Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Disclosure:

The statements in this forum have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are generated by non-professional writers. Any products described are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Website Disclosure:

This forum contains general information about diet, health and nutrition. The information is not advice and is not a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.

Ron Paul on Why the Government Illegalized Marijuana

Discussion in 'Seasoned Marijuana Users' started by Rahzizzle, Jul 4, 2008.

Page 1 of 2
  1. #1 Rahzizzle, Jul 4, 2008
    Alright, I am about to reveal a sickening story that came right out of The Revolution: A Manefesto : By Ron Paul

    Alright guys this is something I have never heard before so please tell me what you think.

    I am going to quote from the book word for word so don't be lazy, please read this:
    (This can be found on page 128 of the book)

    A grand total of two medical experts testifed on the subject. One allged expert was James Munch, a professor who claimed to have injected 300 dogs with the active ingredient in marijuana, and that two had died. When asked whether he had chosen dogs for the similarity of their reactions to those of human beings, he shrugged, "I wouldn't know; I am not a dog psychologist."
    We can be fairly certain that this professor had not injected these dogs with the active ingredient in marijuana, since that ingredient was synthesized for the first time in a laboratory in Holland years later. But keep this gentleman in mind for a moment.
    The other expert who testified was William Woodward, who represented the American Medical Association. he denounced the legislation as medically unsound and the product of ignorance and propaganda. "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug," he said. To which one congressman replied, "Doctor, if you can't say anthing good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" (WTF?!?!)

    "In Congress, the entire debate on national marijuana prohibition took about a minute and a half.
    "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?" asked a congressman from New York.
    "I don't know," came the reply. "It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."
    Then a second question from the congressman: "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"
    The AMA opposed the bill, as we have seen. But the Speaker replied, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."
    And with that untruth ended the entire congressional debate on the prohibition policy.

    You can guess what happened next. James Munch, was named the Official Expert on Marijuana at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. One person agrees with the government's position and he is appointed the Official Expert. If that doesn't sum up how government operates, I don't know what does."


    That makes me want to cry. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

    But fuck the law, at least we still have freedom of thought :smoking:
     
  2. #2 numba1stunna885, Jul 4, 2008
    That is pretty wild.....it's even more of a shame how many intelligent medical professionals have advocated and fought for the rights of people to use marijuana but are constantly overruled by government officials who are in the pocket of the alcohol and cigarette companies and that there are so many people who form their opinion on marijuana based on the abovetheinfluence commericals and not any sort of scientific facts which leads to a large portion of our population who are anti marijuana and who pass those false ideals down to their kids which further complicates the problem.

    If we had more people educated on the real facts about marijuana, I can't see how any sensible person would be against legalizing it and taxing it like anything else. Especially with the economic mess that we're in at this point.
     
  3. #3 expandingeye, Jul 4, 2008
    Shame ron paul dropped out. wtf happened to all that money his campaign made?
     
  4. #4 Otterheart, Jul 4, 2008
    Well you pretty much nailed everything right there. Although I don't know if I would support weed being controlled by the govt. like cigarettes are, that's why I prefer hand rolled cigarettes. Anyways it just seems to me if you could just by a pack of marijuana cigarettes that the potency would suck and they tax the hell out of them and they would be expensive as hell. I would rather it be like, supply your own stuff or have it be sold at like marijuana shops where you can pick up your own strains and then I really wouldn't have a problem with them taxing it as long as they don't go overboard.
     
  5. #5 Rustymetal, Jul 4, 2008
  6. #6 MidwestKind, Jul 4, 2008
    He'll probably use it for future Congressional races, or he gave it to some charity. Thats just my guess.


    EDIT: ^^^U posted before I finished.
     
  7. #7 HoosierIVXX, Jul 4, 2008
    You're missing some important facts:

    One, the racism used in re-making Marijuana's image.

    Why was the name changed from the commonly used Cannabis at the time to Marijuana? You guessed, to make it sound Mexican. At a time when Mexicans were very unpopular within mainstream America.

