-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
Or, you can drink w/o food. One has to sell 51% food to keep their establishment open to the public. Otherwise it's membership only. Guest must be accompanied by members. That's a proprietor's regulation, not the customer's.
Well excuse me. Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, fed control of alcohol revenue dates back to post-revolutionary era. How's that for relevance?
I can tell you this as fact. The most recent ASA appeal to DEA involved DEA's request for HHS to review Schedule 1. HHS declined the opportunity to restudy cannabis under Schedule 1 and the director of HHS declined their authority to unilaterally recommend change to schedule.
Why are you referencing buprenorphine?
Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the Deputy Administrator of DEA,[10] requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.
Journalist? Are you talking about the guy who globally renounced his American citizenship? The guy who globally declared the killing of innocents? And I only thought Glen Beck stretched the idea of "journalist" to new lows.
The Constitution doesn't protect the right to conduct terrorism. The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants is historic pontification but didn't make it to the Constitution.
I digress.
Might not be a bad time to reference legal document that states your right to overthrow the government.
Me thinks uda bullshitter.
So long as you're not en enemy combatant, you get your Miranda rights. Suspected terrorists are prosecuted in civilian courts. Military tribunals restrict Miranda rights. I wish you'd stop changing colors. Looks like a fuckin billboard.
Then you're not paying attention to either current events (gone past in 2010) nor my reference in past posts.
That's why I saved "not whacked" on my list of considerations - for last.
check mate
I happen to disagree.
When they substitute killing for due process, silly.
Ronnie. If one word doesn't clear the fog, read the comment and apply Ronnie to it.
I hear a guy who missed his station and wants to pull the emergency cord, paying no attention to the probability he's gone too far and would reach his destination sooner by going to the next stop and catching a cab back to his station.
SacredBreh
Member
Wrong again Discobiscuit.... I said alcohol not beer.
Wrong again Discobiscuit.... I said alcohol not beer.
Discobiscuit-- I stated alcohol not 3.2 beer or I would have said it could be had at grocery and convenience strores. The updated part is you do not have to be a member of a drinking club to enter it..... Misdirection and half truth.....
http://www.utah.com/visitor/state_facts/liquor_laws.htm
Utah's liquor laws
Utah has recently modernized its liquor laws. Adults of legal age can order and consume beer, wine and hard liquor at bars, pubs, restaurants and a variety of other establishments throughout the state. In the past, a "private club membership" was required to enter bars. That requirement has been eliminated.•You must be 21 to purchase or consume alcoholic beverages in Utah. Alcoholic beverages (wine, liquor, and beer) are available two ways in Utah: by the drink, or packaged by the bottle.
•Mixed drinks and wine may be ordered with food in most restaurants from noon to 1:00am, and beer may be ordered from 10 am-1 am. Patrons may be served at their tables or in waiting areas.
•Taverns and beer establishments sell beer from 10 am-1 am. This includes a variety of venues: taverns, lounges, cabarets, nightclubs, cafes, bowling centers, golf courses, etc. Beer may be purchased without ordering food and is sold on draft and in bottles and cans. Beer sales "to go" are also allowed, but not in open containers.
•Packaged beer is also available at supermarkets, grocery and convenience stores. The maximum alcohol content is four percent by volume, or 3.2 percent by weight for beer sold in taverns, beer establishments and stores.
•Packaged liquor, wine, and heavy beer "to go" are sold at state liquor stores throughout Utah. Additionally, some of the finest wines in the world are sold at three wine stores in Salt Lake City. State liquor stores accept cash, check, and credit cards, and are closed on Sundays and holidays.
•Other package agencies are often located in hotels and resorts for customer convenience. Many hotels and resorts offer alcoholic beverages via room service.
Wrong again Discobiscuit.... I said alcohol not beer.
