      It’s not even decriminalized in Georgia.

      • True.

        It’s just a pet peeve of mine when they say it’s “legal” in Co or other decriminalized places.

        Keep calling it “legal” and people may not realize that the ATF will gladly throw you away for incorrectly filling out a 4473 or trying to purchase a firearm even though you are a prohibited person.

        • Chop Block

          It’s also not accurate to say that it is decriminalized in states like Colorado. It is still a crime under federal law and it is perfectly legal under state law. What “decriminalized” means is when a state passes a law that removes criminal penalties, usually for small quantities, but there are still civil penalties (fines).

    • BeGe1

      Actually both terms are just as wrong. It’s not “decriminalized” when you remove one set of criminal restrictions while others (the federal ones) are still in place.

      I mean, I don’t care. Legalize, don’t, whatever. But the language most people use to describe the situation is completely nonsensical and results in a lot of confusion.

      Would I say that buying a suppressor without a tax stamp is “decriminalized” just because my state removed any suppressor laws it had on top of the federal ones? No…that would make no sense, because the federal laws never changed, and it’s still a criminal act federally.

      • Vince

        What did change is the real cost. When the law was passed most people could not afford a $200 tax stamp so it effectively banned suppressor. Inflation made them affordable.

  • “Charismatic”?

    Really?

  • Darren Hruska

    Many figure that it’s only THC oil, if not CBD oil, he possessed. The only thing more ludicrous Kyle’s YouTube antics is his arrest.

  • Edeco

    I liked when he had a chicked eating seed on his lap as a form of torture.

    Also the footage of him getting buzzed by a shard of toilet is amazing. I thought maybe CGI but I don’t want to think that now.

  • James Young

    Yeah, as gun owners it’s generally advised to avoid doing things that make it so you can no longer be a gun owner.

  • Rogertc1

    Do not obey the laws. Get caught and go to Jail. Tough.

    • Duro Sig

      drink all the booze you want this weekend and wreck your liver and make bad choices. god forbid you partake in the ingestion of a plant though.

      • Rogertc1

        Bet you don’t have a CDL making a living smoking pot. Could fail a lot of drug screening. Not everyone drinks booze all week end. A poor assumption. Marijuana is a proven gateway drug and Federally illegal.

        • Official Asyl

          Just because its federally illegal doesn’t mean its right. No law determines what is or isn’t right. It is moral based, and the only reason that the drug is still illegal is because its not on the top priorities list for government reform. You see stoned drivers every day, weather you are aware of them or not. Same as drunks. Just because someone is stoned, it doesn’t make them null to everything, but im sure that from a lack of experience, you know how the plant affects individuals the same way. Do you even do research? Did you know there are 3 primary types of the plant? Including well over 700 known strains of the plant, where we can extract only the CBD (which is legal in all 50 states) or the THC ( the illegal portion)
          Weed consists of actual science, to why it alters the body in different ways, with different percentages of each chemical. CBD can be used for nerve damage pain relief, some of the sharpest pains you can have, and it stuns the growth of tumors. They make CBD pain rub and other things. I saw your other comment talking about lung cancer, but it can also be used in edibles. Which also causes a completely different reaction in the body, (mostly with THC) Your points are invalid when you choose to not present facts and only talk of research that is growing outdated or biased. Just because it is negative when some people use it, doesn’t mean its that way for everyone, such as it is with alcohol.

          • Wow!

            Yeah, and how many potheads are taking it because no other pain killer will work for them? Don’t bs, we all know that the overwhelming majority of MJ users are recreational, not medicinal.

            Cannabis is like a hemispherectomy. It is a last resort option trading one kind of damage for another.

        • DangerousClown

          “Proven gateway”? Please cite a reliable source.

        • Chop Block

          A 15″ long rifle barrel is also federally illegal without paying the Crown its bribe. That doesn’t make you a bad person for having one. Alcohol was federally illegal, didn’t made it right or good policy.

        • Sliced Veggie

          Dude, stop. Just stop.

    • Tom

      Didn’t have to scroll to far to find the indoctrinated DARE student

    • ANTI-ROGER

      What a joke… Our laws are incorrect. Marijuana is a schedule one drug while heroin is a schedule 2. Our laws say marijuana is the most dangerous category of drugs yet it has never killed a single person by over dosing. Roger I am as hard core of a republican as you can get but youre an idiot. Even Trey Gowdy aligns with my views. Educate yourself instead of being for the incarceration of a whole generation for a plant.

      • RazorHawk

        Uh, no people have already died from eating marijuana cookies,

        they ODed on a cookie for crying out loud!

        ODs are real with pot and all mind altering drugs.

      • Wow!

        Water hemlock is a plant… does that mean you are going to consume it? Saying it has never killed anyone is an awfully weak argument. Things don’t have to kill you to hurt you. Could you imagine a doctor handing you a bottle of pills and when you ask what it is for, he just says “well no one has died yet”.

    • Sho Rembo

      Obviously you have contempt for Freedom and Liberty. I’m sure you will so “No way”. Then answer me this….

      How Free can you be when another human can tell you what you can put into your own body?

      I’m sure you’ll have to have a few beers or shots to think about it, since alcohol is so much safer. But watch out, alcohol is a gateway drug.

      • RazorHawk

        What? you mean you want meth to be legal or the other mind altering drugs?

        Cause your argument works not just for pot.

        • Sho Rembo

          Correct. It’s called”personal responsibility”. It’s part of what this country was founded on, a Republic.

