Ron Paul answers a question from a medical marijuana patient

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I'm with you in a way.......I really don't care for the term "clown" when referring to people like Ron Paul; assclown is actually a better term. Now lets see if I can follow the same "insightful" format that you laid out here:

Unlike most of the pre-teen pimple poppers up to the mid-twenty age, people such as myself, image reaper, old stoner have been on this planet long enough to know what is "realistic" in regards to change. I see that your 20....that would have made you about 3 during the first Gulf War........LOL, I was older than that for the Vietnam war. We don't need FOX, CNN, MSNBC to do our thinking....we have something called experience behind us.

Being older doesn't give your opinions legitimacy by default P4B. Not to say you don't tout some very good ones, but people of "more experience" stand on just about every point. In fact doesn't Ron Paul himself technically has more life experience than you?

Stalin, Hitler, Ghandi, Buddha, Pope Benedict, they all have more life experience than me. I wonder which one I should look to for guidance?

1) Anti-abortion.......voting record proves it

I'd have to see these votes you speak of, but I get the feeling you're relating to votes against government funding for abortion at the federal level; which would be more a constitutional issue than an abortion issue.

2) Backed by the 9-11 conspiracy nuts. Check out most every web site regarding that and you'll find an addy for Ron Paul.

And the "God hates fags" church people may have voted for George Bush, that doesn't mean George Bush believes "god hates fags".
Peacenick hippies are undoubtedly more prone to voting Democrat, that doesn't make Democrats peacenick hippies.
Stoners would be inclined to vote for Ron Paul, it doesn't make Ron Paul a stoner. You see what I'm getting at here? It's backward logic, saying those who vote for the candidate represent the candidates views in every respect.

3) He calls the wars as being against the Constitution. Fact is, when congress votes for approving the use of force that is in itself enough for the President to send the troops.

His anti-constiutional claims regarding the war are to do with a foreign policy of non-interventionalism, not the actual process by which war was declared.

4) Portrayed as being pro-legalization when there has been NO bill by Ron Paul to suggest that. In fact, he tried to separate hemp farming from the laws regarding marijuana. That would still leave us growers and users in harms way.

Hemp and marijuana, while biologically related, are two very different matters. We're talking about medicine/recreational drugs versus indsutrial products for sails, clothing, ropes and the such. It makes a lot more sense to fix these government policy's toward hemp/cannabis one step at a time. The first step, obviously, is legalizing hemp.
If Paul was lying and not actually for legalizing marijuana, why would he bother saying it when it's political suicide?

5) Says he's against spending but still is responsible for over $400 in earmarks. Seems he's pretty tight with the Shrimp Fishing industry. Big business in the congressmans wallet.

erm.... do you mean $400 or $400 million/billion? Personally I suppose tax incentives and investment in keeping industry/economy strong. Anyway, I'd have to see what spending specifically you believe is hypocritical. Ron Paul is against the big over-spending that is bankrupting the nation, he's not against all spending in any form. As he said in the last debate, "cutting income tax would result in a 1/3 loss in government revenue. As is, that would take us back to 2000 levels of spending. Are you saying this government can't get back to 2000 spending levels?"

6) His idea about switching back to the Gold Standard. Anyone that has any experience in currency/currency trading knows that if this were done, you'd see our dollar crash along with many other countries currency.

I'm not experienced in economy enough to make a judgement on this. However I think I agree with you here. I disagree with most Ron Paul supporters claims that America has a dollar "backed by nothing". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the dollar is backed by gross national material output. Production/consumption, output/input as a basis for financial output.

[Psycho4Bud]

Being older doesn't give your opinions legitimacy by default P4B. Not to say you don't tout some very good ones, but people of "more experience" stand on just about every point. In fact doesn't Ron Paul himself technically has more life experience than you?

Just making a point my wizard friend. I guess all of us old folks just get our information from Fox over our good morning coffee. Pretty humorous to say the least.

I'd have to see these votes you speak of, but I get the feeling you're relating to votes against government funding for abortion at the federal level; which would be more a constitutional issue than an abortion issue. .

It was discussed in here before. The bill before congress would state that life begins at conception and that states would then have the right to create laws based off from that. More/less...what sort of prison time is in store for those that do this under the wire.

And the "God hates fags" church people may have voted for George Bush, that doesn't mean George Bush believes "god hates fags".
Peacenick hippies are undoubtedly more prone to voting Democrat, that doesn't make Democrats peacenick hippies.
Stoners would be inclined to vote for Ron Paul, it doesn't make Ron Paul a stoner. You see what I'm getting at here? It's backward logic, saying those who vote for the candidate represent the candidates views in every respect..