Discobiscuit-- I stated alcohol not 3.2 beer or I would have said it could be had at grocery and convenience strores. The updated part is you do not have to be a member of a drinking club to enter it..... Misdirection and half truth.....
http://www.utah.com/visitor/state_facts/liquor_laws.htm
Utah's liquor laws
Utah has recently modernized its liquor laws. Adults of legal age can order and consume beer, wine and hard liquor at bars, pubs, restaurants and a variety of other establishments throughout the state. In the past, a "private club membership" was required to enter bars. That requirement has been eliminated.•You must be 21 to purchase or consume alcoholic beverages in Utah. Alcoholic beverages (wine, liquor, and beer) are available two ways in Utah: by the drink, or packaged by the bottle.
•Mixed drinks and wine may be ordered with food in most restaurants from noon to 1:00am, and beer may be ordered from 10 am-1 am. Patrons may be served at their tables or in waiting areas.
•Taverns and beer establishments sell beer from 10 am-1 am. This includes a variety of venues: taverns, lounges, cabarets, nightclubs, cafes, bowling centers, golf courses, etc. Beer may be purchased without ordering food and is sold on draft and in bottles and cans. Beer sales "to go" are also allowed, but not in open containers.
•Packaged beer is also available at supermarkets, grocery and convenience stores. The maximum alcohol content is four percent by volume, or 3.2 percent by weight for beer sold in taverns, beer establishments and stores.
•Packaged liquor, wine, and heavy beer "to go" are sold at state liquor stores throughout Utah. Additionally, some of the finest wines in the world are sold at three wine stores in Salt Lake City. State liquor stores accept cash, check, and credit cards, and are closed on Sundays and holidays.
•Other package agencies are often located in hotels and resorts for customer convenience. Many hotels and resorts offer alcoholic beverages via room service.
SacredBreh
Member
If we have to we can do it one at a time....
If we have to we can do it one at a time....
The only reason Utah's regulation of alcohol was brought up in the post was to point out that some states already regulate certain things differently. That was in response to the comment some states would not legalize MMJ or legalize it. A correlation was drawn.
So in response to you again showing us your vast knowledge by stating a completely unrelated fact about Feds regulation of alcohol going back to post revolution. It is again an example of redirecting or deflecting the actual conversation with a factoid.
Discobiscuit quote: Well excuse me. Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, fed control of alcohol revenue dates back to post-revolutionary era. How's that for relevance?
Peace
If we have to we can do it one at a time....
The only reason Utah's regulation of alcohol was brought up in the post was to point out that some states already regulate certain things differently. That was in response to the comment some states would not legalize MMJ or legalize it. A correlation was drawn.
So in response to you again showing us your vast knowledge by stating a completely unrelated fact about Feds regulation of alcohol going back to post revolution. It is again an example of redirecting or deflecting the actual conversation with a factoid.
Discobiscuit quote: Well excuse me. Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, fed control of alcohol revenue dates back to post-revolutionary era. How's that for relevance?
Peace
Thanks for the update on Utah's drinking laws.
Moving forward...
Just the other day, Paul said he isn't capable of racism toward anyone because he doesn't see groups, he sees individuals.
Cut to the debate and Paul says he's the only candidate (including a bonafied minority) who understands racism. It's tough to imagine one not capable of feeling love yet understanding love exclusively.
Paul references King and Parks yet emphasizes peaceful protest rather than social change. Social change was the objective. Peaceful protest was the strategy. Refusing to relinquish a bus seat was a tactic.
Anybody schooled in the social sciences wouldn't make peaceful protest the preeminent focus of racial acceptance. The preeminent focus is on what was versus what is and how we may further improve race relations by understanding our past.
None of the above suggests that Paul is a racist. I don't even have to approach that angle. What stops me from considering his argument as valid is the idea that he alone understands - whatever. IMO, absolutism isn't often a positive quality.
Moving forward...
Just the other day, Paul said he isn't capable of racism toward anyone because he doesn't see groups, he sees individuals.
Cut to the debate and Paul says he's the only candidate (including a bonafied minority) who understands racism. It's tough to imagine one not capable of feeling love yet understanding love exclusively.
