PDA

View Full Version : Sorry Ms. Raich, the drug war is more important than your life


Pages : [1] 2

Redworm
March 16, 2007, 01:01 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_re_us/medical_marijuana;_ylt=AqOrnCjGcRbwkXtqa5.91FsDW7oF



By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer Wed Mar 14, 7:59 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO - A woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive can face federal prosecution on drug charges, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.


The ruling was the latest legal defeat for Angel Raich, a mother of two from Oakland suffering from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments who sued the federal government pre-emptively to avoid being arrested for using the drug. On her doctor's advice, Raich eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster her appetite.

The latest legal twist once again highlighted the conflict between the federal government, which declares marijuana an illegal controlled substance with no medical value, and the 11 states allowing medical marijuana for patients with a doctor's recommendation.

The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.

Because of that ruling, the issue before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that the gravely ill have a right to marijuana to keep them alive when legal drugs fail.

Raich, 41, began sobbing when she was told of the decision that she was not immune to prosecution and said she would continue using the drug.

"I'm sure not going to let them kill me," she said. "Oh, my God."

The three-judge appeals panel said that the United States has not yet reached the point where "the right to use medical marijuana is 'fundamental' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"

However, the court left open the possibility that Raich, if she was arrested and prosecuted, might be able to argue that she possessed marijuana as a last resort to stay alive, in what is known as a "medical necessity defense."

"I have to get myself busted in order to try to save my life," Raich said.

One of her physicians, Frank Lucido, said in an interview last year that Raich would "probably be dead without marijuana." Lucido, of Berkeley, was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.

Leaders in the medical marijuana movement said they would continue fighting.

"This is literally a matter of life and death for Angel and thousands of other patients, and we will keep fighting on both the legal and political fronts until every patient is safe," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project.

New Mexico is poised to become the 12th state to allow medical marijuana under a bill lawmakers approved Wednesday. Gov. Bill Richardson, a strong supporter of the measure, is expected to sign it.

Reading the information about Gonzalez v. Raich is just sickening. The justification for using the commerce clause to give the government this authority in the drug war is absolutely absurd. So because homegrown marijuana in California used by Californians competes with the already illegal marijuana being traded among other states it falls within the government's authority to tell a state how to let its people live and to tell a physician how to treat his patient.

Am I the only one that finds it ridiculous that the government is saying it has the authority to regulate a black market that it has no control over in the first place? :confused:

WeedWacker
March 16, 2007, 01:23 PM
I say they figure out WHAT in the marijuana is the medicine and just extract it. Pharmaceutical companies can buy a permit to produce it and sell it or produce for study and/or it can be synthesized in a lab.

invention_45
March 16, 2007, 01:25 PM
I suspect that all the judges involved so far work for Mel Brooks.

Redworm
March 16, 2007, 01:33 PM
I say they figure out WHAT in the marijuana is the medicine and just extract it. Pharmaceutical companies can buy a permit to produce it and sell it or produce for study and/or it can be synthesized in a lab.

1. Why? It's already beneficial in plant form where it works as a fast acting inhalant.

2. There are numerous cannabinoids and other chemicals in marijuana than have their own effects, some of them working better in conjunction with the rest.

So far the only synthetic version is only an extract of THC and doesn't have all the beneficial qualities of this plant that has been used for thousands of years. Why should people have to wait for a new, expensive drug to hit the market when a very safe and very effective one already exists that won't drain the pocketbook?

michibilly
March 16, 2007, 01:46 PM
I say they just let who ever wants to smoke it smoke it for whatever the reason. Let's treat it like beer or tylenol and move on to more important issues.

Rangefinder
March 16, 2007, 02:04 PM
I'm amazed more and more all the time whenever any topic of pharmaceutical industries come up. I can't even turn on the TV at night anymore without seeing some new "miracle pill" to cure heartburn, acid reflux, or whatever--but with the side effects you'll need to wear Depends, a drool bib, and will probably have a stroke or heart attack in less than six months... and that's just A-Okay. But if grandma gets caught burning a medicinal doobie, she'll land in the pen--not the old folks home.

And why is that? Because grandma can grow her own right between the lilac tree and her favorite rose bush. That means the Feds don't get their cut, the state doesn't get it's cut, the doctor looses his piece of the pie, the lawyers miss out, the pharmaceutical companies get short-changed, and the list goes on... and heaven forbid--grandma can spent some of her pathetic SS check on something else she might need.
The simple fact is that the monetary value of MJ is much better for too many decision-influencing entities so long as it's kept completely illegal, regardless of how beneficial it might be to the individual were it to be legalized. As with so many other things, when you cut passed all the propaganda, it still comes down to a dollar sign in the end.

invention_45
March 16, 2007, 02:59 PM
The politicos cannot afford to allow pot to become legal. That's because what they are doing only makes sense if you are stoned. If everybody gets wasted and figures out the reasoning and methods being used to control them, there will be a revolution.

Now, that may seem like silly rationale, but I say that only something so convoluted and ridiculous can be the reason for stubbornly refusing to allow the relief of an innocent old lady's illness through the use of a substance that has been widely used and has caused ZERO deaths of record. Paraphrased, it's the perfect example of the phrase "safe and effective".

STAGE 2
March 16, 2007, 03:08 PM
Its a false argument. Marijuana isn't "keeping her alive" and there are plenty of other legal drugs that will do the same job.

Eghad
March 16, 2007, 03:15 PM
I say they figure out WHAT in the marijuana is the medicine and just extract it. Pharmaceutical companies can buy a permit to produce it and sell it or produce for study and/or it can be synthesized in a lab.

Then the price will be ridiculous for a bottle of pills.

Crosshair
March 16, 2007, 03:21 PM
Does she have a donation website? I don't have alot of money, but I sure as heck can donate $20.

It is good to see that the states are passing their own laws in defiance of bad Federal law. Hopefully more states will follow.

invention_45
March 16, 2007, 03:21 PM
and there are plenty of other legal drugs that will do the same job.

Can you name them and explain how you know each one will be as effective and as safe in her situation?

SecDef
March 16, 2007, 03:30 PM
Its a false argument. Marijuana isn't "keeping her alive" and there are plenty of other legal drugs that will do the same job.

Possibly, but the point you actually support is that it DOES do the job.

"On her doctor's advice, Raich eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster her appetite."

Fairly well accepted now that the argument that MJ has no medicinal value is busted.


The BEST anti-drug ad is the one that shows the kid saying "I tried pot. Nothing happened." then showed him and his buddies sitting on the couch eyes glazed while life passed them by.

kiov
March 16, 2007, 03:52 PM
The "drug" in pot has already been discovered and can be extracted and put in pills. Last I saw, it was something like 200% the price of just growing it. It is truly absurd to let drug companies rob the public for something that can be delivered well either by smoking or cooking it into baked goods. The fact that it is abused by some is a whole different issue. I would say tho, that it is much less dangerous than booze. You know the drunk cause he's going twice the speed limit and swerving; you know the stoner cause he's going 4 mph behind a garbage truck. (joke--for the record, I'm against anyone using any drugs and then driving. DUI is enforced for both booze and pot, so that's already covered under the law) I do think the government trying to use interstate commerce laws is ridiculous. 3/4 of our prisons are occupied by drug offenders, and a large portion of those are in for pot. This doesn't make us more safe, it makes us broke and unable to fight real crime. That's why so many judges have come out against harsh laws giving prison time for small time pot violations. They legalized medial pot in Colorado a few years ago, and last year the city of Denver legalized anyone possessing one oz or under. Our city is not falling apart and we still are very conservative on most issues. We are saving a ton of cash, and you still get popped big time if you smoke and drive, or try to distribute.

Redworm
March 16, 2007, 04:08 PM
Its a false argument. Marijuana isn't "keeping her alive" and there are plenty of other legal drugs that will do the same job. Yeah, I was waiting for this. :P

No two drugs are identical and her doctor has determined that there are no other perfectly legal drugs that will do the same job. In fact there is no legal drug on the market that has all the benefits of marijuana that she needs. Pain relief is usually done with narcotics that can be addicting while marijuana will not cause physical addiction. Appetite stimulation would require a separate drug that would not only introduce a host of other possible side effects but opens the door to negative drug interactions.

The bottom line remains that her doctors know her medical condition better than anyone here and are the ONLY ones that should be deciding what the best drug for her is.

STAGE 2
March 16, 2007, 05:09 PM
Bottom line, pot is not keeping this lady alive. Pot is illegal. The fact that some folks want to tug on the heart strings isn't relevant. There ARE drugs which will medically do exactly the same thing as pot. The fact that she has a preference is irrelevant. I prefer to drive 90 on the freeway, but I don't have that luxury.

Rangefinder
March 16, 2007, 05:30 PM
How about the notion it's keeping her life somewhat bearable without her entire financial support being handed over to the pharmaceutical industry.
I'm not a MJ advocate, but it doesn't take a lot of common sense to see that it's less harmful to society as a legal drug of choice like coffee or beer than it is a danger to the larger entities that make a nice bit of their profits by keeping it illegal.

Edward429451
March 16, 2007, 06:35 PM
Bottom line, pot is not keeping this lady alive.

Could you expound on this? Are you a doctor?

Wildalaska
March 16, 2007, 06:48 PM
All drug dealers should be shot.

Hey looky, I'm a neandertal now.

WildsoresubjectAlaska

Thunderhawk88
March 16, 2007, 06:52 PM
I am not a doctor, so I will just have to take her doctor's word as to it's keeping her alive.
But what I can attest to is that there is some benefit for the use of MJ in the terminally ill. Five years ago last Christmas eve, my best friend's wife, a truly wonderful Lady, passed away from breast cancer. Her last six to eight months on the Earth were rough ones, and smoking pot helped her to maintain her appetite through the chemo therapy and the pain. the only way she could get it was through illegal purchases.
It is a damn shame when Government loses it's compassion for political "points"!

TargetTerror
March 16, 2007, 06:54 PM
Bottom line, pot is not keeping this lady alive. Pot is illegal. The fact that some folks want to tug on the heart strings isn't relevant.

There are very few drugs whose express purpose is keeping you alive. Will you die without Ibuprofen? Do you really need Claritin do control your hay fever?

The issue is not whether or not marijuana keeps her alive, it is that it DRAMATICALLY improves her QUALITY of life. It is just like being prescribed some percocet the next time you break your arm. Is the percocet keeping you alive? Absolutely not. But it makes your life much more bearable. I can never understand why anyone would want to take something away from someone else that only improves their quality of life.


There ARE drugs which will medically do exactly the same thing as pot.
There are literally dozens of different agents in marijuana that all have some effect when it is used. Every strain of marijuana is different, and produces a different effect. Some strains make you more alert, others make you feel more relaxed and sedated. As far as I know, the only compound which has been extracted from marijuana is THC, which is only one part of the high that you get.

More importantly, everybody reacts differently to different drugs. That two drugs do "the same thing" does NOT automatically make them suitable for use by two different people, even for the same symptoms. Vicodin does the same thing as Percocet, yet many people are made nauseous by Vicodin. What possible benefit does society get by forcing someone to use Vicodin instead of a drug that works better for them?

Stage, which drug on the market (let's keep it singular, not a "cocktail") produces the same effects TO THIS LADY as the marijuana that she uses? How do you know it produces the same effect? Do you know what other medications she is taking? (I'm sure there are quite a few, given her ailments) What are the interactions of the drug(s) you are recommending with the drugs she is already taking? Are those interactions more or less harmful to her? Do those interactions improve or worsen her quality of life?

Most people fail to realize that even today, with all of our technology, Medicine remains an art, not a science. Are we pushing it closer to a science? Yes, every day. But it is naive at best and deadly at worst to make the sort of blanket, armchair judgments about which drugs should or should not be available to people with no knowledge of the patient's history, and probably no knowledge of medicine itself. Let Doctors do what they feel is in their patients' best interest. Their hands are already tied enough by nature, let's not make it any harder for them.

The fact that she has a preference is irrelevant. I prefer to drive 90 on the freeway, but I don't have that luxury.

Stage, is this really an argument you want to make? Are you REALLY arguing that quality of life is a LUXURY? This woman is dying and in pain, and she has found a drug that eases that pain. Yes, that is technically a luxury, as she would probably live without using marijuana (*speculation* I don't know her medical history), but this affects her and ONLY HER. Driving 90 on the freeway can affect the lives of everyone around you. For that reason, your speed is regulated, and is a luxury you don't have. Remember my Vicodin/Percocet analogy above? Do you think a patient's preference is relevant in that scenario? It is no different than this lady's situation.

SecDef
March 16, 2007, 06:54 PM
All drug dealers should be shot.

Does that include pharmacists, or only the unlicensed ones?

Fact is, drug abuse will happen whether the drug in question is regulated or not.

Rangefinder
March 16, 2007, 07:02 PM
Stepping slightly into off-topic land... Here's suggestion/challenge for anyone interested: Do some research. Find some solid, bonified, scientific evidence and supported conclusions about the effects of MJ--both positive and negative (excluding all the propoganda and falsities proposed by both sides). Then do some research into the various organizations (be it governmental AND private) that benefit by keeping MJ illegal and would otherwise suffer monetarily with its legalization.

My own conclusions indicate pretty strong that the main reason it has remained illegal is because it's worth more to way too many people that way. Legalizing it takes all the profit out of it for too many people--and I'm not referring to current dealers or growers, though it would destroy their ability to make much profit from it as well.

Playboypenguin
March 16, 2007, 07:03 PM
Its a false argument. Marijuana isn't "keeping her alive" and there are plenty of other legal drugs that will do the same job.
Where did you get your medical degree?
I assume you have one to make such a definitive medical judgment.

My father-n-law and brother-n-law are both MD's and they both attest to the benefits of medical marijuana. In fact I have never know a single non-political affiliated doctor who denies its benefits.

And for your information, most every test conducted on cancer patients and chronic pain sufferers showed better results with less damage to the user with marijuana than with other drugs. Marijuana is very effective as a pain reliever and appetite stimulant with negligible negative effects on the user.

Then when you factor in that marijuana can do it for a much smaller cost.

That is where the real problem comes in to play. It is very hard for big business to make money off of a drug people can grow safely in their own homes.

rem33
March 16, 2007, 07:13 PM
Am I the only one that finds it ridiculous that the government is saying it has the authority to regulate a black market that it has no control over in the first place


When I was your age I might have agreed with you but after seeing what I have seen down through the years I am gonna go with WildshootemAlaska on this subject.
In fact I will go one farther. It would be a on site death penalty at the border no matter the drug.
POW bury em!
End of story, who wants to be next?

Wildalaska
March 16, 2007, 07:14 PM
Fact is, drug abuse will happen whether the drug in question is regulated or not.

Oh I know. But just like a conservative is a liberal who got mugged, old WA is a drug libertarian who just lost someone from an OD...

I'll be back to normal soon.

WildshootemallAlaska

GoSlash27
March 16, 2007, 07:19 PM
invention45,
If everybody gets wasted and figures out the reasoning and methods being used to control them, there will be a revolution.
It'd be a hoot. We'd all load up our arsenals into the back of our Dodge Omnis, pop in a Phish CD and head for DC at 5mph with the occasional delay while waiting for the stop sign to turn green. Once we get there we'll realize that we forgot to bring the ammo and head over to Taco Bell.

Yeah, I'm just messin' with ya :)

STAGE 2
March 16, 2007, 07:20 PM
Where did you get your medical degree?
I assume you have one to make such a definitive medical judgment.

My father-in-law and brother-in-law are both MDs and they both attest to the benefits of medical marijuana. In fact I have never know a single non-political affiliated doctor who denies it's benefits.

And for your information, most every test conducted on cancer patients and cronic pain sufferers showed better results with less damage to the user with marijuana than with other drugs. Marijuana is very effective as a pain reliever and appetite stimulant with negligible negative effects on the user.

Then when you factor in that marijuana can do it for a much smaller cost.

That is where the real problem comes in to play. It is very hard for big business to make money off of a drug people can grow safely in their own homes.

I'm not a MD nor do I need to be. There isn't anything in pot that will sustain anyone's life. The most it does is numb one's pain, and there are plenty of available drugs that do this. I never said pot had no use, what I said was that there are other legal available drugs that medically will accomplish the same task.

Pot is illegal. A majority of Americans want it that way. Because the little old lady from Pasadena has cancer doesn't mean we bend the law. If you don't like it, change it.

All of this bullcrap about oh its just pot, oh it doesn't hurt anyone, oh it doesn't matter what the law says is phooey. This type of argument is the same type of tactic that antis use when they want to read out the 2nd amendment. They take some sympathetic character, throw them in the spotlight and then say "see, look at how bad guns are." This is no different.

Unless you can convince enough Americans to change the law via their representatives, then you smoke dope at your own risk. I don't care whether its for cancer or you're celebrating 4/20. It makes no difference.

SecDef
March 16, 2007, 07:42 PM
Unless you can convince enough americans to change the law via their representatives

AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ME, NV, OR, RI, VT and WA have already. Its a long and painful process, of course. And Federal is a different beast requiring a different tactic (when is the last time there was a national referendum or a politician doing something because it is practical?)

Pot is illegal. A majority of americans want it that way.
I'm not sure that second sentence is completely accurate. Opinion Polls (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3392) say otherwise. (Yes, that was the best source I could find... Google is failing to find any better results. Ignore it if you want.)

I think the statements "That's the law" and "people want it that way" are not necessarily causal.

Wildalaska
March 16, 2007, 07:50 PM
In AK "legal" pot is by judicial fiat.