Has he tried to distance himself from what main stream America would classify as the "conspiracy sector"? Since that's a good part of his backing I can see why he doesn't. BUT the little remarks about on how we provoked the wars is just enough to keep them on board but not so much as to be classified as a fruit loop.

His anti-constiutional claims regarding the war are to do with a foreign policy of non-interventionalism, not the actual process by which war was declared..

And were is that in the Constitution? In those days we were taking over the Indian Nation and running Mexico out of the Southwest.

Hemp and marijuana, while biologically related, are two very different matters. We're talking about medicine/recreational drugs versus indsutrial products for sails, clothing, ropes and the such. It makes a lot more sense to fix these government policy's toward hemp/cannabis one step at a time. The first step, obviously, is legalizing hemp.
If Paul was lying and not actually for legalizing marijuana, why would he bother saying it when it's political suicide?.

Once again...where is the bill in Congress? Many congressmen try to put through bills that they know have no chance in passing.....like his anti-abortion bills.

erm.... do you mean $400 or $400 million/billion? Personally I suppose tax incentives and investment in keeping industry/economy strong. Anyway, I'd have to see what spending specifically you believe is hypocritical. Ron Paul is against the big over-spending that is bankrupting the nation, he's not against all spending in any form. As he said in the last debate, "cutting income tax would result in a 1/3 loss in government revenue. As is, that would take us back to 2000 levels of spending. Are you saying this government can't get back to 2000 spending levels?".

Yeah, it was suppose to be million.......nice catch!:thumbsup:

How can anyone state that they're against over-spending but yet have pet projects in the tune of over $400 million, some that are directly for a market (the Shrimp Industy) that is in his area? If that's the case, then representatives from areas that are heavy into oil, coal, auto, etc...have the same halo over their heads in regards to spending? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

I'm not experienced in economy enough to make a judgement on this. However I think I agree with you here. I disagree with most Ron Paul supporters claims that America has a dollar "backed by nothing". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the dollar is backed by gross national material output. Production/consumption, output/input as a basis for financial output.

Exacty...and at the present we have a GDP over $13 trillion.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Just making a point my wizard friend. I guess all of us old folks just get our information from Fox over our good morning coffee. Pretty humorous to say the least.

Hmm? I'm not saying that at all! I may disagree with you on a lot of opinions, but I know an intelligent opponent when I see one and I know you're not getting your opinions from anywhere but your own reasoning.

It was discussed in here before. The bill before congress would state that life begins at conception and that states would then have the right to create laws based off from that. More/less...what sort of prison time is in store for those that do this under the wire.

Ouch! So does it state then, literally, that any abortion is commiting murder? I couldn't be more against that.

Has he tried to distance himself from what main stream America would classify as the "conspiracy sector"? Since that's a good part of his backing I can see why he doesn't. BUT the little remarks about on how we provoked the wars is just enough to keep them on board but not so much as to be classified as a fruit loop.

Your right, he hasn't, but then why bother when you've got a few thousand extra votes? Sad as it may be, every politician has to whore themselves a little.

And were is that in the Constitution? In those days we were taking over the Indian Nation and running Mexico out of the Southwest.

Legally, the Indians didn't have a nation since there were hundreds of non-unified tribes. They had their territory, but nobody had claim over the entire America's. Not to say the colonialist bullshit is justified, they were terrible to the natives! But I'm not aware of anywhere in the constitution justifying these actions.
Where does it say? Honestly I'm not sure, but I was under the impression that it has a "no-nation building" clause or some sort. I could be wrong, wish I had time to read the constitution in its entirety.

Once again...where is the bill in Congress? Many congressmen try to put through bills that they know have no chance in passing.....like his anti-abortion bills.

Don't know, maybe he doesn't see the point knowing it won't be passed, maybe he didn't want to lose his possition as congressman. Being president and leader of the republican party really is the only way one could have the power to push that through.

Yeah, it was suppose to be million.......nice catch!:thumbsup:

How can anyone state that they're against over-spending but yet have pet projects in the tune of over $400 million, some that are directly for a market (the Shrimp Industy) that is in his area? If that's the case, then representatives from areas that are heavy into oil, coal, auto, etc...have the same halo over their heads in regards to spending? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Do you have a link to some info on this shrimp-industry project? I want to take a look before passing judgement.

[Psycho4Bud]

Hmm? I'm not saying that at all! I may disagree with you on a lot of opinions, but I know an intelligent opponent when I see one and I know you're not getting your opinions from anywhere but your own reasoning.

It was implied by the poster that I recently responded to. Nothing on you sir wizard.:thumbsup:

Ouch! So does it state then, literally, that any abortion is commiting murder? I couldn't be more against that.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007'.


SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
GovTrack: H.R. 2597: Text of Legislation

Legally, the Indians didn't have a nation since there were hundreds of non-unified tribes. They had their territory, but nobody had claim over the entire America's. Not to say the colonialist bullshit is justified, they were terrible to the natives! But I'm not aware of anywhere in the constitution justifying these actions.
Where does it say? Honestly I'm not sure, but I was under the impression that it has a "no-nation building" clause or some sort. I could be wrong, wish I had time to read the constitution in its entirety.

There is no clause like that....remember "manifest destinty"?

Don't know, maybe he doesn't see the point knowing it won't be passed, maybe he didn't want to lose his possition as congressman. Being president and leader of the republican party really is the only way one could have the power to push that through.

He knows that MANY of his bills are dead in the water but still submits them..........

Do you have a link to some info on this shrimp-industry project? I want to take a look before passing judgement.

LOL...Check out number 1 on the list......I thought he was against big brother creating a data base..........

1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a â??Childrenâ??s Identification and Location Database.â?�

2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.

3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.

7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.

8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paulâ??s district?)
Classically Liberal: Ron Paul's personal pork projects.

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public â?? and I have to presume it's not by accident."
FOXNews.com - Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks - Brit Hume | Special Report

There ya go..........

Have a good one!:s4:

[420izzle]

assclown eh....hmmmm...psycho4hate...
get off the 'ye ol wise one' soap box. age doesn't equal wisdom.
in response to your spelling it out for us...spilling your wisdom onto us...
1.) Ron Paul is personally pro-life. yes. but he is anti-federal government telling you what you can do with your body. so he says, repeal roe vs. wade...the feds should stay out of it. let the states decide.
2.) backed by all sorts. this is the straw-man attack of you gate-keepers. you don't have any substantiative attacks so you attack his supporters. this approach will fail. shall we review the supporters of Giuliani, Romney, Hillary, Edwards, Obama and muster up the conspiracy theorists, brothel owners. You'll find the worst of the worst in these military industrial complex and hedgefunders and on and on...
3.) Yes. So you're saying WAR is good. Our governments have our best interest at heart. Not very compelling or interesting argument dude. Sell the war man....sell it. I'm sure our founding fathers would disagree with you.
4.) Not true. He wants the war on drugs ended and says it is a miserable mistake. Read up here.
5.) That is the most shocking skeleton in the closet you could muster up? You must enjoy Faux news. Here is a credible resource for all good Americans to reference this.
6.) Paul has explicitly stated "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard," pointing out that a "there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." (YouTube - Ron Paul in New Hampshire) So, Paul, like his critics, also doesn't think going back to the gold standard would be a good idea. That is, he does not agree that government should fix the ratio of gold to paper - which is what going "back to" or "returning to" the gold standard would comprise.
What Paul actually wishes to do, as he has said many times, is simply to make gold and silver legal tender as called for in the Constitution, as well as to remove the taxes on these metals. He has called this "going forward to a new gold standard" to make it clear that this is not the same thing as going "back to the gold standard." The reason he wants gold and silver to be made legal tender is because he likes the idea of competing currencies and opposes monopoly money. He wants us in the marketplace to be able to decide what money we use, rather than government imposing its choice on us. And, he is confident that if allowed the choice, it is natural that the market will choose money backed by "hard assets" such as gold and silver. As it stands now, fiat currency issued by the Federal Reserve has the special privilege of being "legal tender." This, and the tax penalty on buying and selling gold, enforces a near monopoly on money in the U.S. to the effect that nearly all transactions are conducted with fiat Federal Reserve notes. If gold and silver were given legal tender status, and the taxes on them removed, currencies backed by these metals, as well as the metals themselves, would have a much greater chance at successfully competing with fiat Federal Reserve notes. The Federal Reserve might be an issuer of gold-backed paper (prior to the creation of the Fed, currency was commissioned to be printed by other banks), but that it is not even necessary. As Paul points out, these could be issued by the private sector. In fact, they already are being issued, but as pointed out above, it is difficult for them to get a foothold due to special legal privilege for fiat currency. Examples of privately-issued gold-backed money in limited use today include E-gold (e-gold... Internet payments, 100% backed by gold) and the Liberty Dollar. Paul has said that he does not want to abolish the Federal Reserve overnight because it would cause massive economic disruption. Presumably, the Fed would be abolished only after the the masses converted to sound money. If that occurs, then the Fed would have already become irrelevant anyway, so doing away with it would be a non-event.