Paul references King and Parks yet emphasizes peaceful protest rather than social change. Social change was the objective. Peaceful protest was the strategy. Refusing to relinquish a bus seat was a tactic.
Anybody schooled in the social sciences wouldn't make peaceful protest the preeminent focus of racial acceptance. The preeminent focus is on what was versus what is and how we may further improve race relations by understanding our past.
None of the above suggests that Paul is a racist. I don't even have to approach that angle. What stops me from considering his argument as valid is the idea that he alone understands - whatever. IMO, absolutism isn't often a positive quality.
Looks like progress to me, bruz. I'll have to update my Utah fact sheet.
SacredBreh
Member
DEA and Dept. Health and Human Services
DEA and Dept. Health and Human Services
You stated DHHS was responsible for classification and scheduling of Scheduled medication and then tried to argue it again despite 2 referenced excerpts clearly showing DEA makes the decision.
Quote Discobiscuit--I can tell you this as fact. The most recent ASA appeal to DEA involved DEA's request for HHS to review Schedule 1. HHS declined the opportunity to restudy cannabis under Schedule 1 and the director of HHS declined their authority to unilaterally recommend change to schedule.
Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the Deputy Administrator of DEA,[10] requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.
Why are you referencing buprenorphine?
Because I thought it contained wording clear enough for even you to understand that a shit load of medical, ethical, legislative, and other relavant departments give input and recommendations to a primarily law enforcement department before they make a decision or what the references call a RULING. Since it is to the DEA, ASA had to subject a lawsuit due to inactivity on their request to the DEA to reschedule Cannabis.
Since you used ASA, here is another reference to look at not that the first were not clear enough for a junior high student to understand.
For Immediate Release: July 8th, 2011
Patients' Lawsuit Forces Federal Gov't to Answer 9-Year-Old Medical Marijuana Rescheduling Petition
Petition's denial maintains status quo, gives advocates chance to appeal and argue marijuana's therapeutic value
http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/article.php?id=6703
Washington, DC -- Less than two months after patient advocates filed a lawsuit compelling the federal government to answer a 9-year-old petition to reschedule medical marijuana, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) today made official its denial of the petition in the Federal Register. The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), which includes patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA), filed the petition in 2002 seeking to reclassify marijuana from its current status as a dangerous drug with no medical value, but never heard from the federal government until it received the denial.
What a waste of time it is becoming dealing with you. I have enjoyed many of the posts, links, and info in this thread whether I agreed with them or not. Many I have not agreed with made me rethink positions and even a few have helped me change my mind but you have tirelessly dominated this thread with some real junk. I try not to respond because I can tell it will do no good but really at least stay constructive........ don't do what this and my last post has clearly shown you doing over and over and over....... You seem intelligent to me so am asking you straight out one more time..... please keep it relevant to the thread and conversation and quit posting fact as though by them being correct they have anything to do with anything others you are debating are talking about. Many cases as these two post indicate.... the facts are even incorrect even if they were correct they are not relevant to the thread or posts which you are answering.
Peace
By the way, I am a registered Ambassador for ASA.
DEA and Dept. Health and Human Services
You stated DHHS was responsible for classification and scheduling of Scheduled medication and then tried to argue it again despite 2 referenced excerpts clearly showing DEA makes the decision.
Quote Discobiscuit--I can tell you this as fact. The most recent ASA appeal to DEA involved DEA's request for HHS to review Schedule 1. HHS declined the opportunity to restudy cannabis under Schedule 1 and the director of HHS declined their authority to unilaterally recommend change to schedule.
Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the Deputy Administrator of DEA,[10] requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.
Why are you referencing buprenorphine?
Because I thought it contained wording clear enough for even you to understand that a shit load of medical, ethical, legislative, and other relavant departments give input and recommendations to a primarily law enforcement department before they make a decision or what the references call a RULING. Since it is to the DEA, ASA had to subject a lawsuit due to inactivity on their request to the DEA to reschedule Cannabis.
Since you used ASA, here is another reference to look at not that the first were not clear enough for a junior high student to understand.