          • Vince

            Obviously being illegal has not stopped speed freaks now has it? Can not legislate morality.

      • Wow!

        Freedom is established by the rule of law. You have no right to narcotics like we do with weapons. Freedom is not free of rules, that is anarchy. The founding fathers wanted clear thinking individuals, not people enslaved to their addiction.

        • Sho Rembo

          The founding fathers were quite fond of marijuana

          • Wow!

            That is an internet myth. Marijuana was not known to them. They grew hemp which was a useful construction material from paper industries, to ropes, textiles etc. It was a multipurpose crop for utility, not for getting dumber than a rock.

          • Silence Dogood

            That’s a myth started by Marxists. Are you that uninformed???

      • Vince

        Not to mention contempt for the Bible which does tell us God put all plants here for our use!!

    • BeGe1

      Ok…I’m pretty sure that even if we made pot federally legal that it would still be illegal for CDL drivers to get stoned and go driving. You’re kinda using some big logical fallacies there.

      Note, I don’t have a dog in the marijuana fight either way. It’s just not a topic I care about. But that’s just bad logic…and I don’t like bad logic.

      • Sliced Veggie

        Yeah. There is some SERIOUSLY bad logic on this thread. It’s like someone took the list of logical fallacies and wrote them out in the comments.
        I’m with you, I don’t much care either way, but think about what you are saying people. This whole thread is a giant slippery slope.

    • Sliced Veggie

      Wtf, stoned cdl Driver’s? Man, you are out in left field. Come to think of it You think your fellow cdl drivers ARENT stoned or Poppin pills or drinking booze? You’re sitting pretty high and mighty aren’t ya.

  • Carlos Velazquez

    The reason weed is illegal at the federal level is because of money. If weed was legal at the federal level, this is what would happen. The DEA’s budget would be cut, the pharmaceutical industry would lose money, and for profit prisons will lose money. The last two means there will be less kickback money to bribe politicians with.

  • Duro Sig

    It all boils down to corruption and money. Take the Prison guard and police unions for example; they have fought tooth and nail to keep marijuana from being legalized…that’s just one small example. We may live in a great country, but there are still many issues that make us not as free as we think we are.

    • Wow!

      Corruption and money is in environmentalism. There is very little money to be made in law enforcement.

  • Arthur Longeno Pavis Jr

    My question is was Trump colluding? LOL

  • Matt

    Politics not guns

  • nejesquire

    I practice criminal defense law in Georgia. Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, by itself, is not a felony in the state. Additional, if it is a first offense he could use a Conditional Discharge, which would result in fines, probation, and various other requirements, the completion of which would result is a dismissal of the case with no conviction. If he had used his CD before, he could still use First Offender, which works much the same way and results in a “restriction” (there is no actual conviction and the record is restricted to only law enforcement being able to see it on a criminal record).

    I think there is more to this story than we know, so I won’t speculate on what kept him in jail for 2 days, but I will say that while the state is no friend to recreational marijuana users, I’m glad it has the decency to at least have these two options available (for now).

    • Veteran for Trump

      If the less than 1 ounce is not a Felony, and the person is not charged under Federal Law, would the the State even report the arrest to NICS?

      • nejesquire

        The arrest? Probably not. An actual conviction? Most likely.

        • Veteran for Trump

          Well, I looked up the penalty for misdemeanor possession of less than one ounce, up to one year incarceration and/or up to $1000 fine.
          Federal Law says a Prohibited Person: a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment EXCEEDING one year.
          So if that is the case, he would be under the wire by one day. And technically would not have to be reported to NICS?
          But now if he is found to be a continuous user, “a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance”, no more guns.

          • nejesquire

            Again though, that’s just for a conviction on a simple possession. His problem is that, at least according to the forum, it’s also an arrest for ordering oil through the mail, and that ramps things up significantly. I sincerely hope that he takes the time and money to be represented by competent counsel!

  • fishydude

    End federal prohibition. It only benefits organized crime, corrupt politicians and the incarceration industry.

  • Gun Fu Guru

    I thought if he was going to be arrested that it would have been for murder.

  • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

    “And, of course, if he pleads guilty to any drug related offense, he would be barred from buying guns, no matter how minor the offense.”

    Wait what? Do you have some federal code to back that assertion up?

    Convictions for misdemeanor drug offences are not prohibiting.

    The 4473 asks if you are an unlawful user. If you are not currently using, even with a previous conviction, you are no longer an unlawful user.

    • Chop Block

      Refer to the link in the article, towards the end. The link text is “reasonable cause to believe”. It references an ATF letter defining their position. The short of it is that they believe any use to be “unlawful” even if it is accompanied by a state issued medical marijuana card. While your NICS check might come back clean (I really have no idea) any drug conviction, no matter how minor, is viewed by the BATF as being an “unlawful user”. Of course, it can be argued that you are not a current user. Regardless, it is a moot point because they don’t currently seem to be interested in prosecuting.

      • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

        Current users in legal states or with medical recommendations are unlawful users. I understand that and have no issue with it (apart from a general opposition to the prohibition of marijuana to begin with).

        But having used, been convicted, and then going clean IS NOT a prohibiting offence. Period. Otherwise NICS would come back negative. And then the BATFE would be violating 2A rights based on non-prohibiting misdemeanors.

        You can’t just take someones rights away because at some point in their history they used drugs and got convicted of a misdemeanor. That’s not how the system works.