I know how easy it is to stay stuck in your old ways, but wake up people! Don't let the gatekeepers tell you what to think.
Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America
Ron Paul Library

[GrinS]

^^ exactly

Its better to fix the problem then prolong the non-working treatment.

[Psycho4Bud]

assclown eh....hmmmm...psycho4hate...
get off the 'ye ol wise one' soap box. age doesn't equal wisdom.
in response to your spelling it out for us...spilling your wisdom onto us...
1.) Ron Paul is personally pro-life. yes. but he is anti-federal government telling you what you can do with your body. so he says, repeal roe vs. wade...the feds should stay out of it. let the states decide.
2.) backed by all sorts. this is the straw-man attack of you gate-keepers. you don't have any substantiative attacks so you attack his supporters. this approach will fail. shall we review the supporters of Giuliani, Romney, Hillary, Edwards, Obama and muster up the conspiracy theorists, brothel owners. You'll find the worst of the worst in these military industrial complex and hedgefunders and on and on...
3.) Yes. So you're saying WAR is good. Our governments have our best interest at heart. Not very compelling or interesting argument dude. Sell the war man....sell it. I'm sure our founding fathers would disagree with you.
4.) Not true. He wants the war on drugs ended and says it is a miserable mistake. Read up here.
5.) That is the most shocking skeleton in the closet you could muster up? You must enjoy Faux news. Here is a credible resource for all good Americans to reference this.
6.) Paul has explicitly stated "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard," pointing out that a "there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." (YouTube - Ron Paul in New Hampshire) So, Paul, like his critics, also doesn't think going back to the gold standard would be a good idea. That is, he does not agree that government should fix the ratio of gold to paper - which is what going "back to" or "returning to" the gold standard would comprise.
What Paul actually wishes to do, as he has said many times, is simply to make gold and silver legal tender as called for in the Constitution, as well as to remove the taxes on these metals. He has called this "going forward to a new gold standard" to make it clear that this is not the same thing as going "back to the gold standard." The reason he wants gold and silver to be made legal tender is because he likes the idea of competing currencies and opposes monopoly money. He wants us in the marketplace to be able to decide what money we use, rather than government imposing its choice on us. And, he is confident that if allowed the choice, it is natural that the market will choose money backed by "hard assets" such as gold and silver. As it stands now, fiat currency issued by the Federal Reserve has the special privilege of being "legal tender." This, and the tax penalty on buying and selling gold, enforces a near monopoly on money in the U.S. to the effect that nearly all transactions are conducted with fiat Federal Reserve notes. If gold and silver were given legal tender status, and the taxes on them removed, currencies backed by these metals, as well as the metals themselves, would have a much greater chance at successfully competing with fiat Federal Reserve notes. The Federal Reserve might be an issuer of gold-backed paper (prior to the creation of the Fed, currency was commissioned to be printed by other banks), but that it is not even necessary. As Paul points out, these could be issued by the private sector. In fact, they already are being issued, but as pointed out above, it is difficult for them to get a foothold due to special legal privilege for fiat currency. Examples of privately-issued gold-backed money in limited use today include E-gold (e-gold... Internet payments, 100% backed by gold) and the Liberty Dollar. Paul has said that he does not want to abolish the Federal Reserve overnight because it would cause massive economic disruption. Presumably, the Fed would be abolished only after the the masses converted to sound money. If that occurs, then the Fed would have already become irrelevant anyway, so doing away with it would be a non-event.

I know how easy it is to stay stuck in your old ways, but wake up people! Don't let the gatekeepers tell you what to think.
Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America
Ron Paul Library

Just for future ref., wouldn't be doing a slam on user names in this or any forum. Not permitted and with your post count you should be aware of that.

Next:
1) Show me where, by link, that he's stated that the fed would have NO say in abortions. His bill is pretty self-explanitory. LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION/The Fed........states would have NO say!
2) Are you saying that main stream America doesn't find the "conspiracy sector" a bit on far side? The left wing doesn't even want to associate themselves with them and they are both anti-war.
3) LOL...which founding fathers....PLEASE list a few that would feel that way. Are these some of the same that were in Tripoli?
4) So where is the bill?
5) Dirty is dirty.......there ARE congressmen and senators that don't practice this.
6) First off; Liberty Dollar is closed down for violating currency laws. Next; As per the CONSTITUTION, Congress has sole responsibility on what our currency is and who makes it.

Have a good one!:s4:

[yokinazu]

i spent a while now reading this post and would like to say something

peacenick hippies do not vote democratic. we also do not vote republican. i , being a peacenick hippie, have supported the natural law party from the begining. we are usally the ones who vote 3rd party.

also ,no ,age does not mean wisdom. but i do know that my political veiws are much differant now than they were when i was 20. intelligence is the ability to retain information, wisdom is the ability to learn from and not repeat your and other peoples mistakes.