For Immediate Release: July 8th, 2011
Patients' Lawsuit Forces Federal Gov't to Answer 9-Year-Old Medical Marijuana Rescheduling Petition
Petition's denial maintains status quo, gives advocates chance to appeal and argue marijuana's therapeutic value
http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/article.php?id=6703
Washington, DC -- Less than two months after patient advocates filed a lawsuit compelling the federal government to answer a 9-year-old petition to reschedule medical marijuana, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) today made official its denial of the petition in the Federal Register. The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), which includes patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA), filed the petition in 2002 seeking to reclassify marijuana from its current status as a dangerous drug with no medical value, but never heard from the federal government until it received the denial.
What a waste of time it is becoming dealing with you. I have enjoyed many of the posts, links, and info in this thread whether I agreed with them or not. Many I have not agreed with made me rethink positions and even a few have helped me change my mind but you have tirelessly dominated this thread with some real junk. I try not to respond because I can tell it will do no good but really at least stay constructive........ don't do what this and my last post has clearly shown you doing over and over and over....... You seem intelligent to me so am asking you straight out one more time..... please keep it relevant to the thread and conversation and quit posting fact as though by them being correct they have anything to do with anything others you are debating are talking about. Many cases as these two post indicate.... the facts are even incorrect even if they were correct they are not relevant to the thread or posts which you are answering.
Peace
By the way, I am a registered Ambassador for ASA.
Brother man, it's not like I ever suggested DEA isn't involved in appeals. I did say HHS determines the medical recommendation and cited reference that says the same thing. Split all the hairs you wish.
Then try the same thing referencing marijuana. Until then, recognized I acknowledged the medical recommendation to classify comes from HHS
I think your attitude sucks.
This isn't the same appeal. I never said DEA was required to request study and or recommendation from HHS. I said in order to get reclassification, HHS has to render their medical decision.
You're battling semantics and possibly obstinance more than me.
Your negative rep message was more indicative of your enjoyment. In public you're not very tolerant. Not just your views but your vocabulary.
Let me get this straight... I have to assist with your thinking to qualify.
Try harder?
whatever dudeIs the echo standard or optional?
What does this have to do with you referencing a different appeal?
SacredBreh
Member
Enough already....... Discobiscuit
Enough already....... Discobiscuit
This is the last energy I will waste on you.
Quote by Discobiscuit--Brother man, it's not like I ever suggested DEA isn't involved in appeals. I did say HHS determines the medical recommendation and cited reference that says the same thing. Split all the hairs you wish.
It is not splitting hairs..... DEA makes the scheduling decision. They are not required to get any recommendations unless they want something in schedule 1. They did not get any recommendations on the rescheduling of Cannabis... they didn't act for 9 years and when sued by ASA--Denied it. They get recommendations just as I am sure the Surgeon General gets recommendations from the Attorney General but that does not mean the Attorney General makes the decisions for the Surgeon General. What is there not to get about that and what fuc*^ng hairs are there to split? If you need more, do your own research.
--Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the Deputy Administrator of DEA,[10] requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed. ___________Key word: Recommendation
--The DEA has been criticized for placing highly restrictive schedules on a few drugs which researchers in the fields of pharmacology and medicine regard as having medical uses. Critics assert that some such decisions are motivated primarily by political factors stemming from the U.S. government's War on Drugs, and that many benefits of such substances remain unrecognized due to the difficulty of conducting scientific research.
--In 1985 MDMA and its analogues were under review by the American government as a drug for potential of abuse. During this time, several public hearings on the new drug were held by the DEA. Based on all of the evidence and facts presented at the time, the DEA's administrative law judge did not see MDMA and its analogues as being of large concern and recommended that they be placed in Schedule III. The DEA administrator, expressing concern for abuse potential, overruled the recommendation and ruled that MDMA be put in Schedule I, the Controlled Substances Act's most restrictive category.[22][23][24]
Quote by Discobiscuit--Then try the same thing referencing marijuana. Until then, recognized I acknowledged the medical recommendation to classify comes from HHS
Did you not read the post. Americans for Safe Access' lawsuit and their article about it reference Cannabis to you??? You cannot be that stupid. You are purposely ignoring, misleading, and deflecting. I will include the article section from ASA themselves so you can misread it again. Do you see shit about DHHS?