        That’s why I asked for the federal code. The BATFE doesn’t get to determine what convictions make someone a prohibited person, federal law does. For example, generally you have to be a felon in order to lose your gun rights, except for the law that makes misdemeanor domestic violence convictions prohibiting.

        So what law was passed, and when, that makes prohibited persons from non-violent misdemeanor drug convictions?

  • Georgia law does not make possession of small amounts of marijuana a felony. In Georgia, FPSRussia would have had to possess more than one ounce (28 grams) of marijuana for the offense to be considered a felony. Since he was in jail for only 2 days it is most likely this was a misdemeanor charge not a felony.

    Possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor under O.C.G.A. § 16-13-2(b), punishable by a term of incarceration of not more than 12 months or a fine not to exceed $1,000, or both, or public works not to exceed 12 months. Possession of more than 1 ounce is a felony, punishable by a term of incarceration of between 1 and 10 years.

    A conviction for possessing marijuana might make him subject to prosecution under 18 U.S. Code 922 (g), which prohibits users/adicts of controlled substances from possessing firearms. However, it is extremely rare for a U.S. Attorney to prosecute a case for simple possession – even with harder drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, or heroin. Typically there has to be some other aggravating circumstance for the Feds to take a case under this portion of the U.S. Code.

  • GhostTrain81

    Being melanin-light he’ll probably just get community service.

  • Matt Taylor

    “In jail for two days… no details. Could be this though, what ya’ll think?”

    Journalism at it’s finest.

  • The Punisher

    Another reliable “bend over and take it” article from TFB…

    And queue the Statist sympathizers in 3…2…1…

    • Wow!

      Gun control is statism. Drug enforcement is not. Weapons are a right, drugs are not.

      • The Punisher

        Actually you are wrong. People have the freedom to put whatever they want in their body. As long as they cause no harm to anyone else that is not in the State’s or anyone else’s purview.

        If I am wrong and you are correct then you should have no problem with not only drug prohibition or gun control, but also alcohol prohibition. And while we’re at it you should have no problem with the mayor of New York wanting to ban Big Gulp soft drinks, after all, those are much more deadly over time than probably any amount of marijuana.

        The fact is that if you say that the State has any power of regulation over any physical thing or action outside of actual crimes that have a victim then you have stepped over the bounds into tyranny and statism.

  • imtoomuch

    Saw what you’d like, but a law is a law. And if he was willing to risk his YouTube fame and career for a little weed well then he deserves to lose everything.

  • Wow!

    It is not the same thing. Guns (and weapons in general) are a Constitutional right. Narcotics are not. The founding fathers wanted armed and clear thinking populations, not high citizens who can be enslaved by their addiction.

    • hahaha

      Maybe do a little research on how many of the
      Founding Fathers grew cannabis and tobacco on their plantations and ran their own breweries and distilleries.

      • Sliced Veggie

        Also, not sure he realizes that marajuana isn’t a narcotic…

        • Wow!

          Not sure that you know what a narcotic is.

          • Sliced Veggie

            Have you read what the definition of a narcotic is in the controlled substances act? Apparently not.

            Go talk to someone in the medical field about narcotics and the difference between types of drugs.

          • Sliced Veggie

            Guess not. Apparently your beliefs are Superior to medical definition.

      • Wow!

        The founding fathers grew hemp, and it was used in textiles, rope making, and paper production. Maybe do a little research. And that still doesn’t change that fact that even on a wild chance the founding fathers were potheads, it is funny how they didn’t give narcotics the same protection as weapons. Weapons are a Constiutional right, narcotics are not.

        • Rogertc1

          Marijuana in the 1970s was like tobacco compared to the hybrid skunk smelling stuff now days.

          • PaulWVa

            What you are smelling isn’t skunk … it’s bullcrap …an urban myth. Oooo ..it’s so much stronger now!! What a crock.

          • Rogertc1
          • Dan

            It definitely has more of a skunk smell and it’s common knowledge it’s potency has increased due to the different strains being produced. Not sure there were strains called sour diesel 20 years ago. Bad people should not have guns or drugs. I know lots of productive respectable drug/alcohol users and gun owners. I myself beat an opiod addiction. I was careful and responsible with their use. It is possible it depends on the person. Opiod withdrawls suck something fierce.

          • Wow!

            Definitely it is a lot stronger these days with selection as well as dealers spiking their long term customers, but even back then it still wasn’t the best stuff to put in your body. I mean, tons of liberals did it and look how they turned out.

          • raz-0

            It smelled like skunk in the 70s too unless you were getting crap stuff. Supply side interdiction usually means you get more potent drugs. Look at the current practice of smuggling smaller quantities of fentanyl stepping on it to increase volume and lower dosing, and selling it as heroin. For weed, it means that there’s no upside to the risk for low cost crap weed, so stronger strains worth more in smaller units of distribution are sold.

          • Rogertc1

            NO it did not smell like skunk in the 1970s

      • Rogertc1

        LOL…right on the weed.

      • ProudAmerican

        What rubbish Wow spews. Firstly, it is amusing that his initial “no benefit” claim has morphed below into “benefits pain but nothing else.” How callous is he that he is sympathetic to pain control with DEADLY NARCOTICS, but disallows a safe herb? an herb that is frequently used to safely withdraw from those DEADLY NARCOTICS?

        Secondly. His gratuitous “no benefit” claim is refuted by the reviews I have repeatedly cited and that he has repeatedly ignored (he might be glossing them now to find an out-of-context detriment to quote).