WildneverheardoffolksgoingcrazyonitAlaska

Playboypenguin
March 16, 2007, 07:54 PM
I'm not a MD nor do I need to be. There isn't anything in pot that will sustain anyone's life. The most it does is numb one's pain, and there are plenty of available drugs that do this. I never said pot had no use, what I said was that there are other legal available drugs that medically will accomplish the same task
Glad to hear you admit to not being trained in the medical profession because that statement reveals a complete misunderstanding of how medicine works.
Medicine does not directly extend life. There is no magical pill you can take that will add hours or days to your life.
What medicine does is relieve pains and illnesses that cause your life to be shortened. In some cases it destroys the disease or parasite but it does not lengthen your life. What it does is allow your body to handle the stress of illness better and either heal itself (repairing the damage done by the now removed disease or condition) or at least hold out for longer under stress.

One, you are completely wrong that all marijuana does is relieve pain. It is also a powerful appetite stimulant. Not eating is one of the premier factors in shortening of life when it comes to cancer and chronic pain sufferers. My partner is a hospice nurse and sees this every day. It also improves mood as well as removing pain and when facing a serious illness mental health and a positive outlook are very relevant to longevity.

And two, marijuana often performs better than other drugs in tests. It works better than combinations of pain killers and mood stabilizers. It helps promote appetite better than regular narcotics. Then you add the fact that it does it for WAY LESS MONEY. A lot of seriously ill people are living on very fixed incomes.
Pot is illegal. A majority of Americans want it that way.
Wrong again, most polls I have seen favor medical marijuana 2 -1 and sometimes up to 3-1.
Keep in mind that it is also illegal for you to possess morphine unless it was prescribed by a doctor. Why should marijuana be different?

STAGE 2
March 16, 2007, 08:19 PM
One, you are completely wrong that all marijuana does is relieve pain. It is also a powerful appetite stimulant. Not eating is one of the premier factors in shortening of life when it comes to cancer and chronic pain sufferers. My partner is a hospice nurse and sees this every day. It also improves mood as well as removing pain and when facing a serious illness mental health and a positive outlook are very relevant to longevity.

And two, marijuana often performs better than other drugs in tests. It works better than combinations of pain killers and mood stabilizers. It helps promote appetite better than regular narcotics. Then you add the fact that it does it for WAY LESS MONEY. A lot of seriously ill people are living on very fixed incomes.

And yet this is all still strikingly irrelevant. The fact remains that there are many LEGAL drugs that will do the same things medically that pot does. Whether pot is better, more efficient, or induces a craving for cheetos doesn't matter. What does matter is that 1) pot is illegal, and 2) there are medical alternatives to using it.

This isnt a zero sum game. Its not as if either she has the pot or nothing. You guys are trying to paint it like this is the case, which is simply not true.

If you want to use pot for medicine, change the law and you won't hear a peep out of me. Till then don't smoke dope.

Rangefinder
March 16, 2007, 08:29 PM
Stage>> we're all aware of the fact it's currently illegal. The bigger issue and reason for serious question is WHY? Do a little reaching into that side of things and you might see some inconsistencies in the logic behind it all.

Playboypenguin
March 16, 2007, 08:32 PM
And yet this is all still strikingly irrelevant. The fact remains that there are many LEGAL drugs that will do the same things medically that pot does
I am not sure how you are missing this but...NO, THEY DO NOT DO THE SAME THING. Maybe bold type will help you see my point. :)

Marijuana has proven to be more effective, less harmful, and cost less.

Therefore, other drugs are often less effective, more harmful if taken long term, and cost a whole lot more.

How is that doing the same thing?????????????:confused:

STAGE 2
March 16, 2007, 08:36 PM
I am not sure how you are missing this but...NO, THEY DO NOT DO THE SAME THING. Maybe bold type will help you see my point.

Marijuana has proven to be more effective, less harmful, and cost less.

Therefore, other drugs are often less effective, more harmful if taken long term, and cost a whole lot more.

How is that doing the same thing?????????????

A ferrari is completely different than an AMC gremlin. However, they both will do the same thing. Get it.

DonR101395
March 16, 2007, 08:38 PM
Hey looky, I'm a neandertal now.

WA,
You're a valley in Western Germany??



Figured it was a typo, but had to say it.

michibilly
March 16, 2007, 08:54 PM
Stage let me fire it at you like this. How many unjust gun laws are out there. Even though they are wrong why is it almost impossible to change them? Think about cali, chicago and new york. Also you're not answering the question. What if your broke and cant afford the wonder assortment of drugs YOU KNOW for a fact are out there?

Rangefinder
March 16, 2007, 08:55 PM
So I'm guessing that MJ must be equal to the AMC gremlin--because I sure couldn't afford a ferrari any sooner than I could most of the synthetic LEGAL drugs you seem to agree so much with. Neither can a whole lot of people who need them--which is why so many people end up loosing their entire life's posessions and still end up filing bankruptcy because of medical bills... So where exactly is your side of this discussion suppose to be going?

Rangefinder
March 16, 2007, 09:40 PM
Let me put this in a bit more personal context...

About 10 years ago, I had to watch my father-in-law die a very slow, very painful death from cancer. It took almost a year and a half from the time he was diagnosed till he finally passed. Upon being diagnosed, his medical insurance canceled him because he had been diagnosed with Hodgson's disease, was a treatment test subject, and beat it way back in 1976. Of course that little fact didn't stop them from accepting his payments for his medical coverage all those years in between--just their decision to pay up when their end of the deal came to bear. So he was left to fend for himself so-to-speak with any and all medical bills, which were over 200K within the first six months. There was no way to pay those kind of bills, so he basically said enough was enough. A year's worth of pain with no way to afford medication to try to ease it is a lot to ask of someone. Within the last few months he asked if I knew of any "alternate" ways to help. Well, I probably don't need to go into detail what that refers to--and thanks to a couple old high school friends, my Father-in-law could get a couple hours of restful sleep at night, and get a little enjoyment out of his last few months to live. My mother-in-law still lost nearly everything that was left with the bankruptcy after he died--a result of the costs from the first six months he tried to fight it.

Oh, I should probably mention--he was a retired deputy sheriff, city judge, stand-in JP, and one of the most outstanding individuals I've ever known.

WeedWacker
March 16, 2007, 09:58 PM
Quote: Me
I say they figure out WHAT in the marijuana is the medicine and just extract it. Pharmaceutical companies can buy a permit to produce it and sell it or produce for study and/or it can be synthesized in a lab.

1. Why? It's already beneficial in plant form where it works as a fast acting inhalant.

2. There are numerous cannabinoids and other chemicals in marijuana than have their own effects, some of them working better in conjunction with the rest.

So far the only synthetic version is only an extract of THC and doesn't have all the beneficial qualities of this plant that has been used for thousands of years. Why should people have to wait for a new, expensive drug to hit the market when a very safe and very effective one already exists that won't drain the pocketbook?

If it is a plant the plant is easily available even though it is illegal. In pill form it is harder to get. Besides, if the chemicals are synthesized they can be used in other compounds for other pharmaceuticals. And furthermore, the pill is easier to prescribe and prevent misuse if docs are honest. Also a pill lasts longer than leaves making shelf life a nonissue along with storage.

Edit: Price is cheaper with the plant but a lot of the people who get a prescription often use medicaid to get it (meaning my tax money) so it's not going to be any different to them if the Rx companies make money off of them. After all it is a capitalistic country.

STAGE 2
March 16, 2007, 10:00 PM
Stage>> we're all aware of the fact it's currently illegal. The bigger issue and reason for serious question is WHY? Do a little reaching into that side of things and you might see some inconsistencies in the logic behind it all.

No the issue is the misleading rhetoric in this thread. Because a court upholds valid law somehow this is a horrible decision. Thats simply ridiculous.

Rangefinder
March 16, 2007, 10:08 PM
When the reasons for the law being upheld are as inhumane as they are unjustified by a heavily skewed sense of capitalism, THAT is ridiculous.

I think it could be easily proven just within the short history of our beloved United States that there is a vast difference between what is law and what can be considered "valid" law. Underlying what is supposed to be a basis of law is the understanding of the supporting ethics--something that seems to be missing from the equation more and more these days.

I'm almost getting the impression you're supporting the law on this just BECAUSE it's a law--regardless of how right or wrong the issues surrounding it might be. I will be honest in saying that kind of logic really scares me...

mooreshawnm
March 16, 2007, 10:53 PM
I've got to admit I find it amusing to see so many pro-pot discussions on a gun forum! But I also have to admit that I am with most of you. Legalize the stuff and stop wasting time and money on such a non-issue.

Thunderhawk88
March 16, 2007, 10:59 PM
Because the little old lady from pasadena has cancer doesn't mean we bend the law.

Stage, I hope you never have need for the benefits that others have gotten from pot, but if you do I pray those around you are as sympathetic to your needs as you are to others!

Crosshair
March 16, 2007, 11:04 PM
STAGE 2, please answer for me, why tobacco is legal, and pot is illegal. "Because it is." doesn't cut it. You will find the answer to be quite disturbing and unjust.

Playboypenguin
March 17, 2007, 02:30 AM
I've got to admit I find it amusing to see so many pro-pot discussions on a gun forum!
I will have to add to my argument that I am only a proponent of medical use marijuana. Every major medical institution recognizes the immense value of marijuana as a valid medical treatment. The only real opposition comes from the far right religious interests (which have no place making medical decisions) and pharmaceutical companies that cannot find a way to make money off of it.

As far as personal/recreational use goes, I am opposed to drugs. I am, however, pro personal choice. So if someone wants to do drugs and does not cause harm to anyone else by doing so I am all for letting them do it. If we feel the need to protect people from every bad choice they could make we would have to ban alcohol, illegalize underage sex, outlaw fatty foods, etc.

And no I am not a hypocrite...I do not do drugs. I do not smoke and I do not drink alcohol. My only addiction (unless guns or questionable internet content counts) is caffeine (just soda, no coffee). :)

9mmsnoopy
March 17, 2007, 05:55 AM
American could learn something from Holland in this regard.

Rangefinder
March 17, 2007, 06:26 AM
America could learn a lot from several places, were it not for the arrogance of our leadership, greed of too many influential entities, and apathy of the general public...

Or maybe I'm just overly cranky and skeptical this morning?

Hal
March 17, 2007, 06:59 AM
American could learn something from Holland in this regard.

Might want to rethink that....

Scan the forum for a post by someone that actually lives there.
He's quite distraught by the state of affairs, rising crime and overall degeneration of his homeland.

publius42
March 17, 2007, 07:24 AM
No the issue is the misleading rhetoric in this thread. Because a court upholds valid law somehow this is a horrible decision. Thats simply ridiculous.

Well, Justices O'Connor (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD.html), Rhenquist, and Thomas (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html) seemed to think it was a pretty bad decision, and they also thought it had implications for Section 922 (q) (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-usc-cite/18/922) of the current law, and some of us don't think they were being ridiculous. "Valid" my ass. Usurpation is all I see, and you know how I feel about that.
Federalist 33 - Hamilton:
If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
...
If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.

publius42
March 17, 2007, 07:32 AM
A ferrari is completely different than an AMC gremlin. However, they both will do the same thing. Get it.

The "valid" law upon which you rest your case classifies cannabis as a schedule 1 drug. I'm told that means no known medical benefits and a high potential for abuse. In fact, one of the longest-running hypocrisies of the drug war is the federal government's refusal to acknowledge any benefits from cannabis, while at the same time certifying Marinol and supplying cannabis to Irvin Rosenfeld (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/798309/posts) and a few others for over 20 years.

publius42
March 17, 2007, 08:48 AM
But just like a conservative is a liberal who got mugged, old WA is a drug libertarian who just lost someone from an OD...

This type of argument is the same type of tactic that antis use when they want to read out the 2nd amendment. They take some sympathetic character, throw them in the spotlight and then say "see, look at how bad guns are." This is no different.
Couldn't agree more, and I wish both sides would cut it out and focus on how the LEGAL issues are the same when it comes to homegrown cannabis, homegrown machine guns (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-617.htm), and guns carried too close to a school.

JuanCarlos
March 17, 2007, 09:25 AM
For everybody saying that a majority of people want marijuana illegal, could you explain to me why in several of the states that passed laws legalizing medical marijuana use it was done by ballot initiative? We could go 'round and 'round on recreational use I suppose, but it appears that a majority favors medicinal use. Is there some reason we couldn't simply treat this like oxycontin or vicodin or many other drugs that have the potential for abuse but also potential for medical use?

Al Norris
March 17, 2007, 09:33 AM
STAGE 2, please consider the decision in Raich. Now consider the decision in Oregon.

Since we all know, you can't have your cake and eat it too (one of those platitudes that are resoundingly true), which decision was wrong?

Both decisions cannot be correct (see Thomas, dissent, both). If Raich is the holding precedent, then Oregon must fail. However, if Oregon prevails, then Raich was wrongly decided.

The illogic and duplicity in these two cases are astounding. Yet the legal community simply nods its collective head and pronounces, "Thus the Supreme Court has spoken." Astounding. Simply astounding.

If a simpleton, such as myself, can see the illogic of the Court, what does that say about the legal community?

Bottom line. MJ is illegal, not because "the people" want it that way. It was made an unlawful substance because of another wrongly decided case, Wickard. The feds have no business in purely intrastate matters. Full Stop.

Should we get to the core reasons way MJ was made unlawful?

Harry J. Anslinger was convinced by newspaper baron William Randolph Hearst (who owned what is now Kimberley-Clarke) and Lammont Du Pont (pulp paper magnate), and wrote the legislation that went on to pass as the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

Hearst, who controlled 800,000 acres of forest, supplied a large portion of wood pulp to the paper industry. Du Pont controlled the sulphur dioxide industry that was used to process the pulp into paper. Paper that was largely used by ... hold onto it ... The newspaper industry! Hearst owned a lot of newspapers and magazines (King Features Syndicate).

Add to this mix, that a new water-bath process of producing hemp cloth had been recently patented (such cloth was stronger and more durable than cotton. It also held color better) and we have another major industry that was lobbying for protection against hemp.

Everyone is aware that Henry Ford designed his internal combustion engine to run on bio-diesel? (true) What was the cheapest, easiest and highest quality of vegetable oil that produced a high-grade bio-diesel? Hemp oil.

And I haven't even mentioned the medicinal benefits, that were widely known at the time.


So we have some very important monied interests, all lined to pressure the feds to protect them against hemp manufacture.

1. Forestry products that produced pulp for the paper mills.
2. Chemical processors that supplied the necessary ingredients to process pulp.
3. Cotton growers who supplied the raw material for cloth.
4. Oil producers that supplied the growing motoring industry.
5. Petrochemical industry (bankrolled by the oil industry) that were using oil to produce a new and revolutionary product: Plastic (which hemp oil would do, through a slightly different process).

Fact is, hemp growers were on the rise, as hemp was discovered to have many more beneficial uses than conventional rope and sail making. But it was not yet a powerful monied interest.

With the stroke of a pen, hemp production in the US was halted.

In my earlier treatise on the Raich decision, I have detailed how MJ moved from a (highly) taxed item to a schedule I drug.

Bottom line here. Follow the money.

Edward429451
March 17, 2007, 10:23 AM
Cancer eats people down to the bone. My mom died from cancer and had three yrs worth of chemotherapy. The chemo would make her nasuous (sp) and inhibit her ability to eat without throwing up. She asked me to go get her some MJ cause she heard it would take away the nasua and stimulate her appetite. She cried and said she was so hungry but couldn't eat because it hurt her to have to get up and go throw it all back up again. I love my mom so she had MJ all the way up until she died. She had a prognosis of 1 1/2 yrs to live and actually lived for about three years. MJ didn't save her life but very probably extended it and also made it so she could eat and feel well enough for her to get up and putter around the house and socialize instead of just laying in bed waiting to die. I'm proud to have been able to do that for my mom.

You people who are sticking by the letter of the law are being short-sighted. When it comes to one of your loved ones, you will change your tune. I guarentee it.

Who would side with the letter of the law against their mom? You might posture that you would but when you see them withering away to skin & bones the law stops having meaning and you do what you can for your family and wont give a rats ass what people think. God, how I miss my mom. She was a shooter and had a nice 357 Highway Patrolman model and could shoot better than anyone else in the family...

publius42
March 17, 2007, 10:35 AM
Oh boy! Antipitas has arrived, and we can get into the history of cannabis prohibition (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm). :D

If "the people wanted it that way" then how is it that when the fedgov first outlawed cannabis, the Speaker of the House did not know exactly what it was? I mean, the House is the branch which is supposed to be closest to the people, right? And the Speaker should probably know if there is an issue of urgent concern among the people, right? Yet he did not know what marijuana was, and the Congressional record says so straight out. How is it possible that this was a movement by "the people" which completely escaped the attention of the Speaker of the House?

rem33
March 17, 2007, 10:49 AM
Antipitas,,

Excellent post the best I have ever heard it put.
Isn't it also true that at about the same time Prohibition had just or was ending and there was quite a few Federal employees whose agency needed something to do too.

My wife is a pharmacy tech. they sell Marinol which is a pill and is sold as a schedule 5 controlled substance just downgraded from a schedule 2, this is for patients needing MJ for nausea.

IMHO the present so called war on drugs and what is happening is still as you said " follow the money".

My God man if your a simpleton I am a complete idiot.

Playboypenguin
March 17, 2007, 11:03 AM
Since we all know, you can't have your cake and eat it too
Okay, I am going to be nit-picky here for a minute. This is one of the phrases that people so often misquote that drives me battie. The old proverb that this saying comes from actually translates into "you can't EAT your cake and HAVE it too." Not the other way around. You can have your cake, then also eat it. But you can't eat it and then still have it. I learned that in a logical theory class in college. See book learnin' is good for something :D

SecDef
March 17, 2007, 11:34 AM
I learned that in a logical theory class in college.

In which you also learned that "and" is commutative, so it breaks down the same in either order ;)

Let me be the first to paraphrase Stage2's response on this topic:
b-b-b-b-b-but it's illegal. You have to go through your representative to change the law

Al Norris
March 17, 2007, 12:10 PM
See book learnin' is good for something :D
Um, what's a book? :rolleyes:

Besides, "and" is a logical operator. It necessarily assumes both statements, on either side of the operator, to be true at the same time.

You nit and I'll perl.... :D

kiov
March 17, 2007, 12:24 PM
Anti- Good post. Hemp is legal in France and constitutes a big money crop. I've driven by the fields and have been told it is so low grade in THC that it just gives you a headache if smoked. Outlawing MJ hurts us in many ways besides overwhelming our court system and denying a really effective drug to terminal patients.

Outlawing tobacco would be helpful for our nation, lowering our Health care costs and improving quality of life for many many people. Tobacco is highly addictive and lethal. Still, I don't think outlawing it is the way to go.

Education is the right answer for pot, tobacco, and booze, IMO. Getting the word out to the public, with anti-tobacco adds, and ads on how pot and booze can hurt your life if abused is a much better way to go than making/keeping them illegal. Treatment centers and public support would be much cheaper than our current solution of filling our prisons with pot smokers and our hospitals and graveyards with the victims of booze and tobacco.

Al Norris
March 17, 2007, 12:26 PM
Isn't it also true that at about the same time Prohibition had just or was ending and there was quite a few Federal employees whose agency needed something to do too.
That has more to do with the passage of the NFA in '34 than the MJ tax in '37.

STAGE 2
March 17, 2007, 01:27 PM
STAGE 2, please answer for me, why tobacco is legal, and pot is illegal. "Because it is." doesn't cut it. You will find the answer to be quite disturbing and unjust.

Because that's what that law says. You don't have to like this answer, but it's the correct answer nonetheless. The reasoning quite frankly doesn't matter. Like I said, change the law and you won't hear a peep out of me.

publius42
March 17, 2007, 01:36 PM
I never said pot had no use, what I said was that there are other legal available drugs that medically will accomplish the same task.
You may not have said it has no use, but the law certainly does (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/812.htm#b):

The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

(1) Schedule I. -

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.


It is strange that the US government is supplying cannabis to a few patients like Irvin Rosenfeld, while at the same time saying there is no currently accepted medical use, but I guess that's not the strangest thing about the drug war.

STAGE 2
March 17, 2007, 01:41 PM
STAGE 2, please consider the decision in Raich. Now consider the decision in Oregon.

Bottom line here. Follow the money.

Al. We have had this conversation before... several times if my memory is correct.

First, I would hope you concede that the medicinal benefits have nothing to do with something's legality. If the fountain of youth was contraband, whether it helped people or not would be irrelevant. Those arguments are pertinent in whether or not the law should be changed, but not on how the law is to be enforced.

As for Wickard, as I said before, I'm with you in that it was incorrectly decided. Someone growing things for personal use certainly cannot be in interstate commerce.

That said, most narcotics, pot included, come from outside the USA, undoubtedly placing them in interstate commerce. As a result, the feds can ban them at leisure. Consequently, the burden lies with the defendant to show that their pot wasn't in interstate commerce.

So let's wax hypothetical and pretend that tomorrow SCOTUS ruled that pot for personal consumption wasn't in interstate commerce and beyond the reach of the commerce clause. Guess what would happen. Uncle Sam would call up his 50 little cousins and say, "hey guys, you remember that gazillion dollars I give to you every year. Yeah, if you want to see any more of that, guess what laws you are going to pass." Presto bango, the states have now made pot illegal again.

Personally, I would much rather have it this way since its consistent with law and the constitution as I see it. However, practically speaking the result will be exactly the same.


Stage, I hope you never have need for the benefits that others have gotten from pot, but if you do I pray those around you are as sympathetic to your needs as you are to others!

Fear not. I can guarantee you that I never have, nor ever will partake in the consumption of any illegal narcotics, and most legal ones for that matter. From the way I have lead my life it would pretty much make me the biggest hypocrite in the world.

Should the good American people decide that they want to pass the dutchie round the left hand side then I will graciously accept the will of the majority. Just don't do it around me.

MacGille
March 17, 2007, 02:00 PM
Can someone tell me where the Government gets the right to tell the citizens what they can eat, drink, or smoke? I don't support the use of Marijuana by children or teens, And I don't support the illegal smuggling of anything over our borders. But the mere possession of an herb, or plant is a felony? Says who? and why? I can understand the desire on the part of society to control the ownership and use of Machine guns, or explosives, rocket launchers etc. Notice I didn't say prohibit, I said control. With licensing, taxation and other legal methods. things that are dangerous to society should be watched. I have never seen any scientific evidence that marijuana is harmful to society. Maybe to an individual, but so is glue in a paper sack. Or gasoline, or ammonia when mixed with a nitrate, etc. The only harmful aspect of marijuana is lung damage from the harsh smoke. Cigarette anyone? Sure overindulging is harmful, but so is overeating, or drinking. If our country is in a WAR over drugs, we have lost that war. legalization, licensing, and taxation would GIVE us income, instead of spending billions trying to stop something the public has shown they want. Enough to risk prison for. I am not pro drug, but I am tired of watching our government spend resources and manpower on lost causes. Remember prohibition? It gave us organised crime and the Kennedy clan. Nuff said?

Al Norris
March 17, 2007, 03:47 PM
Al. We have had this conversation before... several times if my memory is correct.
... And we will most likely have it again.

When we have 2 such disparate rulings on the same exact law, coming so darn close together in time, something needs to be done. It is glaringly obvious the neither Courts; the Legislature nor the Executive will lift a finger to make the necessary changes.
First, I would hope you concede that the medicinal benefits have nothing to do with something's legality.
I detailed the "why" it's illegal. It had nothing to do with any medicinal benefits. That was merely a peripheral side issue.

When monied corporate interests dictate the laws, there is next to nothing the people can do. Voting in new reps and senators and presidents have done nothing to curtail the practice.

What we have when you couple Government power with Corporate money and control, is in a word: Fascism.

You tell me. What are the options that are left?

Playboypenguin
March 17, 2007, 04:05 PM
Besides, "and" is a logical operator. It necessarily assumes both statements, on either side of the operator, to be true at the same time.
Only sometimes...like how Y is sometimes a vowel.

For instance....you can break your leg AND have it heal completely buy you can't have your leg heal completely AND have a broken leg. In some circumstances it is subjective to a logical linear progression. :)

Pearl that bee-otch! :D

(Yeah, I managed to work the word be-otch into two separate posts in one 24 hour period. :p )

SecDef
March 17, 2007, 05:20 PM
For instance....you can brake your leg AND have it heal completely buy you can't have your leg heal completely AND have a broken leg.

I've got two legs ;) (you're right, there should be a "then" after the "and")


Stage: So from your last comment, it looks like even if MJ was legalized, you wouldn't partake? (not criticizing as I agree, just trying to be clear)

Even if you think it is bad, and that there is legislation that makes it illegal, there still remains that fact that it is classified as Schedule I, which is a huge joke.

publius42
March 18, 2007, 03:35 AM
So let's wax hypothetical and preted that tomorrow SCOTUS ruled that pot for personal consumption wasn't in interstate commerce and beyond the reach of the commerce clause. Guess what would happen. Uncle Sam would call up his 50 little cousins and say, "hey guys, you remember that gazillion dollars I give to you every year. Yeah, if you want to see any more of that, guess what laws you are going to pass." Presto bango, the states have now made pot illegal again.
Where did that money come from in the first place?

What you propose would work if the fedgov were an actor completely beyond the control of the people and their state governments, which itself is a bit too true these days.

But not completely true. Remember when Elizabeth Dole was transportation secretary (presumably before husband Bob discovered the 10th amendment) and the populous states used the method you describe to shove a speed limit of 55 down the throats of all the "flyover country" states, where it was neither needed nor popular? They did it through highway funds bribery, and it worked for a while, but ultimately it fell apart and the law was changed, giving states more latitude in deciding appropriate speed limits, if any.

From what I've seen, making medical use of cannabis illegal has even less support than the 55 speed limit did. In places where it has been put to a vote, the idea tends to win. Just like with the 55 speed limit, when people get frustrated enough over the fact that they can't live the way they want and still get THEIR MONEY back from their federal government, well, presto bango, the fedgov bribe scheme would fall apart again.

publius42
March 18, 2007, 03:49 AM
Like I said, change the law and you won't hear a peep out of me.

The law doesn't need changing if your name is Irvin Rosenfeld, but it does if your name is Angel Raich. Is that equal protection under the law?

Danzig
March 18, 2007, 12:22 PM
Marinol (the only FDA approved alternative to natural THC) is NOT as effective as medical marijuana. A simple search on the internet was enough to confirm that.

It makes no sense to use an expensive and therapeutically inferior product when marijuana itself is becoming increasingly more acceptable as a legal medical alternative.

9mmsnoopy
March 18, 2007, 04:36 PM
"Quote:
American could learn something from Holland in this regard.

Might want to rethink that....

Scan the forum for a post by someone that actually lives there.
He's quite distraught by the state of affairs, rising crime and overall degeneration of his homeland.


Well, he lives there so he would know more about whats going on then I would, but I will say that I have been there several times and walked all over that city (Amsterdam) at all time of day and night and I always felt safe, I wouldn't do that in most American cities.

I was speaking strictly of the pot policy that they have, decriminalize it, allow it to be sold in liquor stores and tax the hell out of it. If people want to smoke pot, they are going to get it anyways, obviously the "war" on drugs doesn't work. By doing the above you immediately put the street dealers out of business, freeing up jail space and other resources for the really dangerous drugs and criminals.

I doubt that violence is on the increase because of the "coffeeshops", most people coming out of there can barely move, much less get violent. ;)

The Muslim immigrants have certainly added their share of problems in Amsterdam.

STAGE 2
March 18, 2007, 07:04 PM
The law doesn't need changing if your name is Irvin Rosenfeld, but it does if your name is Angel Raich. Is that equal protection under the law?

Nope. SCOTUS has made many a screwy decision, especially lately. The bottom line is that pot is illegal. There aren't any exceptions as far as I know of so whether you are Tom Dick or Harriet, it shouldn't matter.

Your equal protection argument doesn't advocate letting Raich use pot, it advocates taking pot away from Rosenfield, which I'm perfectly fine with.

Playboypenguin
March 18, 2007, 07:38 PM
Stage2,

It seems to me that you whole argument boils down to "because the govt says so" and that you have very little interest in the facts of the matter or finding out whether marijuana should be illegal or not. You seem to be willing to completely disregard the entire medical community and willing to turn a blind eye to why it is actually made illegal and if it is a just reason or not.

STAGE 2
March 18, 2007, 08:05 PM
It seems to me that you whole argument boils down to "because the govt says so" and that you have very little interest in the facts of the matter or finding out whether marijuana should be illegal or not. You seem to be willing to completely disregard the entire medical community and willing to turn a blind eye to why it is actually made illegal and if it is a just reason or not.


Everything that is legal or illegal is "because the government says so." I really have no interest in whether or not pot is illegal because I really have no substantial interest in whether or not it is illegal. I'm not disregarding anything in so much as I don't really care.

My sole point is that whoever wants the status quo to change needs to change the law. Process process process. The medical community could join in song about how great pot is, but that doesn't affect the validity of the law. Pot could cure cancer, aids and the black plague and that wouldn't affect its legality.

If y'all want the law changed, call your reps. If enough people raise enough stink, then regardless of the money the law will get changed. However, if enough people like the law the way it is then its not going to happen. I have a feeling that this is the reality of things.

publius42
March 18, 2007, 08:23 PM
Stage,

Last I heard there were 5 or 6 people besides Rosenfeld who get marijuana from the government. Your lack of awareness of those exceptions to the rule doesn't change that.

Your equal protection argument doesn't advocate letting Raich use pot, it advocates taking pot away from Rosenfield

I'm not a lawyer, and while that may seem self-evident to you, it does not to me. Why doesn't it advocate letting Raich use it?

publius42
March 18, 2007, 08:27 PM
If y'all want the law changed, call your reps. If enough people raise enough stink, then regardless of the money the law will get changed. However, if enough people like the law the way it is then its not going to happen. I have a feeling that this is the reality of things.

Give us a little time! It was quite recently that the Supreme Court decided that the practice of medicine should be regulated at the federal and not the state level in this area. It took quite a bit of time and money to change enough state laws to learn that new fact. Now it is going to take quite a bit more time and money to change things at the federal level.

Shadi Khalil
March 18, 2007, 08:31 PM
Ever heard of crohns? Well its a sickness that involves the stomach. You experience nausea, loss of appetite, horrible stomach pains and vomiting. The doctor can give you something for all that but you can only take it so many times a day before it begins to mess with your liver. A little pot stops the pain and gets you eating. Doctors are yet to provide sick people with a safe and effective way to deal with wait loss. I'm sure many find this absurd, but at the same time they have no problem with the millions of people with back problems and such, driving the roads, roaming the streets high off their asses on legally prescribed pain killers.

Redworm
March 19, 2007, 10:51 AM
Like I said, change the law and you won't hear a peep out of me. That's the whole point of me making a thread like this. Bringing an injustice to light and hoping to strengthen opinions for medical marijuana, sway the fence-sitters and possibly turn some of the antis around. Same reason I post pro-gun opinions on more "liberal" forums. :)

I am trying to change the law but that requires people to agree with me.

That said, most narcotics, pot included, come from outside the USA, 1. Pot is not a narcotic.
2. Most of it is grown within the US and either way the pot that was relevant to this case was not only grown in the US but grown in California for a Californian and never left the state thus never entering into interstate commerce.

invention_45
March 19, 2007, 11:43 AM
I think we'd all like things better if we would get the names of every legislator who has penned a law or an amendment thereto that relies on the Commerce Clause or on "Compelling Public Interes" and not much more for its justification.

Then, on the next available election, remove those names from the list of our representatives, unless such name could be associated between then and now with some wild and very publicly visible scrambling to repeal legislation based on those two principles and not much else.

Rangefinder
March 19, 2007, 01:06 PM
Stage>> One thing to keep in mind is that laws don't get changed or repealedbecause some bored representative decides to look through the books to find redundancies on his/her own. Laws gain the necessary attention to be repealed when enough of the public makes a loud enough voice that their representatives can't ignore the public outcry. To simply sit quietly with the notion of "it's a law, so there's no point in questioning," is a great way to give up what powers of representation we have left. Apathy has already shown its destructiveness time and again within so many issues, this is just one of many examples. If you want to get a good look at how it affects our society, stop anyone on the street and ask them the latest details of "Survivor" or "Who Wants to be a Star", and I'll bet you'll get every detail with names and examples. But then ask them who their state representatives are and what issues are currently being supported by them and you'll likely get a unified blank stare. So simply stating "change the laws . . ." isn't going to do anything in that direction. Laws don't change without a strong public demand, support, and follow-through.

STAGE 2
March 19, 2007, 01:22 PM
2. Most of it is grown within the US and either way the pot that was relevant to this case was not only grown in the US but grown in California for a Californian and never left the state thus never entering into interstate commerce.

Not a chance. There is home grown weed, but a majority of pot sold on the street is from outside the USA.

JuanCarlos
March 19, 2007, 01:28 PM
2. Most of it is grown within the US and either way the pot that was relevant to this case was not only grown in the US but grown in California for a Californian and never left the state thus never entering into interstate commerce.
Not a chance. There is home grown weed, but a majority of pot sold on the street is from outside the USA.
Note "relevant to this case?" The marijuana in this case was medically prescribed and dispensed. I doubt it came from Joey down on the corner. It was, I'm assuming, grown at the behest of the state of California in California. We have similarly designated growers here in Montana (or you can grow your own).

EDIT: Or, if you were referring to the first statement, I can tell you that huge amounts of marijuana are grown in the US. From backyard gardens, to hydro out in people's garages/basement, to what are practically plantations in the backwoods of Appalachia. Maybe I should go find that article I read declaring marijuana the US's number one cash crop. Obviously part of that is due to the price it fetches...but seriously, we grow a ton of weed in the US.

STAGE 2
March 19, 2007, 01:38 PM
Note "relevant to this case?" The marijuana in this case was medically prescribed and dispensed. I doubt it came from Joey down on the corner. It was, I'm assuming, grown at the behest of the state of California in California. We have similarly designated growers here in Montana (or you can grow your own).

Thats fine. And if you had what I said a couple of posts earlier, practically speaking it won't matter. Though if the pot is truly grown in state and not intended for sale anywhere else, then the court should have said that it's not in interstate commerce.

My point with a majority of pot being brought into the US is that a reversal of Raich won't have much effect on people who have it for recreational use. Some guy gets busted for carrying a small amount of pot. "But it's for my recreational use and not for sale" isn't going to cut it, because the court is going to ask "where did you get it from?" "Umm... johnny down the street". "And where did he get it from?" "I don't know."

That's how it's going to go down, and he's rightfully going to go to jail. If you smoke dope, you'd better be prepared to show where it came from. The burden will be on the defendant to show that it hasn't come from out of the country, and unless they are growing it in their backyard they aren't going to be able to do that.

Even if Raich is overturned, it's not going to make the huge commotion that many think it will.

JuanCarlos
March 19, 2007, 01:45 PM
That's fine. And if you had what I said a couple of posts earlier, practically speaking it won't matter. Though if the pot is truly grown in state and not intended for sale anywhere else, then the court should have said that it's not in interstate commerce.

My point with a majority of pot being brought into the US is that a reversal of Raich won't have much effect on people who have it for recreational use. Some guy gets busted for carrying a small amount of pot. "But it's for my recreational use and not for sale" isn't going to cut it, because the court is going to ask "where did you get it from?" "Umm... johnny down the street". "And where did he get it from?" "I don't know."

Thats how it's going to go down, and he's rightfully going to go to jail. If you smoke dope, you'd better be prepared to show where it came from. The burden will be on the defendant to show that it hasn't come from out of the country, and unless they are growing it in their back yard they aren't going to be able to do that.

Even if Raich is overturned, it's not going to make the huge commotion that many think it will.

Except that at this point individual states should be able to legalize marijuana for recreational use, no? If it's being sold through legitimate channels (such as in stores) and taxed, I see no reason why the average recreational user would not at this point be able to tell you exactly where his marijuana came from. I can tell you where the cucumbers I bought last night came from, and this should be no different.

Also, the laws you seem to support enforcing (regardless of whether you support them) say that even if I grow my own weed on my own property, and dry and smoke it on my own property (in other words, even if it never leaves my property) then I am still breaking the law...because by growing the weed now I'm not buying weed from out of state, and thus it falls under interstate commerce. Or some such garbage. Maybe Antipitas can come along and verify...he seems pretty knowledgeable on the subject.

Playboypenguin
March 19, 2007, 01:52 PM
Not a chance. There is home grown weed, but a majority of pot sold on the street is from outside the USA.
No, not necessarily. The USA is listed by some as the worlds leading producer of marijuana. Hard to believe but it is true.

I read a report (while I was an LEO produced by the DEA) back in the 90's that said that more tons of marijuana are seized and destroyed in the USA every year than the total amount produced in most other countries. The USA's production was estimated at the time to be around 15,000-20,000 metric tons of marijuana a year. Mexico was rated as the second place producer.

I also read a report not too long ago listing marijuana as the highest grossing cash crop produced in Oregon. Since it cannot be listed as a legal cash crop landscaping plants get listed as number one.

If this is even close to be true today there would be absolutely no need to import marijuana from an outside source.

And as a side note...I have known a lot of pot dealers in my day. Marijuana is to difficult to smuggle because of it pungent nature. It also takes up alot of room. It is pretty hard to get enough of it into the country at a time to make it worth it. Most distributers produce their own (often on public lands) and sell locally. It is just much easier to start a crop in a field and sell that than it is to import it. Chances are, if you buy a pot in Oregon or Cali or any state you are doing your part to support the local economy. :)

invention_45
March 19, 2007, 02:07 PM
Not a chance. There is home grown weed, but a majority of pot sold on the street is from outside the USA.

You can believe that if you want. It doesn't dovetail with what I hear regularly on the news.

The opposite is the reason I don't buy land as an investment. I don't have time to run out and check it for being turned into a pot field. Should that happen, the government would charge my land (not me) with manufacturing a controlled substance and confiscate it. No charges against me or anyone else would be needed.

Redworm
March 19, 2007, 02:11 PM
Not a chance. There is home grown weed, but a majority of pot sold on the street is from outside the USA. No sorry, that's not accurate. Yet it still doesn't change the fact that the weed in question in this case was grown in California for use by a Californian.

STAGE 2
March 19, 2007, 02:31 PM
Also, the laws you seem to support enforcing (regardless of whether you support them) say that even if I grow my own weed on my own property, and dry and smoke it on my own property (in other words, even if it never leaves my property) then I am still breaking the law...because by growing the weed now I'm not buying weed from out of state, and thus it falls under interstate commerce.

And if such is the case then I disagree with them. Interstate commerce is eactly that. The lemons I grow in my yard that I use in my home are not by any stretch of the imagination in interstate commerce. Pot grown like this should be either.

Redworm
March 19, 2007, 02:32 PM
And if such is the case then I disagree with them. Interstate commerce is eactly that. The lemons I grow in my yard that I use in my home are not by any stretch of the imagination in interstate commerce. Pot grown like this should be either. Yet you're agreeing with the illegality of pot and that very thing you disagree with is the only legal justification the government has for its war on drugs.

Kowboy
March 19, 2007, 03:24 PM
Stage 2:

Why don't you and your doctor decide what's the best treatment for you and yours and let this lady and her doctor make their own decisions.

Unless you feel that our government knows more about what's best for us than we do.

Kowboy

STAGE 2
March 19, 2007, 05:02 PM
Yet you're agreeing with the illegality of pot and that very thing you disagree with is the only legal justification the government has for its war on drugs.

I don't quite understand what exactly you're saying so I'll spell out my position. The feds can ban any pot that's in interstate commerce. Period. End of discussion. Any pot that comes in from other countries is in interstate commerce. That too isn't debatable.

Unless you can clearly show that your pot was grown in your backyard and for your personal use, then you're out of luck. I'd wager that most recreational pot users would fall under this part. Most people don't have the time or inclination to grow their own stuff. They get it from a guy who gets it from some guy. As a result they put themselves at risk.

But if you can show that your pot isn't in interstate commerce, then the feds shouldn't have the authority to regulate it. This ISN'T the state of the law today, but it should be. However, if the law were to change to reflect this consistency, then the feds would just withhold funds until the states fell into lock step.

Practically speaking things would be no different, it's just the state and not the feds that would be doing a majority of the punishment.


Why don't you and your doctor decide what's the best treatment for you and yours and let this lady and her doctor make their own decisions.

Unless you feel that our government knows more about what's best for us than we do.

Because I believe in the rule of law. If most of America shares your sentiment then the law shouldn't be that hard to change, money or otherwise.

JuanCarlos
March 19, 2007, 05:17 PM
Because I believe in the rule of law. If most of America shares your sentiment then the law shouldn't be that hard to change, money or otherwise.

That's a good one.

Al Norris
March 19, 2007, 06:52 PM
This ISN'T the state of the law today, but it should be.
No. What IS the state of the law today would allow the federal government to ban any form of home gardening. Afterall, it affects the economic interests of all commercial lemon growers who ship their product via interstate commerce... According to the Majority opinion in Raich.

SO DROP THAT LEMON!

Rangefinder
March 19, 2007, 07:45 PM
Wow! To hell with the lemons, I must REALLY upset the state of things since I make my own wine and mead (get my honey from a keeper down the road--delicious stuff indeed!) from the apricot tree in my back yard, and even have a fantastic apricot ale that goes down really well on hot summer afternoons. Oh, and did I mention I blend my own pipe tobacco from the three kinds growing off the corner of the house? I love smoking my pipe in the evening. I use real maple in the curing, which I have to import from New England because I don't have a maple tree--so that ought to really stir things up... Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms... Come 4th of july I'll have everything in question covered. But if I had a lemon tree, you can be sure I'd be making my own lemonade, too.

So what's all this huff about people growing their own stuff again?? :D

Shadi Khalil
March 19, 2007, 08:53 PM
I think a lot of people on this thread are under-estimating how much pot is actually grown in the US rather than smuggled in. Parts of northern Califorina and Oregon have towns where the economy is basically propped up by illegal pot sales, hence the decriminalization. Nobody's trying to cut the hippies a break out there.

Also, there is a ton of pot being grown in the midwest as well as up north in NY state. I'd say nowadays, a majority of the pot being sold and smoked in the US is coming from the above listed places. Canada is also a big spot for pot, Victoria and such. It's a lot easier to smuggle in. And that's just it, pot is very hard to smuggle. When you are dealing with the risk of international drug trafficking, you'd better make it worth your while. People getting 1500-2000 on the street for a single pound of pot just aren't covering the risk cost, let alone what you pay to get it over here. You need a truck load of it to make it worth your while and it's just not worth it to try to get that over the border.

I think a few years back the pot dealers realized they could rent houses in northern Cali, grow just under the limit of a felony, and make a ton of money. It also allowed for the product to become better maintained, thus a better product, hence a ton more profit. You rent on a couple of houses, throw some hippies room and board and all the pot they can smoke and presto! Instant drug business. The distribution is also no problem with it being grown in the country as the highways are wide open. Just the fact fellas. I think they should sandbag the hippies, legalize and make them all get haircuts and jobs. Now that would be justice. Lousy hippies.

Playboypenguin
March 19, 2007, 08:59 PM
You seem to know an awful lot about growing, transporting, and selling marijuana.;)

Just kidding, I said pretty much the same things in post #86.

publius42
March 20, 2007, 05:38 AM
But if you can show that your pot isn't in interstate commerce, then the feds shouldn't have the authority to regulate it. This ISN'T the state of the law today, but it should be. However, if the law were to change to reflect this

Changing the law does nothing to change the authority under which the law was written. Medical marijuana is part of a much larger problem with the commerce clause, and Justice Thomas was right to say that it is past time for the SC to revisit the issue and revise their reasoning.

Rangefinder,
I want to visit you! But all of your activities do indeed fall under the federal authority under the current commerce clause interpretation. They may not fall under any current federal LAW, but laws can change, and they do fall under federal AUTHORITY. That is what we must change, IMO.

Justice Thomas, from his dissent in Raich (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html):

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anythingโ€“and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

...

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madisonโ€™s assurance to the people of New York that the โ€œpowers delegatedโ€ to the Federal Government are โ€œfew and defined,โ€ while those of the States are โ€œnumerous and indefinite.โ€ The Federalist No. 45 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_45.html), at 313 (J. Madison).

publius42
March 20, 2007, 05:45 AM
Ref from Justice Thomas on revisiting the authority, not the law, we are talking about here:

One searches the Courtโ€™s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States. Yet this Court knows that โ€œ โ€˜[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers.โ€™ โ€ New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 155 (1992) (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991)). That is why todayโ€™s decision will add no measure of stability to our Commerce Clause jurisprudence: This Court is willing neither to enforce limits on federal power, nor to declare the Tenth Amendment a dead letter. If stability is possible, it is only by discarding the stand-alone substantial effects test and revisiting our definition of โ€œCommerce among the several States.โ€ Congress may regulate interstate commerceโ€“not things that affect it, even when summed together, unless truly โ€œnecessary and properโ€ to regulating interstate commerce.

NukemJim
March 20, 2007, 06:12 AM
As far as the origin of marijuanna being of legal significance forget it. Not my opinion it is the USSC's opinion. They consider many goods to be fungible. Doesn't matter how or where it is produced it will still affect interstate commerce.
IIRC it dates back to a case brought about by the "New Deal" involving a farmer who grew too much wheat under federal rules. Try googlin Wickard and word fungible and see what you get.

I do not have to like or agree with the situation and as always IANAL so I could be wrong.

NukemJim

Rangefinder
March 20, 2007, 09:04 AM
Publius>> Stop by anytime!

As for home brewing beer and wine, anyone can do it--there's nothing that says you can't. You can't produce over a certain amount or produce it for commercial sale without all the federal licensing (that's where the Federal Authority can take effect), mind you, but anyone can do it for private, personal use. Same with tobacco growing and curing. I do it because I enjoy the process as much as the end result. When I have excess, I share it freely among friends.

I kinda have the feeling a legal marketized MJ would level out about the same way. There would be some commercial producers, and there would be some home growers--just like distillaries and micro-breweries became after the prohibition.

invention_45
March 20, 2007, 09:34 AM
If stability is possible, it is only by discarding the stand-alone substantial effects test and revisiting our definition of โ€œCommerce among the several States.โ€ Congress may regulate interstate commerceโ€“not things that affect it, even when summed together, unless truly โ€œnecessary and properโ€ to regulating interstate commerce

If this means what I think it means, I have just found new respect for Thomas.

publius42
March 20, 2007, 06:37 PM
I would have trimmed down what Thomas said like this:

If stability is possible, it is only by discarding the stand-alone substantial effects test and revisiting our definition of โ€œCommerce among the several States.โ€ Congress may regulate interstate commerceโ€“not things that affect it, even when summed together.
Even the best and wisest lawyers are still lawyers, and can't just keep it short and simple. ;)

Al Norris
March 21, 2007, 07:27 AM
That said, most narcotics, pot included...

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"

Simply because the state says it is a narcotic, does not make it so. Any more than the four fingers being held up, equals five... Because the state says so.

Like I said, change the law and you won't hear a peep out of me.

Enacting a law that takes away a right or privilege is much easier than repealing the law to restore the right or privilege.

Part of this discussion is identifying where the law is wrong. In principle, you have agreed. Yet to those who would push for change, you mouth the fed.gov stance, as if it is the correct stance because the Court says so. Precedent, if wrongly decided, should not be allowed to stand.

You have stated that should all 50 States decide to implement medical MJ laws, the feds will simply withhold (various) funds in order to make the States comply with a federal law based upon faulty precedent.

This is what happens. You appear to condone such an action, which if I'm not mistaken, is nothing more than blackmail. Something that is unlawful for anyone other than a government. How is that, exactly?

The monies being withheld do not belong to the .gov. They belong to the people and are held in trust.

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"

rem33
March 21, 2007, 11:27 AM
which if I'm not mistaken, is nothing more than blackmail. Something that is unlawful for anyone other than a government. How is that, exactly?

Withholding HWY funds over the 55 MPH speed limits and 21 for alcohol sale come to mind but I am sure that many more exist.
How is it that government can do this with no repercussions? It is IMO blackmail.

Redworm
March 21, 2007, 12:06 PM
Withholding HWY funds over the 55 MPH speed limits and 21 for alcohol sale come to mind but I am sure that many more exist.
How is it that government can do this with no repercussions? It is IMO blackmail. Because people allow it to. "The law is the law." :barf:

STAGE 2
March 21, 2007, 01:54 PM
Enacting a law that takes away a right or privilege is much easier than repealing the law to restore the right or privilege.

True, but since there is no fundamental right to smoke dope, and the federal govt clearly has the power to prohibit pot in interstate commerce, peoples rights aren't being violated to the extent that some of the legalization advocates want us to believe.


Part of this discussion is identifying where the law is wrong. In principle, you have agreed. Yet to those who would push for change, you mouth the fed.gov stance, as if it is the correct stance because the Court says so. Precedent, if wrongly decided, should not be allowed to stand.


You are missing a fine distinction here. Most who are pushing for change are pushing for complete legalization of pot. When I say "change the law" this is what I'm referring to. The federal statute that bans pot is legal in so much that it applies to interstate commerce. This is what I'm referring to, and this is what people want changed.


You have stated that should all 50 States decide to implement medical MJ laws, the feds will simply withhold (various) funds in order to make the States comply with a federal law based upon faulty precedent.

This is what happens. You appear to condone such an action, which if I'm not mistaken, is nothing more than blackmail. Something that is unlawful for anyone other than a government. How is that, exactly?

The monies being withheld do not belong to the .gov. They belong to the people and are held in trust.


Baloney. Blackmail is when someone says, "if you don't do X, I'm going to do Y". Here the federal government is saying, "if you want X then you will have to do Y". Its a big difference, big enough to where SCOTUS ruled on it. The states are free to decline the money and will not be compelled to do anything. If they want the money then there is a condition. This is contract, not blackmail.

Attaching a condition to federal funds is perfectly fine. The states have NO entitlement to these funds. They may belong to the people in a sense, but they have been given to the feds to spend on federal matters. And since we know that taxpayers cant sue to determine where their tax money is spent, the fed can spend the money any way it wants to within the confines of the constitution.

If the states can't hold out because the fed waves a bunch of money in their face, that speaks more to the behavior of the states than the feds.

Edward429451
March 21, 2007, 01:58 PM
Wouldn't that fall under the right to pursue life, liberty & happiness? I would think so, especially in relation to a medical condition.

Playboypenguin
March 21, 2007, 02:41 PM
Wouldn't that fall under the right to pursue life, liberty & happiness? I would think so, especially in relation to a medical condition.
A big +1 to that statement.

STAGE 2
March 21, 2007, 03:47 PM
Wouldn't that fall under the right to pursue life, liberty & happiness? I would think so, especially in relation to a medical condition.

Even if it did, it would not affect the governments ability to regulate that which is in interstate comemrce.

Fremmer
March 21, 2007, 03:54 PM
I have to agree with Stage about these matters:

You have stated that should all 50 States decide to implement medical MJ laws, the feds will simply withhold (various) funds in order to make the States comply with a federal law based upon faulty precedent.

This is what happens. You appear to condone such an action, which if I'm not mistaken, is nothing more than blackmail. Something that is unlawful for anyone other than a government. How is that, exactly?

The monies being withheld do not belong to the .gov. They belong to the people and are held in trust.

This is not blackmail. According to the supremes, it is legal and acceptable for the feds to do this. A State can still tell the feds to go blow smoke (like that one? :D) and decline to take the money. Anyone (or any entity) can give a conditional gift -- it is not blackmail. The problem that we have is that the various states have become entirely too dependant on Federal funds.

Redworm
March 21, 2007, 04:04 PM
Even if it did, it would not affect the governments ability to regulate that which is in interstate comemrce. The point remains that marijuana grown in California by a Californian for use by that very same Californian does not enter interstate commerce.

STAGE 2
March 21, 2007, 04:07 PM
The point remains that marijuana grown in California by a Californian for use by that very same Californian does not enter interstate commerce.

And I'm not in disagreement with that statement. What I am saying is that practically speaking, the status quo won't change whether the commerce clause gets interpreted properly or not. That is unless there is some massive uprising from the populace.

FirstFreedom
March 21, 2007, 04:28 PM
Keep Up the Good Work, Redworm! You are right on, of course. May god bless Ms. Raich, may he grant the common sense reading skills possessed by 3rd graders to these judges in the future, when they read the phrase "and to regulate commerce among the several states."

JuanCarlos
March 21, 2007, 06:34 PM
This is not blackmail. According to the supremes, it is legal and acceptable for the feds to do this. A State can still tell the feds to go blow smoke (like that one? ) and decline to take the money. Anyone (or any entity) can give a conditional gift -- it is not blackmail. The problem that we have is that the various states have become entirely too dependant on Federal funds.

Man, what?

A large portion of the funding that is generally withheld in situations like this isn't a "gift." It's the taxes that were paid by that state's citizens. Maybe the states have become to dependent on federal dollars...then again, maybe part of that is because the federal government taxes our incomes to a point where there isn't much left for the states to take in. I know my federal taxes paid are an order of magnitude greater than my state taxes paid.

EDIT: So, rather then it being a conditional gift, it's them taking my money and telling me I can't have it back unless I do what they want. And this isn't extortion how?

STAGE 2
March 21, 2007, 06:59 PM
A large portion of the funding that is generally withheld in situations like this isn't a "gift." It's the taxes that were paid by that state's citizens. Maybe the states have become to dependent on federal dollars...then again, maybe part of that is because the federal government taxes our incomes to a point where there isn't much left for the states to take in. I know my federal taxes paid are an order of magnitude greater than my state taxes paid.

EDIT: So, rather then it being a conditional gift, it's them taking my money and telling me I can't have it back unless I do what they want. And this isn't extortion how?

No one said it was a gift. Its a contract. You paid the money to the federal government. As a result, they can spend it on anything they want that is within their power.

This isn't exortion because states don't suffer any punishment if they refuse the funds. The argument that "the states cant afford not to take it" just means that states aren't being fiscally responsible.

rem33
March 21, 2007, 07:10 PM
This isn't exortion because states don't suffer any punishment if they refuse the funds

really??? I like to see any state in the Nation keep their highways even drivable for very long without Federal funding. Nice try but I don't buy it.

JuanCarlos
March 21, 2007, 07:51 PM
really??? I like to see any state in the Nation keep their highways even drivable for very long without Federal funding. Nice try but I don't buy it.

Well, some could probably do it (and many could get by) if the federal government weren't taxing their citizens incomes at the rate they do. But the way it works is that the federal government withholds highway funding (or school funding, or library funding) while at the same time taxing the citizens of that state at the same rate they were before, thus making it difficult (if not impossible) for the state to provide those same services.

A state does have a finite tax base, after all...which they have to share with the feds.

FirstFreedom
March 21, 2007, 08:13 PM
JuanCarlos, you hit the nail on the head there - right on. It most certainly IS extortion (sp?), and is a perversion of the enumerated right of the fedgov to tax.

STAGE 2
March 21, 2007, 08:15 PM
really??? I like to see any state in the Nation keep their highways even drivable for very long without Federal funding. Nice try but I don't buy it.

I don't care whether you buy it or not. Its the law. And it makes sense. States don't have to take the money. The fact that states have become so beholden and dependant to the feds is their own problem.


Well, some could probably do it (and many could get by) if the federal government weren't taxing their citizens incomes at the rate they do. But the way it works is that the federal government withholds highway funding (or school funding, or library funding) while at the same time taxing the citizens of that state at the same rate they were before, thus making it difficult (if not impossible) for the state to provide those same services.

A state does have a finite tax base, after all...which they have to share with the feds.

And yet thats still irrelevant to the question of whether the feds can place contingencies on federal funding. Undoubtedly some states would have to raise taxes. Likewise however there would be pressure on the feds to lower taxes to som extent (depending on how many states refused the funds). All of this has to do with finances however, and not whether the feds can do this.

All of you guys that scream about how the federal government should get off your backs should be overjoyed at this. States can tell the feds to pound sand. Of course this means the feds get to take their toys with them when they leave. To suggest otherwise is the ultimate hypocracy.

DonR101395
March 21, 2007, 08:32 PM
really??? I like to see any state in the Nation keep their highways even drivable for very long without Federal funding. Nice try but I don't buy it.

Where is it written the Federal Government has to provide paved roads? Or any roads for that matter?
I'm torn on the pot issue but I don't see withholding federal money as extortion or blackmail. The states are not punished if they don't accept federal funds. They may not have pretty roads, but that is a community/state problem, not a federal problem. You are paying federal taxes for federal programs and state taxes for state programs. Roads are state programs.

Playboypenguin
March 21, 2007, 09:01 PM
I don't care whether you buy it or not. Its the law.
You are failing to make a very necessary distinction here. Denying the funds is not "the law" it is "within the law". Meaning there is no law that says the federal govt can use allocated funds as bribery or extortion but there are no laws that prevent it. The standing law allows them enough latitude to use funding to punish states that pass laws that interefere with the federal level agenda but it does not specifically permit or endorse it.

JuanCarlos
March 21, 2007, 09:02 PM
Where is it written the Federal Government has to provide paved roads? Or any roads for that matter?
I'm torn on the pot issue but I don't see withholding federal money as extortion or blackmail. The states are not punished if they don't accept federal funds. They may not have pretty roads, but that is a community/state problem, not a federal problem. You are paying federal taxes for federal programs and state taxes for state programs. Roads are state programs.

Odd, that, because it seems to me that federal dollars are used for road construction in my state. It even tells at every road construction site on a pretty orange sign how many dollars for the project are from the state and how many are from the federal. The federal government also provides money to state-funded schools, libraries, etc.

I mean, I looked over your statement, to make sure you weren't trying to say how things should be or something....but no, it seems you actually think this is the way things are. And you are dead wrong. The wrongest of the wrong. You could not be wrongerer. Federal dollars are used constantly for programs that you'd think would be state/community matters. Where do these dollars come from? Why, from the citizens of that state, of course (though there is also some redistribution going on, from wealthy/more populous states to more rural).

They're nice enough to take money from the citizens of the state (and thus the state's tax base), and return it in the form of funding for things the state could have covered on their own had the federal government not been taxing their citizens for them (and thus the state would have been able to raise taxes for them). Why are they nice enough to play middleman with my tax money? Why, power of course! Hard to use the threat of withheld funds to force states to do what you want if the states manage to get to the tax dollars first.

DonR101395
March 21, 2007, 09:17 PM
Odd, that, because it seems to me that federal dollars are used for road construction in my state. It even tells at every road construction site on a pretty orange sign how many dollars for the project are from the state and how many are from the federal. The federal government also provides money to state-funded schools, libraries, etc.

I mean, I looked over your statement, to make sure you weren't trying to say how things should be or something....but no, it seems you actually think this is the way things are. And you are dead wrong. The wrongest of the wrong. You could not be wrongerer. Federal dollars are used constantly for programs that you'd think would be state/community matters. Where do these dollars come from? Why, from the citizens of that state, of course (though there is also some redistribution going on, from wealthy/more populous states to more rural).

They're nice enough to take money from the citizens of the state (and thus the state's tax base), and return it in the form of funding for things the state could have covered on their own had the federal government not been taxing their citizens for them (and thus the state would have been able to raise taxes for them). Why are they nice enough to play middleman with my tax money? Why, power of course! Hard to use the threat of withheld funds to force states to do what you want if the states manage to get to the tax dollars first.


How did I know you would bite. As usual, you didn't read what was written. You read what you wanted me to say. I never said they weren't used. I said they aren't required to be provided. Providing roads, schools, or libraries in your community are not federal issues. States have come to rely on federal funding for those things and federal taxes have increased because of that reliance. How many states do not have a state income tax? Why should they, when they get federal funding to support their communities? I would be all for paying less federal taxes and paying a state income tax that was funding projects in my community.


Edit: That would also increase my tax amount paid since FL does not have an income tax, but I see it as a more equitable solution.

rem33
March 21, 2007, 09:22 PM
A++ on those last to paragraphs Juan.

Blackmail by any other name is still blackmail. With holding funds to get you way is just that blackmail. legal or not.

JuanCarlos
March 21, 2007, 09:29 PM
How did I know you would bite. As usual, you didn't read what was written. You read what you wanted me to say.

No, I read what you wrote.

"You are paying federal taxes for federal programs and state taxes for state programs. Roads are state programs."

Note use of the word "are," implying present tense. As it stands (as in, at the present) roads are not state programs. They are shared state/federal programs, and thus you are paying federal taxes for them. I responded to exactly what you said, and if that wasn't what you meant then you need to work on that not complain to me.

I never said they weren't used. I said they aren't required to be provided. Providing roads, schools, or libraries in your community are not federal issues. States have come to rely on federal funding for those things and federal taxes have increased because of that reliance. How many states do not have a state income tax? Why should they, when they get federal funding to support their communities? I would be all for paying less federal taxes and paying a state income tax that was funding projects in my community.

Oh, me too. The problem is that it's a hard thing to undo...because federal taxes are not something that vary from state to state. Montana can't simply refuse federal aid for things like libraries or roads, because whether or not our state takes the federal money our state's taxpayers will be giving it to the feds. It's not like they're just going to give it back.

So unless the feds suddenly decide to get out of the road and library business (which they have no incentive to do, since it would take away this power that they have...you know, the whole "blackmail" thing we're talking about) the states are pretty much stuck doing what the federal government wants in order to get their citizens' money back.

DonR101395
March 21, 2007, 09:44 PM
No, I read what you wrote.

"You are paying federal taxes for federal programs and state taxes for state programs. Roads are state programs."

Note use of the word "are," implying present tense. As it stands (as in, at the present) roads are not state programs. They are shared state/federal programs, and thus you are paying federal taxes for them. I responded to exactly what you said, and if that wasn't what you meant then you need to work on that not complain to me.


I agree that interstate highways are a federal/state program.
Do you agree that they have a right to fund or not fund a program they control or decide to pull out of a program they are partners in controlling?


Oh, me too. The problem is that it's a hard thing to undo...because federal taxes are not something that vary from state to state. Montana can't simply refuse federal aid for things like libraries or roads, because whether or not our state takes the federal money our state's taxpayers will be giving it to the feds. It's not like they're just going to give it back.


Nobody is forcing them to take the money. Don't take the federal funding and make yourself feel good thinking all of your federal taxes are going for programs like the military or some other program you like.

So unless the feds suddenly decide to get out of the road and library business (which they have no incentive to do, since it would take away this power that they have...you know, the whole "blackmail" thing we're talking about) the states are pretty much stuck doing what the federal government wants in order to get their citizens' money back.

They have no incentive to because those who are into wealth redistribution would have a cardiac that some states aren't getting the same "advantages" as others.

I do agree with you that we have went too far down the road with wealth redistribution and we will never reverse course.

Playboypenguin
March 21, 2007, 10:02 PM
Do you agree that they have a right to fund or not fund a program they control or decide to pull out of a program they are partners in controlling?
Actually, I do not agree. The feds should not be able to say "we are building an interstate roadway...but only for the states that behave themselves." The people in the other states paid no less federal taxes than did the ones that were deemed worthy...and in many cases the states that misbehave actually paid more due to higher average incomes.

DonR101395
March 21, 2007, 10:15 PM
Actually, I do not agree. The feds should not be able to say "we are building an interstate roadway...but only for the states that behave themselves." The people in the other states paid no less federal taxes than did the ones that were deemed worthy...and in many cases the states that misbehave actually paid more due to higher average incomes.


If they decide to fund hot house tomatoes in all 50 states for 30 years, but decide at year 2 it's a money losing waste of funds in 10 states; they should be on the hook for 28 more years because people planned their 30 year budgets on money they haven't received yet?

Playboypenguin
March 21, 2007, 10:17 PM
If they decide to fund hot house tomatoes in all 50 states for 30 years, but decide at year 2 it's a money losing waste of funds they should be on the hook for 28 more years because people planned their 30 year budgets on money they haven't received yet?
You completely lost me on that one. What is the logical connection between a failed tomatoe project and witholding necessary funding for infastructure from a states citizens?

DonR101395
March 21, 2007, 10:32 PM
You completely lost me on that one. What is the logical connection between a failed tomatoe project and witholding necessary funding for infastructure from a states citizens?


The connection is.......................
You said they can't stop funding for programs they feel are money losing wastes.
I took it to the extreme example waste as an illustration of the foolishness of that thought process.

Rangefinder
March 21, 2007, 10:52 PM
As interesting as all of this is (and that's not meant sarcastically in the least), it all comes down to prove the same point--it's all centered around the all-mighty dollar. He who controls the money controls the people.

Wildalaska
March 21, 2007, 10:53 PM
Wouldn't that fall under the right to pursue life, liberty & happiness? I would think so, especially in relation to a medical condition.
Today 02:54 PM

Hmm must be a penumbra or emanation or some such like thing...:D

WildooopstheawordnowwhoseoxisgoredAlaska

DonR101395
March 21, 2007, 10:54 PM
And with that Rangefinder, let's get back to smokin' dope. The thread is veering off topic. JC PP feel free to pm if you want further discussion.

Crosshair
March 21, 2007, 10:55 PM
You have lost me and everyone I have asked about that your DonR101395.

The states were supposed to get money for their highways and the fed doesn't give them that money because, god forbid, they have the drinking age at 20. I don't know how you can look at that and not think it is wrong.

If I pay Bob to mow my lawn for $20 per mow and give him $100 for 5 mowings, but Bob then decides he won't mow my lawn because I support Canidate X while he supports Canidate Y. Would I not be within my right to demand my money back? Would Bob not have his butt handed to him in court if he refused?

It would really be nice if the states could sieze the funds that go to the feds and tell them to go screw off, here is your share minus the money we should be getting for roads and stuff. We can do this stuff ourselves, your track record isn't anything to brag about.

DonR101395
March 21, 2007, 11:00 PM
Ok, one last post.
You do not have a legal right to have paved roads to drive your car from state to state. You have a legal right to travel from state to state, but it's not up to the Feds to figure out how you get to Grandma's house.
Is that in simple enough terms?


I'm out........................we're taking this thread too far from smokin' dope.

STAGE 2
March 21, 2007, 11:07 PM
Hmm must be a penumbra or emanation or some such like thing...

LOL. Peunmbra. I love that word.

STAGE 2
March 21, 2007, 11:16 PM
The states were supposed to get money for their highways and the fed doesn't give them that money because, god forbid, they have the drinking age at 20. I don't know how you can look at that and not think it is wrong.

No no no no. The states have NO entitlement to those funds. They aren't "supposed" to get anything. If the feds choose to offer it to them, thats their prerogative, however there is nothing that says the feds must give the states money for highways.

If I pay Bob to mow my lawn for $20 per mow and give him $100 for 5 mowings, but Bob then decides he won't mow my lawn because I support Canidate X while he supports Canidate Y. Would I not be within my right to demand my money back? Would Bob not have his butt handed to him in court if he refused?

Wrong again. No one is changing the rules mid stream. The proper example is if Bob walked up to you and you said "I'll pay you 100 to mow my lawn for a month but only if you use a craftsman mower". If Bob wants the money then he's gonna have to mow your lawn with a craftsman. If he doesn't want to go to the trouble of getting one he can decline. If he wants the money than he has to find one.

Thats the difference. Bob, or the states will not (and since this has already been decided did not) have their butt handed to them in court.

publius42
March 22, 2007, 04:23 AM
That is unless there is some massive uprising from the populace.

Darnit! I must have missed the massive uprising when we got rid of the stupid 55 mph nationwide speed limit! And I LOVE a good massive uprising!

(Or maybe that was just a law which lacked real popular support, much like the prohibition on medical marijuana).

Al Norris
March 22, 2007, 07:34 AM
STAGE 2, are you even aware of the reasons for the Interstate Highway System? It was (and nominally still is) a Federal project for the National Security.

The States do have an entitlement to federal monies for the upkeep and maintenence of this system of roads.

DonR101395
March 22, 2007, 08:28 AM
STAGE 2, are you even aware of the reasons for the Interstate Highway System? It was (and nominally still is) a Federal project for the National Security.

The States do have an entitlement to federal monies for the upkeep and maintenence of this system of roads.

Antipitas,
Are you aware that they can decide not to fund any national security project they choose to not fund?

FirstFreedom
March 22, 2007, 08:40 AM
It's an excellent point that if the right to contraception and abortion fall under the penunbra of rights found by the court in Griswold & Roe, then that entails the right to make personal medical decisions about one's own body - if a medical doctor prescribes it, then surely this is indistinguishable in any principled way from the right to abortion for the health of the mother?

JR47
March 22, 2007, 08:48 AM
This sure has a LOT to do with medical marijuana?

One of our Medics was diagnosed with Type II Glaucoma. He was placed on MM to allow the pressures in his eyes to be reduced. It worked, for about eight months. During the time, he couldn't work, and wasn't even fit for office work. He said that the MM messed his life up more than the Glaucoma. He's now 100% retired on disability, and blind.

MM isn't a very effective pain reliever. It may dull the pain, but even that is a transient condition. As with most inhaled substances, after a short period of time, you need more to achieve the same results.

The fact that the woman has scoliosis has nothing to do with the cancer, or the pain. The condition is a curvature of the spine. Only in the worst cases does this allow the pain causing arthritis to be debilitating.

For true pain relief in hospice cases, they usually prescribe morphine sulfate. It works, but leaves the patient nearly comatose. A valid point can be made for the use of Heroin during the end phase, as it allows the patient freedom from pain, and lucidity. Both are exquisitely addictive, but death has a way of curing that.

Hydrocodone and Oxycontin would both relieve the pain caused by the tumor. Both carry the risk of addiction, but are easily managed. Before you ask, my son is 38, and in the 4th year after being diagnosed with ALS. Prior to that, he had injured his shoulder, and was scheduled for surgery. The diagnosis rendered the surgery impractical, as rehab wouldn't have been effective. The constant pain has been relieved by Hydrocodone, with OXY as a back-up for the times when he is man-handled and his shoulder flares up badly. I was certified as a Maryland EMT-P for 10 years. :(

invention_45
March 22, 2007, 10:02 AM
I worked with a guy who got pancreatic cancer. His wife was a RN at a big medical center in Miami.

As time went by, he ended up carrying around a pump (presumably morphine) and using dilaudid.

They did not stop the pain.

It was necessary for him to undergo surgery in which nerves were severed in order to stop the pain, and even two months after that he still used the pump plus stronger dilaudid.

He lasted another 3-4 months.

Does anyone know whether MM would have helped him? He didn't try it, so it's unknown. But the pain was clearly not manageable using the most extreme narcotic methods.

One day a few weeks before he died he was sitting in my office. He had some control over the pump. He said "watch this". He pressed the dose button, and in a few seconds his eyes fell shut. He managed to get the words "it still hurts" out. It was about 20 seconds before he could open his eyes again.

FirstFreedom
March 22, 2007, 10:07 AM
Well, that puts the debate where it should be, at least....the question is whether the prescription is medically valid and supported by the medical science.

However, *IF* it's the case that a licensed M.D. in Calif did prescribe it, but JR47, then we must ask whether JR47 is a licensed medical doctor. If not, then what extrinsic reason is there that we (or Angel) should listen to your advice, not that of the licensed M.D.?

Seamus
March 22, 2007, 10:38 AM
So remember kids. "Marijuana's bad"-Mr. Mackey

Shadi Khalil
March 22, 2007, 11:02 AM
Playboy, are you on to me? I'm not taking any chances, see y'all in mexico!!!:D

JR47
March 22, 2007, 04:05 PM
However, *IF* it's the case that a licensed M.D. in Calif did prescribe it, but JR47, then we must ask whether JR47 is a licensed medical doctor. If not, then what extrinsic reason is there that we (or Angel) should listen to your advice, not that of the licensed M.D.?

Exactly what was my advise? As a paramedic, I had the misfortune to transport a fair number of terminal patients to the hospital from home, or nursing homes. The conversation always turned to their pain, which was the number one reason for their transport. I offered no profound direction to anyone. I have, to my benefit, actually interviewed people on Medical Marijuana, and been given their opinion of how it worked on them. I also have experience in managing long-term use of pain medications.

I would suggest that this puts me head and shoulders above 99% of the posters here in experience, and knowledge (Maryland/DOT Paramedic). I have made no claim as to being an MD. However, others have talked about the experience of nurse relatives in hospice, so I'm ahead of that source.

I would also ask that the expertise of one MD be considered for just what it is. One man's opinion. Medical marijuana has never been a studied and peer reviewed subject. With the number of malpractice suits successfully brought against doctors every year, you might not want to trumpet a single opinion. Unlike House, most doctors readily admit that most treatments are "we'll try this."

So, unless you actually have knowledge, instead of having slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Let's not make claims that we don't have the ability to back up. Smoking a doobie in college hardly makes you an expert on Medical Marijuana.

publius42
March 22, 2007, 06:31 PM
Actually, it is occasionally studied (http://www.maps.org/mmj/index.html#ongoing) in the US...

The article doesn't mention the recently completed study by Dr. Donald Abrams, UC San Francisco, which primarily examined the safety of marijuana in AIDS patients but also gathered preliminary information about caloric intake and weight gain. MAPS and Dr. Abrams worked closely together for about 5 1/2 years to obtain permission for that study, which obtained final approval in 1997. This was the first medical marijuana study of any type in any patient population in over 15 years.

OK, everyone who wants to work for 5 years to get permission to do an expensive project concerning a drug on which you can make no money, raise your hand.

Gee, no takers?

(And that was just one of almost 25,000 google results for the phrase "medical marijuana research") ;)

publius42
March 22, 2007, 06:37 PM
By the way, it seems it is much easier to convince the government to let you study the safety of marijuana than to let you study the benefits of marijuana. Try to get a study approved which focuses on "caloric intake and weight gain" and you'll probably meet a wall.

In other words, the subject of whether pot causes the munchies is medically taboo.

FirstFreedom
March 22, 2007, 10:01 PM
the 1% (remaining after the 99% you referenced that you know more than), happen to be those who are

-Medical doctors
-who went to medical school
-did an intership
-did a residency
-passed their boards
-and are thus LICENSED by the state to dispense medical advice and prescribe medicine

not a paramedic who may have also slept at a holiday inn last night. The fact that there are no studies, as you say, means that it's all the more important to listen to those who know the most about the human body, and have been tested & licensed by the state, not rely LESS on them in the absence of proof to contravene them. So an internet paramedic guru, or a licensed MD - hmmm, easy choice there to be honest. I don't doubt for an instant that you have more knowledge than 99% of the public on the subject, and far far more than myself. I do however, doubt that you have more knowledge and expertise that that 1% or less who are licensed M.D.s and are forced to pass a test before they experiment on the public. Sorry, had to be said.

DonR101395
March 22, 2007, 10:11 PM
here's an interesting article written by the Mayo Clinic. The cons IMO don't out way the pros. Does the Mayo clinic cancer department meet the 1% of those educated enough to make an informed response criteria?


http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical-marijuana/GA00014

Playboypenguin
March 22, 2007, 10:26 PM
I would have to say that Mayo article pretty much lays it out. It states how marijuana...

helps with nausea of cancer patients,

prevents wasting in AIDS and cancer patients,

releives gluacoma symptoms and helps prevent vision loss,

works well as a pain reliever (maybe even as well as coedine),

and states that there is evidence of it helping with symptoms of MS.

It then goes to list the possible side effects as...

impaired thinking,

light headedness,

possibility of a cough,

increased risk of heart attack (although not near as great an increase as regular smokers),

and the possible experience of much disputed withdrawl symptoms.

The advantages are numerous and more are being discovered and the risks seem to be about the same as just drinking a few beers.

DonR101395
March 22, 2007, 10:44 PM
PP,
Interesting how you left out the opening line of the article. I'll quote it for those who don't want to click the link.


Whether marijuana will relieve your side effects or symptoms is questionable. But the risks of smoking pot are clear. Examine the facts about marijuana before making your decision.


It's also interesting that you left out the opening paragraph to the symptoms you say the Mayo clinic says it will help. Let me once again help by quoting the Opening paragraph.


Possible medical uses

Scientists studying marijuana's potential medical uses have found that it may help treat a variety of conditions.

May help and do help aren't the same thing. One more example of adjusting facts you don't like to fit what you do like.

Playboypenguin
March 22, 2007, 11:02 PM
I read all of it and the opening paragraph does not correspond with the data in the article. It concedes that studies have shown results in all the fields listed but then goes on to list a small list of non-sever side effects. It then list withdrawl symptoms that studies have shown are minor in the use of marijuana. Anyone with a moderate reasoning level can deduce that this articles cons do not come close to out weighing the pros.

It does not just say these things "may" be benefits it says things like "studies strongly support", "studies have found", "scientists have found" and "scientists believe." Those are quite a bit beyond saying "may."

It also admits in it's first paragraph that "Marijuana was listed by the U.S. Pharmacopeia, the organization that sets quality standards for approved drugs in the United States, until the 1940s, when political pressure against marijuana's recreational use triggered its removal."

Now who is reading what they want to read and adjusting facts? It is not my fault you used only a single poorly worded paragraph to base your idea of what you thought the study was saying instead of analyzing the actual data and making a logical conclussion.

DonR101395
March 22, 2007, 11:13 PM
I read all of it and the opening paragraph does not correspond with the data in the article. It concedes that studies have shown results in all the fields listed but then goes on to list a small list of non-sever side effects. It then list withdrawl symptoms that studies have shown are minor in the use of marijuana. Anyone with a moderate reasoning level can deduce that this articles cons do not come close to out weighing the pros.


Yep, you're correct. An AIDs patient needs increased risk of respitory infections, a glaucoma patient will benefit from reduced balance and coordination, as will an MS patient. They will all benefit from increased heart disease risk and 50-70% more carcinogens than cigarettes that they are holding in their lungs longer. But on the good side they may hallucinate and not remember why they are ill.

To help quell the effectiveness of smoking vs. taking the pill discussion here is a quote from the article.

After you smoke marijuana, its ingredients reach their peak levels in your body within minutes, and effects can last up to an hour and a half. When eaten โ€” the plant is sometimes mixed with food โ€” the ingredients can take several hours to reach their peak levels in your body, and their effects may last for hours.

The prescription drug dronabinol, which is taken as an oral capsule, takes effect in about 30 minutes and can continue to stimulate appetite for more than a day.

DonR101395
March 22, 2007, 11:24 PM
It does not just say these things "may" be benefits it says things like "studies strongly support", "studies have found", "scientists have found" and "scientists believe." Those are quite a bit beyond saying "may."


Since you seem to be afraid to post what is actually said and seem to want to skew it to what you believe.

Some scientists feel that more research may show cannabinoids useful in treating MS. Marijuana may protect nerves from the kind of damage that occurs during the disease. They also suggest that animal study results, knowledge of CB1 receptors in the brain and users' reports of decreased symptoms after using marijuana support this possibility. However, others advise caution in using marijuana to treat MS, given the modest therapeutic effects cannabinoids have demonstrated so far and the potential of long-term adverse side effects.


Your doctor can prescribe other medications to treat glaucoma, but these can lose their effectiveness over time. Researchers are working to develop medications containing cannabinoids that can be put directly on the eyes โ€” to avoid the mind-altering side effects and other health consequences of smoking the plant.


This seems to have the least amount of undesirable side effects, but smoking still doesn't sound like the answer...............at least to me.

Younger people may find marijuana more useful as a treatment for nausea than do older people โ€”who may not tolerate its mind-altering side effects as well. The prescription form, dronabinol, also may produce psychological side effects that make it inappropriate for some older people. Doctors generally prescribe several kinds of newer anti-nausea drugs with fewer side effects before resorting to dronabinol.

Playboypenguin
March 22, 2007, 11:27 PM
Don,

Why would I need to cut and paste stuff from a linked article???

Everyone was able to go read the entire article and not just chosen cut and paste pieces of it.

The side effects listed for marijuana are actually (if you look further into it) even less proven than the benefits.

And just like I said, the article did not say "it may" help with this or "it may" help with that. It qualified it's statements with things like I mentioned such as "studies have shown" etc.

What exactely was your point n the last post? Where you trying to disprove the usefullness of MM? Because the stuff you posted says they are trying to make meds that are as effective and based on MM. Seems like people would just use the MM which is already available and much, much cheaper.

DonR101395
March 22, 2007, 11:33 PM
Don,
Why would I need to cut and paste stuff from a linked article???

Everyone was able to go read the entire article and not just chosen cut and paste pieces of it.

the side effects listed for marijuana are actually (if you look further into it) even less proven than the benefits.

You're quoting the article while leaving out the sentence before or after that dispel your belief.

According to the Mayo Clinic those are actual risks.

Along with the legal implications, smoking marijuana poses several health risks, including:

* Impairment of thinking, problem-solving skills and memory
* Reduced balance and coordination
* Increased risk of heart attack
* Heightened risk of chronic cough and respiratory infections
* Potential for hallucinations and withdrawal symptoms


Notice it doesn't say may cause or possibly cause. It says poses several health risks. But I guess they aren't as smart as the doctors who want to prescribe it either. They just do the research on it's uses and effects.

SecDef
March 22, 2007, 11:42 PM
Notice it doesn't say may cause or possibly cause.

"risk of" and "potential for" means exactly that.

so that knocks off the bottom three. The two others pose secondary health risks.. i.e. you can come up with situations where memory loss or coordination can affect your health, but they aren't themselves necessarily adverse to your health. (not saying you should ignore them by any means)

Playboypenguin
March 22, 2007, 11:43 PM
Notice it doesn't say may cause or possibly cause. It says poses several health risks. But I guess they aren't as smart as the doctors who want to prescribe it either. They just do the research on it's uses and effects.
You obviously have very little medical experience. That list of health risks is small and very insignificant. Just read the health risks on any medication and you will find much worse things. Also, if you look into the side effects of MM use you will find that there are very few real objective studies. The side effects listed are also common with using alcohol or smoking tobacco.

Here are a few of the risks listed on my blood pressure medication (an approved and considered to be safe medication)...
-irregular heart beat
-headaches
-dizziness
-abdominal pains
-increased risk of cardiac failure
-trouble breathing
etc.

Viagra lists...
-pulmonary embolism
-cardian arrest
-blood clots
-stroke
-headache
-priapism
-urinary tract infection
etc.



And as I said the medical community has always recognized the value of MM and only removed it under "political pressure" as the article clearly stated.

DonR101395
March 22, 2007, 11:47 PM
"risk of" and "potential for" means exactly that.

so that knocks off the bottom three. The two others pose secondary health risks.. i.e. you can come up with situations where memory loss or coordination can affect your health, but they aren't themselves necessarily adverse to your health. (not saying you should ignore them by any means)

I could almost agree with you except........the way to eliminate the risk is to not smoke marijuana. The pill eliminates the risks associated with the bottom three, with the possible exception being withdrawal. I'm not sure if the medications are addictive.

Playboypenguin
March 22, 2007, 11:56 PM
I could almost agree with you except........the way to eliminate the risk is to not smoke marijuana. The pill eliminates the risks associated with the bottom three, with the possible exception being withdrawal. I'm not sure if the medications are addictive.
Hahaha...have you read the possible side effects of one of the "safer" pills you mentioned?

The possible side effects of Dronabinol are listed as...
-difficulty breathing
-closing of the throat
-swelling of the lips, tongue, or face
-hives
-drowsiness or dizziness
-nausea or vomiting
-memory loss
-confusion, hallucinations, abnormal thinking, or intoxication
-headache
-anxiety or nervousness
-irregular or fast heartbeat
etc.

Sounds much safer to me. :rolleyes:

DonR101395
March 22, 2007, 11:59 PM
One choice of how many? That is also the last drug used because of the possible side effects.

Playboypenguin
March 23, 2007, 12:01 AM
Don,

Find me any approved drug that does what MM does that does not have as long or longer a list of "possible" side effects.

Crosshair
March 23, 2007, 12:31 AM
From personal experience Playboypenguin, I can say that the "Impairment of thinking, problem-solving skills and memory", Reduced balance and coordination", and "Heightened risk of chronic cough" side effects are true, though the "impaired thinking" one would be more accurately described as "slowed down thinking". You can still think clearly, just not very quickly. Though your short term memory IS impared for a bit, you are fully aware that you are impared and take efforts not to do anything that requires alot of quick thinking. (Unlike Alcohol)

The "Increased risk of heart attack" one I have no idea, and the "Potential for hallucinations and withdrawal symptoms", at least for me, was no worse than quiting caffeine. Never had any hallucinations as far as I can remember.

applesanity
March 23, 2007, 01:25 AM
Honestly you guys. At the end of the day, Mary Jane makes you comfortable with being lazy. That's about it. It won't fund terrorism, it won't lead to harder drugs, you won't die, and you won't kill anyone.

As for my opinion, I don't like being lazy. So if you smoke pot, you'll end up on your mama's sofa in the basement, fat, smelly, watching Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and listening to Pink Floyd.

SecDef
March 23, 2007, 01:31 AM
Apple... you speak of recreational MJ. . . and why it isn't necessarily good for career advancement.

There is still a good case to be made that in certain situations medical MJ has a place.

Playboypenguin
March 23, 2007, 01:54 AM
fat, smelly, watching Aqua Teen Hunger Force
I could very easily take offense at those parts...and I do not do any drugs at all. :)

publius42
March 23, 2007, 05:07 AM
I would also ask that the expertise of one MD be considered for just what it is. One man's opinion. Medical marijuana has never been a studied and peer reviewed subject.

So only one guy thinks it's a good idea, and it has never been studied?

Research Findings on Medicinal Properties of Marijuana (http://www.csdp.org/kz/mmj2.htm)

Regarding the science on medical marijuana in March 1999 the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine completed a review of the medical use of marijuana and related issues. The report, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," was commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, after the people of California and Arizona voted for medical marijuana in 1996. The Institute of Medicine is the gold standard of American medicine. The IOM report recognized the therapeutic benefits of medical marijuana and urged that marijuana be made available to individual patients while research continued on the development of new drugs developed from marijuana.

invention_45
March 23, 2007, 07:02 AM
Actually, the "side effect" of impaired thinking is just what a terminal patient may want.

In part, that's how the narcotic analgesics work. It still hurts, but you don't care. Yet they're not on Schedule I, other than Heroin.

This is being made into a technical discussion. If you want to go there, consider this.

MDMA was presented to congress as being worthy of being classed as a Schedule III substance, backed by scientific studies. Congress decided that they were full of s**t and simply classed it as Schedule I.

It is now being studied for relief of PTSD, the granting of that study being a feat in itself.

Face it. MDMA and pot are Schedule I because they are considered too much fun.

DonR101395
March 23, 2007, 07:52 AM
The possible side effects of Dronabinol are listed as...
-difficulty breathing*
-closing of the throat*
-swelling of the lips*, tongue*, or face*
-hives*
-drowsiness or dizziness
-nausea or vomiting*
-memory loss
-confusion, hallucinations, abnormal thinking, or intoxication
-headache
-anxiety or nervousness
-irregular or fast heartbeat
etc.