--http://www.americansforsafeaccess.or...le.php?id=6703
--Washington, DC -- Less than two months after patient advocates filed a lawsuit compelling the federal government to answer a 9-year-old petition to reschedule medical marijuana, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) today made official its denial of the petition in the Federal Register. The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), which includes patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA), filed the petition in 2002 seeking to reclassify marijuana from its current status as a dangerous drug with no medical value, but never heard from the federal government until it received the denial.
Quote by Discobiscuit--Your negative rep message was more indicative of your enjoyment. In public, you're not very tolerant. Not just your views but your vocabulary.
I have not addressed neg rep as it is against TUA and will get you banned. So won't address it other than to say you have done more for your neg than I ever could. Moreover, yes until your dogmatic, rhetoric became untruths and obviously off the thread topic, I had included you in those I disagreed with and found thought inspiring until your treatment of many of those on the thread has become arrogant and demeaning and no longer useful.
Quote by Discobiscuit--Let me get this straight... I have to assist with your thinking to qualify.
No, I am merely pointing out it is not that I do not agree with you that I find offensive. As stated by myself and many others.... you have become deflective, misdirect, arrogant, repetitive and off subject and discussion. C'mon man. There was a time when I told you I appreciated your input but how many people have to tell you what I am saying before a little introspection ensues. Yes, I do use others view points on these threads to gain knowledge and different view points..... Think that is why most of us are here.
Quote by Discobiscuit--What does this have to do with you referencing a different appeal?
To start off it doesn't take a genius, so you should be able to understand that government processes such as an appeal to reschedule or to schedule a controlled substance, doesn't go through a different processes.... to the DEA one day and the HHS the next or one medication or another. So to simplify it for you I researched it a little for you and spoon fed what you asked for.... a request to reschedule Cannabis. Thought my membership would add credibility to the use of it from that site. Since, I have followed that since the beginning on my news letters and have kept my chapter informed of the advances and set backs.
I am done though. I asked nicely in big bold letters to please keep it relevant and on topic and that was not the first time from me and a great many visitors to the thread. Felt I should since I started the thread.
Sorry you don't like my attitude. It wasn't like that at 30 pages but after I read 30 more pages of the same crap.... was hoping encouragement might help but you continue to dominate the thread with more crap.
Sorry everyone else..... just had my limit of it.
Peace
Enough already....... Discobiscuit
This is the last energy I will waste on you.
Quote by Discobiscuit--Brother man, it's not like I ever suggested DEA isn't involved in appeals. I did say HHS determines the medical recommendation and cited reference that says the same thing. Split all the hairs you wish.
It is not splitting hairs..... DEA makes the scheduling decision. They are not required to get any recommendations unless they want something in schedule 1. They did not get any recommendations on the rescheduling of Cannabis... they didn't act for 9 years and when sued by ASA--Denied it. They get recommendations just as I am sure the Surgeon General gets recommendations from the Attorney General but that does not mean the Attorney General makes the decisions for the Surgeon General. What is there not to get about that and what fuc*^ng hairs are there to split? If you need more, do your own research.
--Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the Deputy Administrator of DEA,[10] requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed. ___________Key word: Recommendation
--The DEA has been criticized for placing highly restrictive schedules on a few drugs which researchers in the fields of pharmacology and medicine regard as having medical uses. Critics assert that some such decisions are motivated primarily by political factors stemming from the U.S. government's War on Drugs, and that many benefits of such substances remain unrecognized due to the difficulty of conducting scientific research.