        Even his morphed “benefits pain but nothing else” is a crock.

        Seizure control is obtained with MJ when the usual anti-convulsants have failed. Nausea and vomiting have been controlled when the usual anti-emetics have failed. MRI studies in HUMANS have shown regression of multiple sclerosis plaques correlating with clinical improvement. Regression of the ravages of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (Crohn’s Disease, ulcerative colitis, etc.) is documented. Glaucoma is controlled. :

        University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
        cmcr.ucsd DOT edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf

        Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009. Hazecamp A and Grotenhermen F. Cannabinoids 2010;5(special issue):1-21.

        Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.

        Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine, 1999
        popularized in: Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.

      • Robert Clarke

        thanks for saying it for me.

    • ProudAmerican

      Such a bogus paraphrase of the 10th amendment is convenient to people in government costumes HOWEVER you need to re-read the language carefully: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      There is NO constitutional power for the federal government to regulate PLANTS.

      No need to respond with the usual tortured “commerce clause” or “general welfare” pilpul.

      • Wow!

        Your own citation undermines your side “The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

        By your sense of the Constitution, you are supporting state lawlessness like sanctuary cities by placing states above Federal and Constitutional.

        • ProudAmerican

          You only demonstrate you incomprehension of English language conjunctions.

          • David Christensen

            I am 70, and enjoy working on guns. I can say, with all honesty, I have never tried weed. I don’t get involved in the discussions about what it does or doesn’t do, because they are irrelevant. It is illegal, Period. I was brought up if you don’t like a law, get it changed or put up with it. End of story.

          • ProudAmerican

            “…get it changed or put up with it. ”

            Precisely what many of us are doing. I offer the dozens of medical marijuana states, the handful of recreational MJ states, and activists’ federal efforts as evidence of “get it changed or put up with it. “

          • Wow!

            Not an argument. Address the subject matter at hand.

          • ProudAmerican

            Are you dyslexic? vision-impaired?

            If not, re-read my quote and my honest paraphrase of the 10th Amendment.

    • Sliced Veggie

      You understand that weed isn’t a narcotic, right? (Per the federal controlled substances act, weed is classified as a non-narcotic)

      • Wow!

        Narcotics are a substance that can alter mood or behavior.
        THC is Schedule 1 The drug has a high potential for abuse. The drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.

        Marinol is used, but the current research doesn’t find any benefit other than a chronic pain killer, and a poor one at that since it causes lasting nervous damage.

        • ProudAmerican

          Note that your fiat definition of narcotic requires ignoring the actual medical definition.

          Medical Definition of narcotic merriam-webster DOT com/dictionary/narcotic#medicalDictionary

          1: a drug (as codeine, methadone, or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions

          2 : a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics [here it comes… ignoring the actual medical definition…] whether in fact physiologically addictive and narcotic or not

          • ProudAmerican

            @ WOW Update your 1930’s vintage ‘understanding’ of the medical research on marijuana here [originally I supplied internet links, but the posts were held back by TFB filters, so you;ll have to find the reviews on your own:

            Important reviews

            University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
            cmcr.ucsd DOT edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf

            Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009. Hazecamp A and Grotenhermen F. Cannabinoids 2010;5(special issue):1-21.

            Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.

            Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine, 1999
            popularized in: Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.

          • Sliced Veggie

            ABSOLUTELY. YES. Someone else who is intelligent!!!!!!!!!!!! That dude can’t understand that his beliefs don’t alter strict definition. I’m banging my head against the keyboard in awe that someone is that idiotic.

        • Sliced Veggie

          What? There is ABSOLUTELY evidence showing marajuana/thc has medical uses and is accepted as medical treatment. What bubble are you living in? A quick conversation with any medical professional will tell you that and any research in medical publication will show you the research.

          Get out of your bubble and realize that your personal beliefs aren’t the end all.

          • Wow!

            And yet it isn’t.

            “Any research in medical publication will show you the research”
            Okay.

    • Vince

      B.S. almost all their meetings were in TAVERNS you idiot! They actually gathered their forces and drank ale while they waited to attack or defend. Almost all the early work on the documents was done in taverns while they drank. You have a very little concept of history. Our founding fathers were rarely “clear headed”.

      • Wow!

        And yet the finalized supreme law was not made in a tavern, nor does drinking necessarily mean you are not impaired. You have “a very little” understanding of history.

    • Michael S.

      Never forget when your argument is “a direct violation of federal law” that this country was founded by “We the People” not we the government. FMCDH

  • Stephen Paraski

    He knew he had a target on his back. I do not smoke weed. In MI we have Medical Marijuana, but the city I live in goes by Federal Statutes and under Federal Law it is a Class 1 Controlled substance just like Heroin & Cocaine. Which brings up the question, if states like Nevada can decriminalize it for recreational use in clear conflict with Federal Law, could a state like Nevada decriminalize NFA Laws?

  • Spon Rilker

    He winked at the end of the comment. Did he actually go to jail, or was it an Internet rumor and he was having fun with it?

  • Spear Fish

    So let me get this straight: It’s illegal to put whatever substance you want IN your body as a consenting adult of your own free choice, but it’s legal to rip a fetus OUT of your body and kill it, which I’m pretty sure if you could ask the fetus it wouldn’t consent to that. I’m confused.

  • Tom

    Regardless of laws being “stupid,” “insane” or whatever, laws that have not been repealed need to be followed until repealed. Otherwise, there are consequences. To quote a famous philosopher, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

    • Vince

      In a couple states you can get a ticket for having electric lights on your horse drawn carriage because the laws still state (or did until recently) that your carriage has to have GAS lights. Only an idiot would write the ticket but there it is.

      • Tom

        Stupid is as stupid does.

  • kb7rky

    What? A faux “celebrity” in trouble with the law?

    My shocked face…let me show you it.

  • Kingchedr1

    Looks like you have a lot of experience with consuming marijuana. How many crimes did you commit in your high rampages?

    • Wow!

      I’ve dealt with those people before. The worst part is that often they are so far out that they don’t even realize what they are doing half the time.

  • Spock

    Possession of hemp oil is a felony but angry snowflakes can burn down a city in Baltimore and riot/burn down a leftwing nut campus in Berkeley with impunity. Celebrity freaks can threaten a sitting US president and no one says a word.

    I don’t smoke that crap but let these people smoke their pot. At least weed makes them calm! As long as they can deal with the addiction and health problems on their own.

  • navydave

    Can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. All you need to know about the laws on Pot are right their on the 4473. And I’m not sure you can smoke that rope in Russia either.

  • Nicks87

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    • Wow!

      So enlighten me.

    • Sliced Veggie

      Every one of his comments makes me want to pistol-whip myself.

  • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

    A true test of freedom is what you can drink, smoke or eat. If ANYONE can tell you what you can do for those three acts, you are either their slave and owned by them or else something is drastically wrong. For someone to end up being a “felon” for such an innocuous act is absolute BULL CRAP and it is being used as a back door gun confiscation scheme. Felonies were heinous crimes at the founding of this nation. You know, murder, rape, armed robbery…Duh? Now days almost everything is being considered a felony. I want to know WHO was damaged by his alleged activity. Screw the Feds. we need a major reset because this system is FUBAR! Time to actually FIGHT for freedom.

  • Mike Lashewitz

    Jeff Sessions would do and authorize anything to take away a Russian’s guns… Just saying. He is against pot so why not pot…

  • praack

    ha – no valid medical research, no long term studies, just anecdotal ideas of how harmless it is based on memories of bill and ted’s adventure movies. but the true stoner’s are still living in the basements.

    oh yeah- you have to smoke it for ” medicinal purposes” because the pill form will not work- why? the pill form removes the impurities… hmmmmm

    c’mon, be real

    most people who drink alcohol don’t obsess over it, don’t have a “toke” to “take the edge off”

    the idea of have a drink to “take the edge off” means you are an alcoholic

    but i hear the “take the edge off” excuse all the time

    also hear- oh i drink then smoke a doobie after cause it slows me down so i can drive better: hmmm very smart….

  • RTW365

    I’m not going to get into the “weeds”…butt don’t all of us see the Feds have targeted this guy, who is having fun with guns and “poking it in the eye” of “The Establishment” (for the lack of a better term). All the while tons of METH and other drugs are being brought/ smuggled across our boarder. On another point…many of the “news” channels are making a big deal of the Oklahoma City bombing…just a thought here, if there had not been the BATF atrocity at Waco…the Oklahoma City bombing would not have happened. I’m not justifying McVeigh just pointing out his reaction to the criminal actions of BATF in Waco.

    • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

      You should watch “A Convenient Lie”. It will do away with any thought that McVeigh did what they claim he did for what reason you suggest.

    • Sticky-eye Rivers

      “I’m just pointing out Timothy McVeigh got upset about something and became a terrorist” isn’t worth ‘pointing out’ by itself. But when it’s prefaced by talking about ‘Poor youtube idiot facing the unjust consequences to his actions by the unjust Establishment’ then your ‘pointing out’ gets real dark.

      Are you sympathizing with a terrorist?

      • RTW365

        I’ll stand by what I said…”had there not been the BATF atrocity at Waco…the Oklahoma City bombing would not have happened.” Something else you might chew on…BATF’s “Fast & Furious”. Someone somewhere should face at least 1st degree manslaughter charge.

  • XRGRSF

    My wife is a stroke survivor, and CBD has been an enormous help in controlling seizures, and spasms. Also, a small quantity of THC helps with her anxiety. Cannabis products are a felony in the state where I live, but legal in the state next door. Can we say, “Really screwed up,” boys, and girls? I knew you could.

    • Sliced Veggie

      Tell that to the guy calling himself Wow! A few comments up. He apparently can prove that weed/cbd doesn’t have any benefits and has never been used to help disease or pain. It’s just for “losers” and pot heads apparently…. Cbd is a miracle substance in many cases. I’m glad it’s helped you and yours.

  • LGonDISQUS

    Does he still make videos, if so – date of last one?

    • Sliced Veggie

      Nope. Been over a year.

      • Sticky-eye Rivers

        Good.

  • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

    Let’s get this straight, boys and girls, We have instituted the NEW Second Amendment of the amended US Bill of Rights… (sorry, we no longer follow “proper procedure” for amending these pain in the ass listed rights)
    A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed EXCEPT:
    You are buying the firearms for yourself.
    EXCEPT: you are under indictment or information for a felony for which the judge could imprison you for more then one year.
    EXCEPT: you have been convicted of a felony or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more then one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation.
    EXCEPT: you are a fugitive from “justice”
    EXCEPT: you are an “unlawful” user of or addicted to marijuana or any depressant,stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance.
    EXCEPT: you have ever been “adjudicated” mentally defective or you have ever been committed to a mental institution.
    EXCEPT: you were dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
    EXCEPT: you are subject to a restraining order restraining you from harassing, stalking or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner.
    EXCEPT: you have been convicted in a court of a MISDEMEANOR crime of domestic violence.
    EXCEPT: you have ever renounced your “United States” citizenship
    EXCEPT: you are an illegal alien
    EXCEPT: the firearm fires more then one round with the pull of the trigger
    EXCEPT: the firearms doesn’t have a vertical grip attached if it is a pistol
    EXCEPT: the barrel on a shotgun is not shorter then 18″
    EXCEPT: for sound suppressors
    EXCEPT: the rifle has a barrel no shorter then 16″. (It used to be 18″, but we accidentally sold some 16″ carbines to the public so we had to fix this and so we shortened the length to 16″ to cover our screw up.)
    EXCEPT: if it is a pistol there is no shoulder stock attached.
    EXCEPT: you carry it concealed, with a permit, which of course we issue and charge you for.
    EXCEPT: it has a magazine that can contain more then 10 rounds
    EXCEPT: the magazine is removable
    EXCEPT: it is black and looks scary
    EXCEPT EXCEPT EXCEPT…stay tuned for updated version. We the psychopaths who own you have now concluded that this new 2nd amendment is in force and effect and that you have no rights guaranteed by ANYTHING UNLESS you are in the “big club” which of course you are NOT. So screw your rights. We are in control of your television set, your phone, your computer, your air, your water and especially your pretend rights. Oh, and by the way, just in case you are wondering…we have ENFORCERS for this who are willing to shoot your children in the back, your wife in the head, burn down your church with 17 children inside just in case you think we are kidding.
    One other thing…none of these exceptions apply to us. We are allowed to have whatever we want to kill you and maim you any time we want for whatever excuse we want. Just take a look at some of the wonderful things WE get to have by looking up Dillon Aero on YouTube.

  • Carlos Velazquez

    Technically weed is not illegal, it is illegal to possess. You can legally possess weed if you have a tax stamp (similar to owning class III firearms). How weed became illegal to possess in the US has it’s roots in an immigration policy that was started by states in the Southwest during the Depression as a way to deport Mexicans. The Federal government noticed how effective this policy was at getting rid of undesirables and pretty much created a federal law similar to the policy to have the same effect as the policy. Everything stated here is factual history. Furthermore, marijuana has been used by numerous cultures throughout the world throughout the history of mankind for numerous reasons. Please do proper research on the subject before making the claim that weed is illegal because it causes crime.

    • Vince

      Exactly correct just as opium laws were used to kick out Chinese we no longer needed after they built our railroads!

    • Wow!

      Factual history. Okay. Weed is federally legalized for specific purposes such as research, I never denied that. What you are referring to is the Marijuana Tax act of 1937 and that had nothing to do with targeting latinos. That myth is only propagated in pro-marijuana websites to try and link the current thinking of illegal aliens to a bill of the past, when back then we did not have that line of thinking. While America (and most countries) had xenophobia, latino illegal aliens were not considered a problem back then like they are now, and the tax had zero capacity in deportation. If someone came illegally, no one had to find criminal intent, crossing borders illegally would have been the crime alone, and deportation would have been immediate.

      • Carlos Velazquez

        The Marijuana Tax Act was based on a policy that states in the Southwest region of the US were using as a means to jail Latino immigrants. Nowadays the federal government’s reason to outlaw marijuana is to protect the special interest of pharmaceutical companies that use powerful lobbying firms to sway members of Congress to pass laws that will deter anything that will negatively affect their profits. The money is in treating the disease, not in finding a cure.

        • Wow!

          So you went from the purposes being deportation to jailing. The law didn’t target any race.

          • Carlos Velazquez

            After the Mexican Revolution of 1910, Mexican immigrants flooded into the U.S., introducing to American culture the recreational use of marijuana. The drug became associated with the immigrants, and the fear and prejudice about the Spanish-speaking newcomers became associated with marijuana. Anti-drug campaigners warned against the encroaching “Marijuana Menace,” and terrible crimes were attributed to marijuana and the Mexicans who used it.

            1930s

            Fear of marijuana

            During the Great Depression, massive unemployment increased public resentment and fear of Mexican immigrants, escalating public and governmental concern about the problem of marijuana. This instigated a flurry of research which linked the use of marijuana with violence, crime and other socially deviant behaviors, primarily committed by “racially inferior” or underclass communities. By 1931, 29 states had outlawed marijuana.

            So, you still want to claim it has nothing to do with race? The source is from a PBS article. I hope this gives you a little more insight.

  • David169

    There are pros and cons on every argument. I am of the “personal” opinion that drugs or medicines should not be criminalized. The reason I say personal is I do not have an addictive personality. However a great percentage of people do have addictive personalities need to have their access to addictive drugs restricted. Pot is said to be non addictive, however I have had friends who were different people if they could not smoke daily to “relax”. After reading all the tripe here I would like to interject some definitions. A “narcotic” is a drug that is either opium or manufactured from opium. In a farther stretch it could be synthetic drugs manufactured to simulate the effect of opiates such as hydrocodones and demerol. Meth, diazepams, bath salts, pot and mushrooms are not narcotics. I like the cop shows but when I hear them use the wrong nomenclature such as calling meth a narcotic they reveal their either lack of vocabulary or lack understanding.

  • JoeBoomer

    Drugs, alcohol & firearms don’t mix. Common sense people!

    • Sliced Veggie

      Ok. Thanks for the reminder! You know his arrest didn’t involve firearms right?

  • Vince

    Again when the law was passed $200 was A LOT OF MONEY! Only inflation made this affordable. Look at things in perspective rather than black and white.

    • Rogertc1

      Arm braces cab replace the stock on an AR pistol.

    • Rogertc1

      Maybe for you. 200 is nothing. The Federal registration and trust required scares me.

    • Rogertc1

      $200 is not a big deal to me…Getting a trust writen and registering it bothers me.

      • Vince

        I was looking at my birth year today, 1952. Minimum wage was 75 cents an hour. Can you imagine the income in the Depression era 1934 when the silencer law was passed?$200 might as well have been an outright ban!

        • Rogertc1

          Apples and Oranges. My birth year too. in 1952 House: $16,800. Average income: $3,515. Ford car: $1526-$2384. Gas: $.20. Bread $.16. Postage stamp: $.03. All apples and oranges. Again not the money but the trust and registration for me. I just spent $285 on a Hardened Arms Upper with BCG and charging handle. Also 150 on Centerfire system demilled RPG-2 Anti-Tank Launcher. Not the money.

        • Rogertc1

          In 1952
          Cost of a gallon of Gas 20 cents –
          Average Cost of a brandnew car $1,700.00 –
          Average Cost of Rent $80.00 per month –
          LB of Hamburger Meat 53 cents –
          In 1934
          Average Cost of new house $5,970.00
          Average wages per year $1,600.00.
          Cost of a gallon of Gas 10 cents.
          Average Cost for house rent $20.00 per month.
          A loaf of Bread 8 cents.

        • Rogertc1

          CAN’T POST

        • Rogertc1

          Not posting anything i post..must be ban because pro gun?

  • Steven L

    The crimes that come as a results of drugs do not go away nor does all the pyscho problems that manifest themselves sometime down the road simply because pot is now legal. Look at the huge rise in impaired driving cases in Colorado. I do not want to be creating more impaired drivers on roads that responsible citizens travel on. Pot is well known as a gateway drug that leads to the heavier drugs. How many people (mostly actors and musicians) these day kill themselves partly because they have an unsorted out drug problems (PTSD excluded). We all make the decision to drink or smoke. Big boy decision then deal with big boy consequences. FPSRussia is a fool and is lucky to be alive. People like him get other people hurt and killed!

  • Thinker398

    Code Section

    16-13-30, et seq.

    Possession

    1 oz or less: misdemeanor, 1 yr. or $1,000 fine; more than 1 oz (but less than 10 lbs.): felony, 1-10 yrs.; over 10 lbs. is considered trafficking

  • Sliced Veggie

    Dude. Wtf are you on about.

    • Wow!

      WTF are you on about?

  • Wow!

    Marijuana is not listed as those Constitutional rights. Know your rights, don’t make them up. That is what a democrat does.

    • ProudAmerican

      Apparently, in your wide constitutional law experience, you have not encountered the NINTH AMENDMENT concept of “unenumerated rights.”

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      P.S. Mr. Anti-Historian, There weren’t any Democrats when the Founding Fathers penned the Ninth Amendment.

      • Wow!

        9th Amendment- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the people.

        Which is expanded on in the 10th amendment as to what those retained rights are:
        The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        I never said there were democrats in the 18th century.

        • ProudAmerican

          Amusing that you called me a leftist, yet you are the one bowdlerizing the Bill of Rights, so that you can bring deadly government power to bear on a matter in which the government has no enumerated constitutional authority. Your private interpretation of “unenumerated rights” gives government the power to legislate any and all of our retained and unenumerated rights into oblivion… all to fulfill your ignorant zealotry.

          According to extensive, peer-reviewed, in vivo, double-blind, crossover medical studies, marijuana has diverse and important benefits. Even the DEA has acknowledged marijuana as the SAFEST therapeutic agent known.

  • Suppressed

    “he would be prohibited from buying guns in accordance with 18 USC 922(g)(3).”

    He could still legally buy guns. There are plenty of people with drug/paraphernalia convictions that can still buy guns. What they can’t do, at least in my state, is get a CCP.

  • IdahoMan

    Maybe he can move to a better country, where he can live his lifestyle and entertain people.

  • carlcasino

    My Bucket list contains some simple requests
    1) I wish to be able to visit the latest generation of Nuclear Submarines after a 52 year absence.
    2) Witness the Supreme Court gain Reading Comprehension as a requisite for ruling on the 2nd A rights as outlined in the Constitution. “Shall Not ” is pretty plain language that most 1st year law students understand.
    3) If an agency is NOT specifically mentioned in the Constitution it should be revisited by Congress to continue the agency. Dept of Energy? Dept of Education(now Indoctrination)? The EPA stripped of it’s Law Making authority. Specifically revisit the 17 or so “Intelligence Agencies” (an Oxymoron actually) that have become political pawns.
    4) Abolish the IRS as it exists. Adopt the one page tax plan, Total income times 17% tax, ZERO exemptions collected by State agencies and after State meet their mandate of not being able to run a deficit sent what’s leftover to the Treasury.
    5) Mandate that Congress live under the laws just like the Subjects they pretend to serve and get the same pension as I get, 20% of my highest earned pay grade and they must use the VA for medical care.
    6) There’s more but I just balanced the budget and caused Congress to Term Limit Themselves, What more do you need?
    Notice how vain I am ? I put my wishes FIRST and I’m not even a Democrat.