[420izzle]

1.) Here Ron Paul writes, in his own words, that the federal government should stay out of the abortion issue. Here is a youtube video of him stating it.
2.) It isn't about left or right. Of course mainstream thinks of 'conspiracy theorists' as fringe elements, but mainstream is changing my friend. And the paradigm of 'conspiracy' is changing also. I was 'mainstream liberal minded' until I woke up. I'm saying that you and others attack us RP supporters as being terrorists (Beck and Horowitz), conspiracy theorists, shrimp lovers, and it isn't working. Americans are smarter than that.
3.) Well, for starters, in his 'The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty', James Madison says: "The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the
power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . .
the power of creating offices. . . .
The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it,
is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the
sake of its being conducted." I know Jefferson went to the middle east too, but c'mon.
4.) Ron Paul has filed a bill that would legalize ... for industrial use as well as allow possession of marijuana for personal use...check it out...HR1009.
5.) In the good Dr's. words..."Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds â?? their tax dollars â?? than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better."
6.) The dollar is crashing. Ask yourself why they raided Liberty Dollar creators. They don't want any competing currency. The Amero is on it's way. Then you'll go, oh...
And who told you congress has anything to do with our currency? The Federal Reserve, you know that private cabal of bankers that run our economy and is neither federal nor a reserve, they run our currency and the inflation of it.

And apologies for the 'slam', but I can't stand enemies of the republic spewing lies and I feel the need to stand up.

[Psycho4Bud]

1.) Here Ron Paul writes, in his own words, that the federal government should stay out of the abortion issue. Here is a youtube video of him stating it.
2.) It isn't about left or right. Of course mainstream thinks of 'conspiracy theorists' as fringe elements, but mainstream is changing my friend. And the paradigm of 'conspiracy' is changing also. I was 'mainstream liberal minded' until I woke up. I'm saying that you and others attack us RP supporters as being terrorists (Beck and Horowitz), conspiracy theorists, shrimp lovers, and it isn't working. Americans are smarter than that.
3.) Well, for starters, in his 'The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty', James Madison says: "The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the
power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . .
the power of creating offices. . . .
The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it,
is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the
sake of its being conducted." I know Jefferson went to the middle east too, but c'mon.
4.) Ron Paul has filed a bill that would legalize ... for industrial use as well as allow possession of marijuana for personal use...check it out...HR1009.
5.) In the good Dr's. words..."Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds â?? their tax dollars â?? than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better."
6.) The dollar is crashing. Ask yourself why they raided Liberty Dollar creators. They don't want any competing currency. The Amero is on it's way. Then you'll go, oh...
And who told you congress has anything to do with our currency? The Federal Reserve, you know that private cabal of bankers that run our economy and is neither federal nor a reserve, they run our currency and the inflation of it.

And apologies for the 'slam', but I can't stand enemies of the republic spewing lies and I feel the need to stand up.

1) I posted a thread on the issue where you can see him spell it out.....he even talked of some type of penalty for the day after pill.
2) Call it what you will.....fact is that the dems even stay clear of this sector and they are both on the anti-war agenda. Why would that be?
3) Just goes to show.....even our "founding fathers" were screwing around over there. Kind of hard to state with a straight face on what our founding fathers would do today with the advancements of technology.
4) To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007'.


SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP FROM DEFINITION OF MARIHUANA.

Paragraph (16) of section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended--

(1) by striking `(16)' at the beginning and inserting `(16)(A)'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(B) The term `marihuana' does not include industrial hemp. As used in the preceding sentence, the term `industrial hemp' means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.'.


SEC. 3. INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY STATES.

Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(i) Industrial Hemp Determination To Be Made by States- In any criminal action, civil action, or administrative proceeding, a State regulating the growing and processing of industrial hemp under State law shall have exclusive authority to determine whether any such plant meets the concentration limitation set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (16) of section 102 and such determination shall be conclusive and binding.'.
GovTrack: H.R. 1009: Text of Legislation

I must be missing the spot about the personal use issue.
5) Putting it across like it's ghost money is bullshit. Your either wasting the taxpayers dollars on pet projects or your not.
6) Federal Government
The federal government is the national government, whose powers are limited by the Constitution to defense, foreign affairs, printing money, controlling trade and relations between the states, and protecting human rights.
United States Dollar and US currency information including currency exchange rates

Do a bit of a check on exchange rates to other countries and tell me how the dollar is crashing.

Have a good one!:s4: