Hossgrows
- Posts
- 1,825
- Reactions
- 8,355
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2025
- Points
- 263
But hey....they treat us like mushrooms. Kept in the dark, fed lots of shit.
You crack me up. Peace man. I'm out.
President George H.W. Bush signs NAFTA
President Bush spoke at the OAS on the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement, an international treaty intended to encourage trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico by lowering trade barriers between the three countries. The president signed the agreement following his prepared...www.c-span.org
That's bullshit, it's never they "it's you and me." We chose to be in the dark or not. And as Woodward said "Democracy dies in the darkness", so turn that light on high and grow.But hey....they treat us like mushrooms. Kept in the dark, fed lots of shit.
Two separate issues. Rescheduling is appeasement nothing more. It will make pharma richer, big grow ag richer, and not much else. It changes nothing for states that have not already written laws allowing home growth.So where do seeds eventually come down in all this new rescheduling business? Will homegrowers be relegated back to the legacy market for genetics? Will not paying taxes result in something akin to what happened with Moonshiners after prohibition ended? So many questions. I am glad our beloved plant is being rescheduled, but without the ability to produce my own the dispensary would bankrupt me. What are some thoughts on the future of homegrows? Will they carve out a niche for them? You are allowed so much alcohol a year before taxes are paid. Where does this leave seeds?
Oh it's a joyous thing for Canna-Business,Two separate issues. Rescheduling is appeasement nothing more. It will make pharma richer, big grow ag richer, and not much else. It changes nothing for states that have not already written laws allowing home growth
Exactly among other things.Oh it's a joyous thing for Canna-Business,
They can now deduct expenses that Schedule One did not let them deduct.
Damn right. If I can grow malt or barley and turn it into beer I should be able to grow weed and turn it into medicine or to just enjoy.Now I am in favor of de-scheduling. Let Mom and Pop grow the Good Herb in their garden and let them share with their neighbors.
Until people realize both parties have their priorities of issues that they will NEVER FIX because if they do, what will they run on? we'll continue going nowhere.Oh it's a joyous thing for Canna-Business,
They can now deduct expenses that Schedule One did not let them deduct.
Do we remember that the previous President also started the Reschedule effort?
That found it's way to the Black-Hole of waiting for DEA hearings and was never seen again.
So yes this President has ordered re-schedule but Congress isn't under the control of the Executive Branch. Congress is that which has to make Schedule Three happen.
So this is still a Nothing-Burger until we are holding our Happy Meal in our hands.
Now I am in favor of de-scheduling. Let Mom and Pop grow the Good Herb in their garden and let them share with their neighbors.
I understand that is a bridge too far for some and the reason is that if anyone can produce it then that takes the commercial value of it down.
Cannabis has to be illegal to manufacture for the sake of price stability.
Also I'm sure we will hear from people that will warn us how dangerous sprouting Cannabis seeds is to the unborn--at some point.
It still sucks, that they are a controlled substance now.
Still Schedule 3 seeds are better than Schedule 1 seeds.
So will we be going to our local CVS or Walmart pharmacy for our Primo now? Schedule 3 makes Cannabis a Medicine to be regulated like others.
What was it Rush Limbaugh said years ago? 'Follow the money'. And it CAN be a winding road but it usually leads to the reason people do what they do in politics as well as business.L
Until people realize both parties have their priorities of issues that they will NEVER FIX because if they do, what will they run on? we'll continue going nowhere.
It took an outsider, a non politician, a disruptor to do the things most Americans want done, especially on 80-20 issues. STOP voting for bullshiters. They're only concerned about being re-elected and will say anything to get your vote. WAKE UP!
That has truth in it.What was it Rush Limbaugh said years ago? 'Follow the money'. And it CAN be a winding road but it usually leads to the reason people do what they do in politics as well as business.
that was used in mexico in the 70’s, we didn’t get much mexican weed in southern ontario and for me that was in the 80’s,.
So where do seeds eventually come down in all this new rescheduling business? Will homegrowers be relegated back to the legacy market for genetics? Will not paying taxes result in something akin to what happened with Moonshiners after prohibition ended? So many questions. I am glad our beloved plant is being rescheduled, but without the ability to produce my own the dispensary would bankrupt me. What are some thoughts on the future of homegrows? Will they carve out a niche for them? You are allowed so much alcohol a year before taxes are paid. Where does this leave seeds?
We assume we little people are invited to their party.So where do seeds eventually come down in all this new rescheduling business? Will homegrowers be relegated back to the legacy market for genetics? Will not paying taxes result in something akin to what happened with Moonshiners after prohibition ended? So many questions. I am glad our beloved plant is being rescheduled, but without the ability to produce my own the dispensary would bankrupt me. What are some thoughts on the future of homegrows? Will they carve out a niche for them? You are allowed so much alcohol a year before taxes are paid. Where does this leave seeds?
Under the farm bill, weed was never legal. It sit existed in a Grey area because of some legal loopholes and billions of dollars in commerce followed as well as tens of thousands of jobs.
Because of the amount of money and jobs, I don't think they are going to be able to walk it back as easy as they think. Once the People get a big "gimme" it's hard for the government to take it back. On a larger scale, the Affordable Care Act, for example
Under the farm bill, weed was never legal. It sit existed in a Grey area because of some legal loopholes and billions of dollars in commerce followed as well as tens of thousands of jobs.
No it wasn't. That was just the scare line. It's always been money. Hearst was the ass wipe because of paper and hemp competing with forestry for paper. It's always money. Just like now. Don't think for a second that someone who just signed an executive order isn't going to profit from this. Or those ass holes who put in the changes for the Farm bill under a funding bill pretense. It's all money.Let us reflect on how Cannabis was seen as an existential threat in the first place.