    Also, Marijuana was hugely popular in Jazz clubs in New York and among jazz musicians. (Who were all black). There a strong push to make it more allied with "Negro culture" to make it more unpalatable to americans.
     
  8. #8 MidwestKind, Jul 4, 2008
    Someone watched "Grass".:smoking: Am I wrong?

    The only thing that annoyed me about that documentary was Woody Harrelson's voice.(It got old)
     
  9. #9 HoosierIVXX, Jul 4, 2008

    Actually no, it had it's own day in one of my American History 101 Classes a year ago haha.
     
  10. #10 MidwestKind, Jul 4, 2008
    Nice, who would have thunk.:hello:
     
  11. #11 Chaohinon, Jul 4, 2008
    I still can't believe the number of marijuana smokers that poo-poo'd Ron Paul. Anyone that isn't opposed to the drug war is morally unfit to be president.
     
  12. #12 numba1stunna885, Jul 4, 2008

    I smoke weed and I can't support a lot of the stuff that Ron Paul talks about. It really sounds good in theory but it wouldn't realistically work. Look at countries that have tried libertarianism like Chile and see the results that come from it 10 years later. Having a government that is "hands on" is not necessarily a bad thing, but when you have idiots running it with their priorities all screwed up and not a shred of integrity to speak of....well this is what you get. But it's still better than the chaos that would probably ensue if Ron Paul was able to carry out his brand of government. If our current government used all it's resources in a smart and efficient way then it would still be more effective than the hands off approach that Paul speaks of. I really think the government in itself is not the problem, there's just too much bureaucracy and crooked politicians that keep the ones who are actually working for the people (if there are any them) from making changes that we support. But I don't think that simply cutting back spending on every federal government sponsored program would do anything beneficial for our country in the long run, which is basically Paul's main focus. Ending the war on drugs would be a great way to stop wasting resources, but beyond that nothing Paul says resonates with me.
     
  13. #13 Shauneh, Jul 4, 2008
    Leave it to ole Ron Paul.

    I smoke herb because I know I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong in doing so.
     
  14. #14 YipKong, Jul 4, 2008
    I still will vote for him in the general election, while his stuff wouldn't all work out or happen, he is the only one i feel I would know what i was voting for. I donated afew bucks to his campaign and its sad to see him go, but he made it much further than most expected, and many are following in his footsteps.
     
  15. #15 SwollenThumb, Jul 4, 2008
    numba1stunna885, I don't agree. Ron Paul runs on the strength of the constitution, and if you haven't read his book, I strongly urge you to, to get the full scope of his vision of what America should be. It makes more sense when you get the full picture. While I don't agree with everything he said, I do feel like he's the only politician who can be trusted. Plus, I do feel that this country is going in the wrong direction completely, and I think a radical move back towards our oiriginal principles is in due. We know what doesn't work about our current government, now let's at least give our founding father's government one more fighting chance before we throw it out and become a totalitarian entity.
     
  16. #16 Chaohinon, Jul 4, 2008
    Well, then you should support Kucinich or Gravel-

    No wait, they were laughed off the stage, too.

    Or you could support Obama-

    No wait, he's not interested in touching the drug war. Or the federal reserve, or the war effort, or any other issue with any semblance of substance.
     
  17. #17 Sage of Salvia, Jul 4, 2008

    Didn't he raise 18 MILLION dollars in one day?? Yet he never appeared on TV much, or was ever talked about, I think it's because he was actually trying to fix this country, and the money loving whores in Washington didn't want their funding cut off. I think he would have made a pretty good President, even though he had a few crazy beliefs I still think this country would have been better off with him, instead of the other crazy people running for it. :bolt:



    Maybe the bastard put the money in his pocket, maybe I am wrong!! :confused:
     
  18. #18 SwollenThumb, Jul 4, 2008


    Once again, his remaining money went into http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
     
  19. #19 tHinkgrEen, Jul 4, 2008
    :)

    can't top that
     
  20. #20 Sage of Salvia, Jul 4, 2008
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page