  • cawpin

    “if he is convicted of an offense that could carry a sentence of more than two years.”

    That would be ONE year, not two. Question 11c on the 4473.

  • jcitizen

    The death of Keith Ratliff is enough to sour me to this “personality”; it is no wonder the BATF raided his home a few months afterward. I always was suspicious that he was in violation of God knows how many regulations. In fact I was shocked to find out he lived and filmed in the US!! He’s lucky Georgia is friendly to firearms and pyrotechnics, or it would be even worse for him. Even if Keith were alive now, I’d imagine he would have been tired of doing all the licensing and paperwork for all those weapons, that no body can afford now, and cannot have anyway past May ’86. Just thinking of the Federal SOT requirements for destructive devices makes my head hurt.

  • RPK

    STUPID IS, AS STUPID DOES. ‘NOUGH SAID?

  • You can post links they just kicked back for approval

  • Tothe

    If there is no victim, there is no crime.Who is the victim? I mean, other than the guy who was kidnapped and whose natural rights are threatened by the government.

  • GOT12

    was hoping he finally got arrested for shooting his boss

  • Wow!

    Typical of a leftard who can’t defend their own side. Go back to school and learn how to spell snowflake.

    • J Jac

      What’s wrong? Don’t know what to say when someone analyzes your tells and calls you on it?

      Laughable.

      Why don’t you go take a free helicopter ride with the rest of the Commies and Fascists?

  • Wow!

    You ought to read your own sources (not to mention they are all outdated). Again, none of the potential benefits to marijuana have been determined suitable for medical use due to side effects and inconsistent findings in peer reviews.

    You can bring up tons of journals that talk about how bad guns are for society, but when no one can confirm repeated results from their studies, the claim is as good as nothing.

    • ProudAmerican

      Hilarious again! You are the guy who started off claiming that guns and marijuana are “different.” Now you offer an analogy that you yourself already discredited.

      It is also amusing that you complain of the age of the reviews (~2010). In fact, the date of the studies shows how out-of-date you are. Your Reefer Madness hysteria was discredited decades ago… and continues to be discredited.

  • Wow!

    So you appeal to research (and you bring up outdated sources that you didn’t even read yourself) and then you deny it all because the summary doesn’t fit your agenda? Nice.

    • ProudAmerican

      Ha, ha, ha… very weak. Another straw man. I never “denied” research. You have not posted any research.

      The man who has provided not even a single peer-reviewed study, complaints that I have provided reviews showing that his claims were discredited decades ago… and continue to be discredited.

      Why do you think states are loosening their marijuana laws? …because a study published in 2017 overturned the other 20,000+ studies?

  • Wow!

    I deleted my comment because it was put on pending due to my link. The comment is still posted above.

    And again, you probably should read your own sources rather than just blindly posting them. For one, they are all outdated, and two, none of them refute the damages caused by marijuana. They are proposing possible medical uses and again, that still hasn’t been confirmed in peer reviews.

    • ProudAmerican

      (sigh) Deep denial. Another of your most used fallacies of logic.

      I posted reviews of “gold standard” medical research testifying to the in vivo efficacy and safety of marijuana for important diverse medical conditions: pain, seizures, Crohn’s Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, etc.

      Each of those reviews has a bibliography of dozens of peer-reviewed studies.

      You, on the other hand, have offered your zealous opinions, made-up definitions, argument by gratuitous assertion, circular arguments, deep denial, and personal attacks.

      While these are not an exhaustive list of the 20,000+ studies on marijuana, these are reviews by organizations whose qualifications and prestige far outweigh your personal opinions:

      University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
      cmcd DOT ucsd DOT edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17 DOT pdf

      Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009. Hazecamp A and Grotenhermen F. Cannabinoids 2010;5(special issue):1-21.
      cannabis-med DOT org/data/pdf/en_2010_01_special DOT pdf

      Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
      UCLA DOT edu DOT ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias DOT pdf

      Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine, 1999
      nap DOT edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376
      popularized in: Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
      books DOT nap DOT edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=R1

  • Wow!

    Yeah, I just have to look at one of your comments.

  • Corey

    I don’t advocate it. But it should not be a crime at this point. I respect that it’s a hazard to working folks and military, but it needs to be decriminalized. Let’s execute the traffickers and decriminalize end users. It will yield results. Too extreme? What about the many children who are dying from the poison?

  • Ranger Rick

    This will prove costly for Mr. Meyers in many ways.

  • Mike Brubaker

    Libertarian Right

  • PersonCommenting

    He doesnt still make videos does he? I guess he does if there is a comment.

  • ProudAmerican

    There was nothing unclear about your opinion from your first post. Shocking perhaps, I disagree with you and yet I have no messianic impulse to change your opinion. Evidently too, your prognostication was wrong. Have a nice day. You can untwist your knickers now.

  • ProudAmerican

    Besides… I only believe in government-approved conspiracy theories—everything from the sinking of the USS Maine through the attack on the USS Liberty by our “best friends,” the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Oswald acted alone, WMDs in Iraq, exporting freedom (when there is hardly any left at home), and Russian hackers. It is very mean of you to accuse our wonderful government of “super shady sh*t.” That almost sounds like a “conspiracy theory.” [snickering]