Was it White Woman having sex with well endowed Black Men and making illegal babies?
Yes it was (partially).
Here are the straight facts.
The United States government did hold a patent on the medical use of cannabinoids.
Patent number: US 6,630,507
Title: “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants”
Issued: October 7, 2003
Assignee: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Developed by: Scientists at the National Institutes of Health
This was a real, enforceable patent.
The patent explicitly states that cannabinoids have medical value, including:
- Neuroprotective effects
- Antioxidant properties
- Potential treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, stroke,
traumatic brain injury, and other neurodegenerative conditions
The contradiction is clear:
The U.S. government formally claimed cannabinoids had medical utility for patent
purposes while simultaneously asserting, through the DEA, that cannabis had
“no accepted medical use” under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
This was legally possible because patent law and drug scheduling law are separate.
Patent law only requires novelty and usefulness; it does not require a substance
to be legal or approved for medical use.
Holding the patent allowed the federal government to:
- Claim intellectual property over medical uses of cannabinoids
- License those uses selectively
- Encourage pharmaceutical development of isolated cannabinoids
- Avoid acknowledging whole-plant cannabis as medicine
The DEA continued enforcing Schedule I status, which requires “no accepted
medical use,” and ignored the existence of the patent in scheduling arguments.
This is where administrative hearings — or the lack of them — mattered.
Critics correctly pointed out that you cannot logically patent a substance for
medical benefit while claiming it has no medical use. Courts noted the tension
but generally deferred to agency process rather than resolving the contradiction.
The patent has since expired, but its existence remains documented proof that
the federal government knew cannabinoids had medical value decades before
public policy acknowledged it.
Bottom line:
Science said yes.
Bureaucracy said wait.
Enforcement said no.
Oh My... The Government knew many many Moons ago Cannabis had medical value and now is the time they open the markets.I work with Information Theory and Practical applications.
That is why my Strain is Skunky Fruit.
As an old person Ai fascinates me.
This is a construct I prompted ChatGPT-5.2 to make.
May it be interesting.
Ah, I'm toking and mokin' :: So I'm like remembering things but LLM-AI is like some kind of SensiNo it wasn't. That was just the scare line. It's always been money. Hearst was the ass wipe because of paper and hemp competing with forestry for paper. It's always money. Just like now. Don't think for a second that someone who just signed an executive order isn't going to profit from this. Or those ass holes who put in the changes for the Farm bill under a funding bill pretense. It's all money.
After Prohibition ended in 1933, the United States faced a political and
bureaucratic problem: federal agencies built to police alcohol needed a new
justification for their existence.
At the same time, Jim Crow ideology remained firmly embedded in American law and
culture. While formal bans on racial mixing focused on marriage and intimacy,
racial control also operated through criminal law and moral panic.
Harry J. Anslinger, head of the newly empowered Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
became the central figure in redirecting enforcement energy toward marijuana.
Anslinger framed cannabis not as a public health issue, but as a social and
racial threat.
In his public statements and testimony, Anslinger explicitly associated
marijuana use with marginalized groups, including Black Americans, Mexican
immigrants, and South Asian (often referred to at the time as “Hindus”).
He claimed that marijuana caused violence, sexual transgression, and defiance
of social norms, particularly across racial lines.
Marijuana had entered U.S. port cities and border regions through labor and
trade networks, including Black dock workers, Mexican agricultural laborers,
and immigrant communities. Rather than addressing labor conditions or public
health, Anslinger and his allies used drug policy as a tool of social control.
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 did not ban marijuana outright, but made its use
and possession legally perilous, selectively enforced, and stigmatized.
Enforcement disproportionately targeted Black and brown communities, reinforcing
existing racial hierarchies without explicitly invoking race in the statute.
This strategy mirrored Jim Crow logic:
where anti-miscegenation laws controlled who could form families,
drug laws controlled who could be criminalized, surveilled, and excluded from
economic and civic life.
In both cases, the law was used not merely to regulate behavior, but to preserve
a racial order threatened by social change following Prohibition, migration,
and labor mobility.
Bottom line:
As Jim Crow policed intimacy to prevent racial mixing, early marijuana laws
policed substances to control racialized populations. Both relied on moral panic,
selective enforcement, and the appearance of neutrality to enforce inequality
through law.
Jim Crow laws included explicit prohibitions against racial mixing, known as
anti-miscegenation laws.
“Miscegenation” laws were state laws that criminalized marriage, sexual
relationships, and sometimes even cohabitation between people classified as
belonging to different races, most commonly between white people and Black
people, but also affecting Native Americans, Asians, and others depending on
the state.
These laws existed primarily in Southern states but were also present in parts
of the Midwest and West. They were justified by claims of maintaining “racial
purity” and social order and were enforced through criminal penalties,
annulments of marriages, and social intimidation.
Anti-miscegenation laws were a core component of the Jim Crow system, alongside
segregation in schools, housing, transportation, employment, and public life.
Their purpose was to reinforce white supremacy by legally enforcing racial
hierarchies and preventing family bonds that might challenge those hierarchies.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld such laws for decades. In 1883, the Court ruled
that states could regulate marriage, and in 1887, it upheld bans on interracial
marriage in Pace v. Alabama, asserting that equal punishment of both races did
not constitute discrimination.
These laws remained in effect until 1967, when the Supreme Court unanimously
struck them down in Loving v. Virginia. The Court ruled that bans on interracial
marriage violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
Loving v. Virginia formally ended all remaining anti-miscegenation laws in the
United States, affirming that marriage is a fundamental right and that racial
classification has no legitimate place in determining whom a person may marry.
Bottom line:
Jim Crow laws did not merely separate races in public spaces; they sought to
control intimacy, family formation, and reproduction in order to preserve a
racial caste system through law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?