31–40 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point you pick a number, it will always seem somewhat arbitrary.
How about the same number that lets you vote, and decide where you live, or get drafted, and get married without parental consent, and get medical care without parental consent?
>>He added that marijuana use needs more research. I wish that we had this same attitude towards chemicals sprayed on crops where it seems to be everything is fine until proven to be harmful. Yet with weed it is harmful until proven safe. Also, I suspect there is plenty of research on the safety of weed edit: to all of those arguing that there may be/ are dangers to weed, I don't disagree. How about the fact that I c…
>The draft set the minimum age required to buy cannabis at 21 21? Haven't we as a society progressed past this pernicious discrimination!
The brain is developing until around 25, so if anything, the age should be higher if the intent is to prevent unsafe use.
Seems strange to me that a purportedly high-integrity journalistic organization would refer to it as ‘weed’ in the headline. Is ‘cannabis’ not click-baity enough for Reuters?
To me it immediately connotes a recreational use, which is a useful distinction from purely medical (or pseudo-medical) applications. So the word seems appropriate even if part of the familiar venacular.
> would expunge federal non-violent marijuana crimes, further medical research and allow cannabis companies access to essential financial services. Sounds like all good things but I dont see how this will make it through such a divided senate where obstructionism is the de-facto opposition strategy.
Definitely appreciate that this seems to be heading in the right direction. > limited retail sales transactions at the state level to 10 ounces of cannabis at a time What's the intent of a rule like that? Prevent one 21 year old from buying a pound for his under-21 friends? I feel like alcohol has proven that this is pretty futile. Is there some other point?
Now that half the states have already legalized it and reaps a ton in tax revenue, the fed wants their cut at a time when tax revenue is drying up. These states have been ignoring federal law for a very long time now, without consequence, so there might as well not be that law if you're not going to actually enforce it.
Regardless of what states have done, without Federal legalization, marijuana businesses are cut off from most financial products provided by the "mainstream" financial institutions, including aid from the Federal Government during emergencies (e.g. the current pandemic). So this step would be quite impactful.
This was a month ago (July 14th).
> would expunge federal non-violent marijuana crimes, further medical research and allow cannabis companies access to essential financial services. Sounds like all good things but I dont see how this will make it through such a divided senate where obstructionism is the de-facto opposition strategy.
Either way, the tide is clearly turning with so many states refusing to comply with the federal ban, and the federal government refusing to punish those states for it, that it is clear it will happen eventually.
Why not leave this to the states to decide?