--In 1985 MDMA and its analogues were under review by the American government as a drug for potential of abuse. During this time, several public hearings on the new drug were held by the DEA. Based on all of the evidence and facts presented at the time, the DEA's administrative law judge did not see MDMA and its analogues as being of large concern and recommended that they be placed in Schedule III. The DEA administrator, expressing concern for abuse potential, overruled the recommendation and ruled that MDMA be put in Schedule I, the Controlled Substances Act's most restrictive category.[22][23][24]
Quote by Discobiscuit--Then try the same thing referencing marijuana. Until then, recognized I acknowledged the medical recommendation to classify comes from HHS
Did you not read the post. Americans for Safe Access' lawsuit and their article about it reference Cannabis to you??? You cannot be that stupid. You are purposely ignoring, misleading, and deflecting. I will include the article section from ASA themselves so you can misread it again. Do you see shit about DHHS?
--http://www.americansforsafeaccess.or...le.php?id=6703
--Washington, DC -- Less than two months after patient advocates filed a lawsuit compelling the federal government to answer a 9-year-old petition to reschedule medical marijuana, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) today made official its denial of the petition in the Federal Register. The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), which includes patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA), filed the petition in 2002 seeking to reclassify marijuana from its current status as a dangerous drug with no medical value, but never heard from the federal government until it received the denial.
Quote by Discobiscuit--Your negative rep message was more indicative of your enjoyment. In public, you're not very tolerant. Not just your views but your vocabulary.
I have not addressed neg rep as it is against TUA and will get you banned. So won't address it other than to say you have done more for your neg than I ever could. Moreover, yes until your dogmatic, rhetoric became untruths and obviously off the thread topic, I had included you in those I disagreed with and found thought inspiring until your treatment of many of those on the thread has become arrogant and demeaning and no longer useful.
Quote by Discobiscuit--Let me get this straight... I have to assist with your thinking to qualify.
No, I am merely pointing out it is not that I do not agree with you that I find offensive. As stated by myself and many others.... you have become deflective, misdirect, arrogant, repetitive and off subject and discussion. C'mon man. There was a time when I told you I appreciated your input but how many people have to tell you what I am saying before a little introspection ensues. Yes, I do use others view points on these threads to gain knowledge and different view points..... Think that is why most of us are here.
Quote by Discobiscuit--What does this have to do with you referencing a different appeal?
To start off it doesn't take a genius, so you should be able to understand that government processes such as an appeal to reschedule or to schedule a controlled substance, doesn't go through a different processes.... to the DEA one day and the HHS the next or one medication or another. So to simplify it for you I researched it a little for you and spoon fed what you asked for.... a request to reschedule Cannabis. Thought my membership would add credibility to the use of it from that site. Since, I have followed that since the beginning on my news letters and have kept my chapter informed of the advances and set backs.
I am done though. I asked nicely in big bold letters to please keep it relevant and on topic and that was not the first time from me and a great many visitors to the thread. Felt I should since I started the thread.
Sorry you don't like my attitude. It wasn't like that at 30 pages but after I read 30 more pages of the same crap.... was hoping encouragement might help but you continue to dominate the thread with more crap.
Sorry everyone else..... just had my limit of it.
Peace
stonedstoner
Member
ron paul says he's never smoked weed and he's never even been around people smoking weed. what a square. atleast obama smoked weed back in the day.
So your gonna pin your hopes on someone who smoked weed and did lines decades ago and has since turned his back on that lifestyle instead of someone who believes every american has the right to smoke, even though he had never indulged?
Maybe we should just vote GWB again cuz he was a cokehead......your logic is flawed.
No, you should infer from my sound logic and the last four years that issues matter much more than the color of a persons skin or the animal which represents their party.Www
O has an iPod too! That's so like way cool.
it's Jersey Shore Snookie cool.
Just like the O "Beer Summit." Way rad.
Hope and Change brother.
Facinating watching you all RP supporters....and detractors.
I would expect him in all the way to the convention to hold his impassioned supporters.
This may put RP in a kingmaker position. If Romney vs not Romney was close. Whomever RP throws his delegates to wins.
But would RP supporters vote for the winning Republican canidate....or would they sit this one out, or even....gasp....vote for O?
I wonder, in that case, who would better serve your cause....as the OP asks in the very first post.
I would expect him in all the way to the convention to hold his impassioned supporters.
This may put RP in a kingmaker position. If Romney vs not Romney was close. Whomever RP throws his delegates to wins.
But would RP supporters vote for the winning Republican canidate....or would they sit this one out, or even....gasp....vote for O?
I wonder, in that case, who would better serve your cause....as the OP asks in the very first post.
G
greenmatter
on the subject of politics ........... google the word santorum ...... and check out the first thing that comes up.
funny how something as sad as politicians can keep you laughing your ass off if you look at them in the right context
funny how something as sad as politicians can keep you laughing your ass off if you look at them in the right context
RP is producing scathing ads against the other GOP clowns in the race. I think they are funny.
IMO the ideology of governance will take a back seat to secular debt deleveraging.
The actors matter not.
I would for the first time in my life not vote. And that's a damn shame.
IMO the ideology of governance will take a back seat to secular debt deleveraging.
The actors matter not.
.
SacredBreh
Member
Hoping for some CHANGE.......
Hoping for some CHANGE.......
Good point oldhaole. Really don't know what I will do. Truly if Ron Paul was not in the mix at this very moment I can't say I could support any of the contenders. I would probably have to resort to Gary Johnson but would not be hopeful. I think good ol Obummer who bullshited my vote out of me last time will give us about as much change as he has this time. I know he got stuck with all the crap from the Regan/Bush years but he has been playing too much golf and showing me very little sweat.
To be totally honest.... Ron Paul scares me a little.....ok more than a little but damn if we don't do something drastically different we are headed down a deep hole and right or wrong he is the only one I think will really try to do something drastically different.
Both Dems and Republicans are like a significant other in a bad mariage. Its what you know... its safe but it is making you miserable beyond belief. You don't want to divorce because you are not sure whats on the other side but you know if you don't its going to destroy you. That is where our country is for me and compared to most I have it pretty damn good but I see a huge downfall coming and we have to do something we haven't been doing.
I know Ron Paul is a Republican but not like the rest we may have to choose from.
Peace
Hoping for some CHANGE.......
Good point oldhaole. Really don't know what I will do. Truly if Ron Paul was not in the mix at this very moment I can't say I could support any of the contenders. I would probably have to resort to Gary Johnson but would not be hopeful. I think good ol Obummer who bullshited my vote out of me last time will give us about as much change as he has this time. I know he got stuck with all the crap from the Regan/Bush years but he has been playing too much golf and showing me very little sweat.
To be totally honest.... Ron Paul scares me a little.....ok more than a little but damn if we don't do something drastically different we are headed down a deep hole and right or wrong he is the only one I think will really try to do something drastically different.
Both Dems and Republicans are like a significant other in a bad mariage. Its what you know... its safe but it is making you miserable beyond belief. You don't want to divorce because you are not sure whats on the other side but you know if you don't its going to destroy you. That is where our country is for me and compared to most I have it pretty damn good but I see a huge downfall coming and we have to do something we haven't been doing.
I know Ron Paul is a Republican but not like the rest we may have to choose from.
Peace
I'm voting RP and going to the house. 
truthfully, i wish Ron Paul were 10 or so years younger.... would be a LOT easier for him to come back and run again.... it honestly looks to me like he is getting sick of the debating bullshit...
and im personally sick of this "latest poll" bullshit......... where the fuck are they getting these polls? ive never been polled? fuck polls! polish people need not be offended....
latest poll shows this
latest poll shows that
latest poll shows that you are a SUCKER if you actually believe these "latest polls" are for real.....
and im personally sick of this "latest poll" bullshit......... where the fuck are they getting these polls? ive never been polled? fuck polls! polish people need not be offended....
latest poll shows this
latest poll shows that
latest poll shows that you are a SUCKER if you actually believe these "latest polls" are for real.....
- Status