PP,
Once again you decide to distort the facts to read as you would like.
7 of your side effects are due to allergic reaction to THC the active ingredient in Durobol and marijuana. I marked them in your comment with an *


Here are the side effects for aspirin.
Closing of the throat
Swelling of the lips
swelling of the tongue
swelling of the face
Hives
black bloody tarry stools
nausea
vomiting
abdominal pain
uncontrolled fever
blood in the urine
blood in the vomit
decreased hearing
ringing of the ears
seizures
dizziness
confusion
hallucinations
heart burn
indigestion


Using your logic I would say Durobol is safer than aspirin and safer than MM since it has no long term health effects.

publius42
March 23, 2007, 10:38 AM
Using your logic I would say Durobol is safer than aspirin and safer than MM since it has no long term health effects.

I'd say that's correct. The problems I have heard over and over with Marinol are that it costs quite a bit more than black market weed off the street, and it takes 30 minutes to be effective.

Handing a pill to a nauseated person and telling him, "Here, keep this down for half an hour, it'll help" just seems crazy to me. If he could keep anything down, he wouldn't want the pill.

On the other hand, it also seems crazy to me that a homegrown cannabis plant for personal medical use is interstate commerce, and that studying whether pot causes the munchies is taboo, and that the federal government simultaneously says that marijuana has no medical uses and supplies it to a few individuals for medical use, all the while funding a report which found medical uses.

invention_45
March 23, 2007, 11:44 AM
Let's look at'em all.

The possible side effects of Dronabinol are listed as...
-difficulty breathing *
-closing of the throat *
-swelling of the lips, tongue, or face *
-hives *
-drowsiness or dizziness
-nausea or vomiting **
-memory loss
-confusion, hallucinations, abnormal thinking, or intoxication
-headache
-anxiety or nervousness
-irregular or fast heartbeat
etc

And, for pot, not much more that that except the smoke.

Here are the side effects for aspirin.
Closing of the throat *
Swelling of the lips *
swelling of the tongue *
swelling of the face *
Hives *
black bloody tarry stools *
nausea *
vomiting *
abdominal pain *
uncontrolled fever *
blood in the urine *
blood in the vomit *
decreased hearing **
ringing of the ears **
seizures *
dizziness
confusion
hallucinations
heart burn *
indigestion *

I have marked both lists differently. * denotes a life-threatening issue. ** denotes a possibly life-threatening issue.

Notice that I did not mark heart effects as either one. That is because there have been zero (0) deaths from pot smoking recorded.

Also notice that some of the same symptoms of Dronabinol are not marked, where the same symptoms of aspirin are. That is because these same symptoms are caused by disorientation (like sea sickness) with Dronabinol, not life threatening, but are caused by bleeding with aspirin. Internal bleeding is not a good thing.

Now, for Dronabinol, the * marked side effects are due to allergic reaction. You can have an allergic reaction to peanuts. All the rest are not the end of the world.

Aspirin, on the other hand, has side effects that are not due to allergic reactions but are due to platelet suppression which causes bleeding.

If you know how to read between the lines, aspirin is far more dangerous than either Dronabinol or pot.

Playboypenguin
March 23, 2007, 12:14 PM
PP,
Once again you decide to distort the facts to read as you would like.
No Don,

That is not the case. The case here is you once again showing an ignorance of how clinical drug trials work. Any sysptoms that occur during testing (be they allergic reactions or sometimes even completely non-drug related) have to later be listed as "possible" side effects. If it happens in a large number (I think it is 15% or 20%) it has to be listed as a "common" side effect.

That is why aspirin has such a long list of "possible" side effects and the same goes for marijuana. it is not some vile and evil substance the rotts your brain and makes you a loser like people love to tell their kids. It was recognized as a valuable medical treatment until it was removed by the AMA because of "political pressure". Does political pressure sound like a good reason to remove a drug that has benefited thousands or even millions of ill people?

People can abuse it of course. But should we remove coedine, valium, morphine, viagra, oxy, etc from the market? They get abused all the time and their side effects are much worse than marijuana.

Why is it they are all still legal??? Could it be because drug corporations actually make alot of money off those ones?

Rangefinder
March 23, 2007, 12:58 PM
I think I mentioned this earlier... But as Playboy brings up again, I can't even turn on the TV anymore without seeing an ad for some new "wonder drug"--most of which have common or possible side effects ranging from dizziness all the way to stroke, and organ failure. But those are all just fine to put on the market?? Not to make light of what medical pro's or con's MJ might have, how many millions of people have used it over the decades? I'm one of them--I freely admit I spent a good amount of time smoking it during high school--funny though, unlike cigarettes for me or other legal drugs for some people, I shrugged off MJ without a second though, desire, need, craving, etc. And as for the side effects most common? The craving for snackfood, the urge to watch a lot of re-runs on TV, and excessive use of the word Dude! Now there's a danger to society all right... The legality issue still comes right back to the all-mighty dollar. Anyone with half a brain could grow a year's supply for themselves. Therefore, the production of it can't be controlled, regulated, or taxed. The Gov't and larger private industries afen't going to get there cut, so nobody can have it regardless of the benefits, regardless of the dangers, regardless of how damaging or potentially harmful everything else might be that they DO have control over. No matter how you slice it, it still comes right back to money.

JR47
March 23, 2007, 01:11 PM
I would suggest that this puts me head and shoulders above 99% of the posters here in experience, and knowledge (Maryland/DOT Paramedic). I have made no claim as to being an MD.

the 1% (remaining after the 99% you referenced that you know more than), happen to be those who are

-Medical doctors
-who went to medical school
-did an intership
-did a residency
-passed their boards
-and are thus LICENSED by the state to dispense medical advice and prescribe medicine

Gee, FF, it would appear that your nap last night at the Holiday Inn Express left you a little woozy, or were you implementing a study on Medical Marijuana by yourself? Please explain where that senseless quote came from? 1% of the posters in this thread are Medical Doctors? You certainly have a flair for interpretation of the written word. It's a shame that the flair only appears when you're modifying others words to either twist what they mean, or just to insult them.

You certainly trust some MDs more than others. That would be those who's words you can trust to support your theme. Those who oppose the use of Medical marijuana have taken the same tests as you require. They also appear to be in the majority, at least according to the AMA.

Nowhere in this discussion have I stated that my opinion of Medical Marijuana is that it's ineffective. I simply reported the results of multiple interviews. I never stated that I was an MD, nor did I say that I knew more than an MD. All of those false assertions were used by you in an attempt to reduce any impact I might have had with sentient posters. Your posts have grown shriller and more insulting as your failing logic has been questioned by others. You approve of it, but you acknowledge that you have less knowledge and expertise than others. All in all, typical of your other posts that require more than a skin-deep understanding of why things work.

FYI, clinical drug trials list undue responses to the drug just as you state. That list, however, is dependent on the numbers tested, which you didn't report. The list will also grow based on reported instances after the drug is marketed. Aspirin has been on the market for a century or more, and will statistically have more complications than anything that has been studied once or twice.

it is not some vile and evil substance the rotts your brain and makes you a loser like people love to tell their kids. It was recognized as a valuable medical treatment until it was removed by the AMA because of "political pressure". Does political pressure sound like a good reason to remove a drug that has benefited thousands or even millions of ill people?

Could you deliver any proof about the AMA's direction? If not, please state it as opinion.

As for the drug companies, should MJ be legalized, you can expect them to have "Medical Grade" preparations on the market within weeks. The FDA would only allow tested preparations to be used medically. As was stated, different plants, soils, and weather yield different effects. Some would be more useful medically for specific relief than others. Think that the patients would actually want the variety that worked?

You really DON't know very much about this, do you?

Insults and manipulation of quotes aside, you haven't been able to add anything but noise to the thread for pages.:barf:

DonR101395
March 23, 2007, 01:37 PM
No Don,

That is not the case. The case here is you once again showing an ignorance of how clinical drug trials work. Any sysptoms that occur during testing (be they allergic reactions or sometimes even completely non-drug related) have to later be listed as "possible" side effects. If it happens in a large number (I think it is 15% or 20%) it has to be listed as a "common" side effect.

I've made no assertions that I am a medical expert, but I can read. I can also see, and what I have seen is marijuana abused far more than any other drug grown or manufactured.

That is why aspirin has such a long list of "possible" side effects and the same goes for marijuana. it is not some vile and evil substance the rotts your brain and makes you a loser like people love to tell their kids. It was recognized as a valuable medical treatment until it was removed by the AMA because of "political pressure". Does political pressure sound like a good reason to remove a drug that has benefited thousands or even millions of ill people?


Is it your opinion that the AMA received "political pressure" or do you have facts? Since the AMA is not a government organization how could they receive political pressure?



People can abuse it of course. But should we remove coedine, valium, morphine, viagra, oxy, etc from the market? They get abused all the time and their side effects are much worse than marijuana.


What are the percentages of MJ abusers vs the others you have listed? I don't have time right now to look it up, but will later. I'm sure I will find a much greater percentage of MJ abusers vs any of the other drugs you listed.


Why is it they are all still legal??? Could it be because drug corporations actually make alot of money off those ones?

When all else fails throw in some conspiracy theory. That usually works for a little while. No one denies drug companies make big money from drugs. DUHHH they are businesses. They are in business to sell drugs. It wouldn't be much of a business if they gave their goods away.

publius42
March 23, 2007, 01:49 PM
Could you deliver any proof about the AMA's direction?

The AMA was in favor of medicinal uses of cannabis back when it was made illegal, but Democrats in Congress did not want to hear from them. The story is here (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm).

publius42
March 23, 2007, 01:52 PM
what I have seen is marijuana abused far more than any other drug grown or manufactured.
Really? I've seen much more alcohol abuse. Almost lost my alcoholic brother, have lost friends to drunk drivers, almost lost my mother to one. I've seen some cannabis abuse, but nothing which compares to the impact alcohol has had on my life. It's not even close.

JuanCarlos
March 23, 2007, 01:56 PM
Really? I've seen much more alcohol abuse. Almost lost my alcoholic brother, have lost friends to drunk drivers, almost lost my mother to one. I've seen some cannabis abuse, but nothing which compares to the impact alcohol has had on my life. It's not even close.

Beat me to it. I almost suspect he has some sort of retort planned for this, because this was just such an obvious response. We'll see.

When all else fails throw in some conspiracy theory. That usually works for a little while. No one denies drug companies make big money from drugs. DUHHH they are businesses. They are in business to sell drugs. It wouldn't be much of a business if they gave their goods away.

Nobody is asking them to give their goods away. They're afraid of losing their business because something they didn't invent and which can be grown in my backyard might just be as effective as what they're offering at an extremely high price. When all else fails make the competition illegal, I suppose.

And the side effects most common? The craving for snackfood, the urge to watch a lot of re-runs on TV, and excessive use of the word Dude!

I now want to see medical marijuana made legal and a legitimate market created if only to see these side effects listed on the packaging.

invention_45
March 23, 2007, 02:44 PM
I read the story of how we got Prohibition II.

And some of you think jury nullification is dishonest?

Redworm
March 23, 2007, 03:06 PM
hey I don't know if anyone's mentioned in this but marijuana can be used in ways other than smoking. when you cook with it or vaporize it all side effects associated with smoking are gone.

JR47
March 23, 2007, 03:15 PM
I've seen some cannabis abuse, but nothing which compares to the impact alcohol has had on my life. It's not even close.

Couldn't be because the legal setting makes users a lot more secretive, and careful of the settings they use it in, could it?

They're afraid of losing their business because something they didn't invent and which can be grown in my backyard might just be as effective as what they're offering at an extremely high price. When all else fails make the competition illegal, I suppose.

The drug companies made MJ illegal? Care to venture out to provide a little proof of that? I, for one, would like to see that. Until then, though, it's all your opinion, right?

As for profits from the drug being prescribed for medical uses, who are you kidding? What idiot thinks that people with serious pain issues, or Type II Glaucoma, will be willing, or capable, of growing and processing marijuana? If they are that seriously compromised, they will buy it. The drug companies have the funding to obtain FDA approval, and the tech base to selectively grow marijuana for the strongest medical properties.

Even then, we're talking about specific properties for the ill. The local weed, grown by anyone, will not likely meet that criterion, and may not enable the user to obtain relief. Not only that, but there have been a number of cases where the plants were laced with PCP, Arsenic, and horse tranquilizers. Want to bet that an instance of that wouldn't exactly help the sufferers?

Publius, where in that wandering diatribe did you get the idea that the AMA supported medical Marihuana? This is the quote, from 1937!!

The other piece of medical testimony came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug."

That would hardly constitute either support, or political pressure upon the AMA.

Rangefinder, the clinical trials conducted today have, due to the huge impact of lawyers, become quite involved in minutia. In a trial of 5000 people, ANY sympton that cannot be PROVEN to have come from another cause with 100% reliability, is listed as a POSSIBLE side-effect. Some trials are even larger. Some are considerably smaller. That means that many of these side-effects are suspect, they can't be positively ruled-out, so they are included. Many never occur after the trials. The object is to avoid the traps of past medicines, like Thalidomide. Nothing can give you 100% assurance.

Invention45, I mentioned the advantage of Heroin in the case of Terminal patients. While the other analgesics tend to muffle the patient, Heroin allows the person to remain pain-free and lucid. I'm much more in favor of the use of Heroin in Hospice settings than this eerily-fuzzy discussion of Medical MJ. :)

Redworm
March 23, 2007, 03:29 PM
As for profits from the drug being prescribed for medical uses, who are you kidding? What idiot thinks that people with serious pain issues, or Type II Glaucoma, will be willing, or capable, of growing and processing marijuana? If you can grow a simple tomato plant or even keep a houseplant alive and healthy you can grow marijuana.

DonR101395
March 23, 2007, 03:53 PM
Really? I've seen much more alcohol abuse. Almost lost my alcoholic brother, have lost friends to drunk drivers, almost lost my mother to one. I've seen some cannabis abuse, but nothing which compares to the impact alcohol has had on my life. It's not even close.

I wasn't aware that alcohol was considered a medicine. I thought we were talking about medical treatments.


Beat me to it. I almost suspect he has some sort of retort planned for this, because this was just such an obvious response. We'll see.

See above response.


Nobody is asking them to give their goods away. They're afraid of losing their business because something they didn't invent and which can be grown in my backyard might just be as effective as what they're offering at an extremely high price. When all else fails make the competition illegal, I suppose.

Do you honestly think that if MM were allowed by the federal government that it would not be regulated and controlled by the FDA? The same FDA that regulates all other medication.
The last time I looked I don't remember the drug companies being a part of the legislative branch.


I now want to see medical marijuana made legal and a legitimate market created if only to see these side effects listed on the packaging.

As soon as the FDA begins to regulate it that is what you will see. As well as the higher prices the drug companies charge.
Growing your own will still be illegal IMO.



hey I don't know if anyone's mentioned in this but marijuana can be used in ways other than smoking. when you cook with it or vaporize it all side effects associated with smoking are gone.

Eating it also takes twice as long as smoking to enter your system. Sorry Grandma you have to wait two hours for pain relief.

Playboypenguin
March 23, 2007, 03:53 PM
Gee, PP, it would appear that your nap last night at the Holiday Inn Express left you a little woozy, or were you implementing a study on Medical Marijuana by yourself? Please explain where that senseless quote came from?
That quote was not from my post. Either you are mistaken or someone else has the intials PP.

JR47
March 23, 2007, 03:53 PM
If you can grow a simple tomato plant or even keep a houseplant alive and healthy you can grow marijuana.

Why, thank you. You obviously have little experience with the debilitating effects of chronic pain, or Glaucoma. Many of those people DON'T have that ability, or energy. But, we wouldn't want to admit that, would we?

You are correct, and it's fixed. My apologies, sir.

Playboypenguin
March 23, 2007, 03:57 PM
Do you honestly think that if MM were allowed by the federal government that it would not be regulated and controlled by the FDA? The same FDA that regulates all other medication.
The FDA would have a very hard time doing so. If marijuana was illegalized then there would be no raids or searches to find it since there would not be the oppotunity for grand photo ops that police and oliticians ove so much.

It would also be hard for them to regulate a naturally occuring plant. Much like how they have little control over the herbal medicine industry.

Playboypenguin
March 23, 2007, 04:00 PM
Could you deliver any proof about the AMA's direction? If not, please state it as opinion.
Ummm...did you read the Mayo report we are all referring to and that was posted by Don?
it clearly states in the study that...
Marijuana was listed by the U.S. Pharmacopeia, the organization that sets quality standards for approved drugs in the United States, until the 1940s, when political pressure against marijuana's recreational use triggered its removal.

DonR101395
March 23, 2007, 04:01 PM
The FDA would have a very hard time doing so. If marijuana was illegalized then there would be no raids or searches to find it since there would not be the oppotunity for grand photo ops that police and oliticians ove so much.

It would also be hard for them to regulate a naturally occuring plant. Much like how they have little control over the herbal medicine industry.

Back to partial quotes I see.
I also said

As soon as the FDA begins to regulate it that is what you will see. As well as the higher prices the drug companies charge.
Growing your own will still be illegal IMO.

Playboypenguin
March 23, 2007, 04:06 PM
what I have seen is marijuana abused far more than any other drug grown or manufactured.
Really...then I guess you are completely unaware that prescription drug abuse accounts for the majority of drug abuse and drug related deaths in the country? That in 2002, 6.2 million Americans were current abusers of prescription drugs. That emergency room visits resulting from narcotic pain relievers abuse have increased 163 percent since 1995. That while use of most illegal drugs has dropped since the 1980's the abuse of perscription drugs has skyrocketed?

I guess sometimes one persons narrow perspective is not really a good indicator of the actual reality of a given situation.

Redworm
March 23, 2007, 04:11 PM
Eating it also takes twice as long as smoking to enter your system. Sorry Grandma you have to wait two hours for pain relief. Not exactly. First of all if your idea that it took "twice as long" was accurate then it would still take less than ten minutes because smoking pot usually comes with onset times of less than five minutes. That being said, the thc is released based on your rate of digestion. Of course since stomachs are first come, first serve then you're going to wait a bit longer if you're not taking it on an empty stomach. The effects may take longer to start and have a more gradual increase in intensity but the effects last longer as well.

Now, can I ask what your point was? What's wrong with an MS patient having a pot brownie after dinner because they know it'll help reduce the pain of getting into bed two hours later?

Also, vaporization is still the best and safest method. No ill effects of smoking, stronger effects, less plant material used and vaporizers can be purchased cheaply and legally.

Redworm
March 23, 2007, 04:14 PM
Why, thank you. You obviously have little experience with the debilitating effects of chronic pain, or Glaucoma. Many of those people DON'T have that ability, or energy. But, we wouldn't want to admit that, would we?

You are correct, and it's fixed. My apologies, sir. Simply pointing out that growing marijuana is no more difficult than growing most other common plants. Perhaps the glaucoma patient has a family member that can water the ganja plant along with the rose bushes and chrysanthemums.

DonR101395
March 23, 2007, 04:20 PM
Really...then I guess you are completely unaware that prescription drug abuse accounts for the majority of drug abuse and drug related deaths in the country? That in 2002, 6.2 million Americans were current abusers of prescription drugs. That emergency room visits resulting from narcotic pain relievers abuse have increased 163 percent since 1995. That while use of most illegal drugs has dropped since the 1980's the abuse of perscription drugs has skyrocketed?


Now every legal drug is bad and only marijuana is good:confused:
Why cause it comes fromda earf?
You're comparing every legal drug that is abused against a single illegal drug; of course the stats will be stacked in the favor of marijuana when you do that.
I can post skewed data also, but it serves no purpose other than to muddy the waters more.
But, I'll give it a go.



Marijuana is the Nation's most commonly used illicit drug. More than 83 million Americans (37 percent) age 12 and older have tried marijuana at least once, according to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA).

83 million marijuana abusers in 2001.

Redworm
March 23, 2007, 04:25 PM
Users, not abusers. Those are people that have tried it "at least once".

Playboypenguin
March 23, 2007, 04:40 PM
I can post skewed data also, but it serves no purpose other than to muddy the waters more.
How was the data skewed? It was directly from Bush's press statement regarding the abuse of prescription drugs. Is it skewed because you don't agree with it?
83 million marijuana abusers in 2001.
People saying "tried it at least once" in a survey means everyone of those people are "abusing" marijuana???? Even if everyone of them was being honest that is like saying that 85%-95% of Americans are alcoholics because they have drank alcohol. The statistics I posted dealt specifically with "drug abusers" not just everyone that has every "used" a prescription drug.

That statement borders on dishonest and is definately into the absurd range. You are saying that nearly a 3rd of all Americans are abusing marijuana.
Now every legal drug is bad and only marijuana is good
No, I am saying it is no worse than prescription drugs. I also saying that the reasons it is illegal are purely political and that it is a drug that is beneficial, inexpensive and readily available to even the poorest of ill people. Guess you missed the point.

Edward429451
March 23, 2007, 05:36 PM
The drug companies made MJ illegal? Care to venture out to provide a little proof of that? I, for one, would like to see that. Until then, though, it's all your opinion, right?


Not necessarily. I was reading stuff along thos lines before the advent of the internet. I don't have a source, but I've heard that for a long time.

The last time I looked I don't remember the drug companies being a part of the legislative branch.


Not officially! But Pharmeceuticals are the single biggest industry on earth. If you think they're not there behind the scenes and have not influenced legislation then you're being obtuse.

publius42
March 23, 2007, 07:18 PM
Publius, where in that wandering diatribe did you get the idea that the AMA supported medical Marihuana? This is the quote, from 1937!!


The doctor didn't get much of a chance to express an opinion, did he?

What's amazing is what the Congressmen then said to him. Immediately upon his saying, and I quote again, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.", one of the Congressmen said, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"

That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you."

Do you honestly think that if MM were allowed by the federal government that it would not be regulated and controlled by the FDA? The same FDA that regulates all other medication.
Tobacco is not a drug that the FDA regulates.

Playboypenguin
March 23, 2007, 07:34 PM
Tobacco is not a drug that the FDA regulates.
The FDA regulates the commercial production and sale of alcohol and tabacco. Not the possession or use. It is still legal to produce either for personal use.

In fact additional laws are required to enforce anything beyond production and sales. Such as "possession by a minor", "contributing to the delinquencies of a minor" and other laws.

DonR101395
March 23, 2007, 07:57 PM
Users, not abusers. Those are people that have tried it "at least once".

Since there is no legal use of the drug. They have misused it, therefore they have abused it.

Playboypenguin
March 23, 2007, 08:08 PM
Since there is no legal use of the drug. They have misused it, therefore they have abused it.
I know you were under pressure, but if that is the best lil' tidbit of faulty logic you can come up with to defend your position you might just want to admit defeat and live to fight another day. :p

DonR101395
March 23, 2007, 08:12 PM
People saying "tried it at least once" in a survey means everyone of those people are "abusing" marijuana???? Even if everyone of them was being honest that is like saying that 85%-95% of Americans are alcoholics because they have drank alcohol. The statistics I posted dealt specifically with "drug abusers" not just everyone that has every "used" a prescription drug.

Once again, there is no legal use for marijuana. They wrongly used the the drug, which is abuse by definition.



That statement borders on dishonest and is definately into the absurd range. You are saying that nearly a 3rd of all Americans are abusing marijuana.

No, I'm saying a 3rd of American have abused marijuana.


No, I am saying it is no worse than prescription drugs. I also saying that the reasons it is illegal are purely political and that it is a drug that is beneficial, inexpensive and readily available to even the poorest of ill people. Guess you missed the point.

I haven't missed your point anymore than you have missed mine.
Which is, 1. If the federal govt. make it legal. It won't be legal to grow unless you're a drug manufacturer and have FDA oversight. 2. There are alternative drugs available that act quicker, last longer and so far don't show signs of long term health problems associated with smoking.

Not officially! But Pharmeceuticals are the single biggest industry on earth. If you think they're not there behind the scenes and have not influenced legislation then you're being obtuse.


The same argument the Brady folks use against the gun industry. You're big and have a lot of influence so you must be evil.

DonR101395
March 23, 2007, 08:20 PM
I know you were under pressure, but if that is the best lil' tidbit of faulty logic you can come up with to defend your position you might just want to admit defeat and live to fight another day.

No pressure, smoke your buddies mj get arrested. See if you don't receive at a minimum counselling for drug abuse in lew of jail. Happens here quite often to first time offenders.
I'll admit defeat when I'm defeated:D

publius42
March 23, 2007, 09:02 PM
Since there is no legal use of the drug.
No, if you read the thread carefully, you would have discovered the example of legal (and government sponsored) use already provided. ;)

publius42
March 23, 2007, 09:16 PM
1. If the federal govt. make it legal. It won't be legal to grow unless you're a drug manufacturer and have FDA oversight.

Why? I can grow my own tobacco. Where do the feds get authority over that kind of thing anyway? The supposed effect of private possession on interstate commerce.

Do you agree with Justice Alito's reasoning in US v Rybar (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_rybar.txt) on that subject?

In other words, the majority argues in effect
that the private, purely intrastate possession of machine guns
has a substantial effect on the interstate machine gun market.

This theory, if accepted, would go far toward converting
Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce into "a
plenary police power." Lopez, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at
1633. If there is any sort of interstate market for a
commodity--and I think that it is safe to assume that there is
some sort of interstate market for practically everything--then
the purely intrastate possession of that item will have an effect
on that market, and outlawing private possession of the item will
presumably have a substantial effect. Consequently, the
majority's theory leads to the conclusion that Congress may ban
the purely intrastate possession of just about anything.

STAGE 2
March 23, 2007, 09:23 PM
The FDA regulates the commercial production and sale of alcohol and tabacco. Not the possession or use. It is still legal to produce either for personal use.

In fact additional laws are required to enforce anything beyond production and sales. Such as "possession by a minor", "contributing to the delinquencies of a minor" and other laws.

Lets not kid ourselves. Pot isn't lie alcohol in that you can have a glass of wine at dinner and drive home.

If pot was ever legalized, it would be done so to the same degree of codine and morphine and such. It would be medically available but not to the average person for recreational use.

Most people who advocate pot for medical uses are really just advocates for total legalization and they want to get there one step at a time.

Shane Tuttle
March 23, 2007, 09:53 PM
To all the "right to self medicate" or "do whatever you want with drugs in your own home":

You go buy yourself an aircraft (bear with me, I know they're expensive). Have someone just getting high as a kite do extensive maintenance on it and you personally take off in it AS SOON as the aircraft is finished being airworthy. By the way, no parachutes, of course. You don't have them on an airline, so no safety nets or hypetheticals.

Call it what you will. Talk big all you want. But, you and I KNOW that no one has a hair on their a$$ to trust a mechanics' work being under the influence of drugs.

DonR101395
March 23, 2007, 09:56 PM
No, if you read the thread carefully, you would have discovered the example of legal (and government sponsored) use already provided.

If you read carefully, the Federal Govt hasn't allowed it to be legal. Because CA says it's legal don't make it so.
There sure do seem to be a lot of people being busted for legal activity. Those pesky federal laws.
I love playing devils advocate.

Rangefinder
March 23, 2007, 09:59 PM
tuttle>> That's flawed logic, too. I wouldn't trust a mechanic hitting a joint on the job any less or more than I would one hitting the whiskey bottle. But whiskey is perfectly legal--and not my problem or worry when the mechanic is on his own time, just the same as it wouldn't be my problem or worry if he lit a joint to unwind after work.

Shane Tuttle
March 23, 2007, 10:05 PM
Makes PERFECT logic...

You guys want to make it legal to smoke pot. Who's to say that my "rights" are to be regulated then?

Shane Tuttle
March 23, 2007, 10:07 PM
Plus, I didn't say after work. I said right before work in certain terms.

DonR101395
March 23, 2007, 10:11 PM
ME:
1. If the federal govt. make it legal. It won't be legal to grow unless you're a drug manufacturer and have FDA oversight.



Pub:
Why? I can grow my own tobacco. Where do the feds get authority over that kind of thing anyway?

Is your tobacco being marketed as medicine? Is tobacco in general a multi-billion dollar enterprise for organized crime?
For starters they get the authority from U.S. Code Title 21 chapter 13

gunslinger555
March 23, 2007, 10:58 PM
Doesnt matter what the goverment does, Americans will still smoke weed.

Drugs taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system.:D



gs555

DonR101395
March 23, 2007, 11:09 PM
Doesnt matter what the goverment does, Americans will still smoke weed.

Drugs taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system.



That is probably the most true and undeniable statement in the entire thread.:o

Crosshair
March 23, 2007, 11:09 PM
tuttle8

Plus, I didn't say after work. I said right before work in certain terms.

They would get in trouble just like they would if they got hammered before they came to work. I can't go to work drunk, why would I be able to go to work stoned. A Co-worker wasn't allowed to come to work when they where on Oxycontin for a workplace injury. (Couldn't take it within 6 hours of your start time or something like that. So they could use it after the shift.) Same for a manager who had her wisdom teeth pulled and was given narcotics for the pain. You are making an issue of a nonexistent problem.

Rangefinder
March 23, 2007, 11:34 PM
Is tobacco in general a multi-billion dollar enterprise for organized crime?


Yup---Phillip Morris. . . :D

Playboypenguin
March 24, 2007, 03:20 AM
You go buy yourself an aircraft (bear with me, I know they're expensive). Have someone just getting high as a kite do extensive maintenance on it and you personally take off in it AS SOON as the aircraft is finished being airworthy. By the way, no parachutes, of course. You don't have them on an airline, so no safety nets or hypetheticals.
Wow, that has to win the "most irrelevent and illogical rant" award for this thread.

publius42
March 24, 2007, 05:02 AM
If you read carefully, the Federal Govt hasn't allowed it to be legal.
So you're saying the federal government is illegally supplying cannabis to Irvin Rosenfeld, and that he has therefore been abusing it for these past couple of decades?

Is your tobacco being marketed as medicine?
No, it's a product. But nicotine is an addictive drug that comes along for the ride.

Why can't marijuana joints be "a product," and THC be a drug that's along for the ride?

publius42
March 24, 2007, 05:05 AM
Is tobacco in general a multi-billion dollar enterprise for organized crime?

No, but alcohol was before America decided that legal dealers and users were actually less trouble than illegal ones and repealed Prohibition.

We can have an illegal cannabis market, or a legal one, and I think a legal one is attended by fewer problems.

publius42
March 24, 2007, 05:29 AM
For starters they get the authority from U.S. Code Title 21 chapter 13

No, laws do not generate their own authority. ALL of the powers of the Congress can be found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. So where, in article 1, section 8, do we find the authority for USC 21 ch 13?

They always seem to find it in the same place: the commerce clause. So I'll ask again, do you agree with what Alito said above?

publius42
March 24, 2007, 06:08 AM
You guys want to make it legal to smoke pot. Who's to say that my "rights" are to be regulated then?

1. Mechanics who can't find pot are probably too stupid to find work. Another poster already pointed out that tens of millions of Americans have managed to find it and try it, so it should be clear that maintaining the black market really isn't protecting you from pot smokers.

2. I want a limited federal government, because I understand that "all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_45.html)" are best left to the States under the design of our Consitution.

3. Do you agree with Alito, above?

Shane Tuttle
March 24, 2007, 07:00 AM
"Wow, that has to win the "most irrelevent and illogical rant" award for this thread."

Like I said, talk big, but not give a straight answer...maybe we should bring in Mr. O'Reilly..


"They would get in trouble just like they would if they got hammered before they came to work. I can't go to work drunk, why would I be able to go to work stoned. A Co-worker wasn't allowed to come to work when they where on Oxycontin for a workplace injury. (Couldn't take it within 6 hours of your start time or something like that. So they could use it after the shift.) Same for a manager who had her wisdom teeth pulled and was given narcotics for the pain. You are making an issue of a nonexistent problem."

Why shouldn't you? Like I said before, pro-marijuana people seems to want it to make it a "right".

So, what it comes down to is..."well, since it 'can't' be regulated, made illegal, or stomps on people's 'rights', then we should go ahead and make it legal."

Better in the states that are legal? How about that bust in San Diego? Anybody of ANY age with a doctor's "recommendation" can purchase MJ, but the vast majority was dealing most of their MJ to others on the street. Guess it's OK for kids, not just adults...

Redworm
March 24, 2007, 09:41 AM
Since there is no legal use of the drug. They have misused it, therefore they have abused it. Seriously? That's your argument? o_O Please tell me this was in jest.

Redworm
March 24, 2007, 09:46 AM
I haven't missed your point anymore than you have missed mine.
Which is, 1. If the federal govt. make it legal. It won't be legal to grow unless you're a drug manufacturer and have FDA oversight. 2. There are alternative drugs available that act quicker, last longer and so far don't show signs of long term health problems associated with smoking. Vaporization has no negative effects associated with smoking. None. Nada. Zilch. Not a single, solitary one. It's safer than eating it because you're not getting any cholesterol or fat that cannabutter contains. When medical marijuana is prescribed it usually comes with information about vaporizers. It's always the recommended form of consumption.


Those alternative drugs have worse side effects, more possible negative interactions with other drugs and can be highly addictive.

JR47
March 24, 2007, 10:25 AM
Ummm...did you read the Mayo report we are all referring to and t[QUOTE]hat was posted by Don?
it clearly states in the study that...
Quote:
Marijuana was listed by the U.S. Pharmacopeia, the organization that sets quality standards for approved drugs in the United States, until the 1940s, when political pressure against marijuana's recreational use triggered its removal.[QUOTE]

The Mayo Clinic is a political group, they have to be. A single report stating that is rebutted by the history given in the previous post. Which one is correct? Can you perhaps find a company that produced medical-grade marijuana during the time period mentioned? I'm not being smart, just couldn't find one, myself.

[QUOTE]Those alternative drugs have worse side effects, more possible negative interactions with other drugs and can be highly addictive.

The fact that MM hasn't been studied nearly enough for FDA approval renders that statement valueless. What it's interactions with other medications, or even other mega-dose vitamins or minerals will be, is unknown. While the effects may be benign health-wise, they may render the pain-relief null and void. If there is a discussion, let's keep it on an even field. :)

Al Norris
March 24, 2007, 11:26 AM
The logical fallacy of the circular argument.

What is the argument for the illegality of the substance in question? Because the government says so, via a law enacted by the Congress, pursuant to the Commerce Clause.

What gave the Congress the power to regulate a substance under this clause? The interstate traffic of a substance that is used in a commercial endeavor. The law states that any interstate traffic of the substance is unlawful.

If the interstate traffic of the substance is unlawful, how then does the Congress regulate the purely intrastate traffic in the substance? Because of a decision by the Supreme Court, any intrastate traffic of the substance may affect interstate traffic by negating the efforts of the Congress to regulate the interstate aspect of it's legislation.

Why didn't the Congress take this approach to alcohol prohibition? Because the Supreme Court had not at that time decided that the Commerce Clause included the nugatory effects of intrastate commerce in interstate legislation.

So, banning alcohol required an amendment to the Federal Constitution, but a few years later it would have only required a Supreme Court decision? Yes.

Why? Because the government said so (return to paragraph 3 above).

Jpseph Story: Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States
CHAPTER XV - POWER TO BORROW MONEY AND REGULATE COMMERCE.
ยง 1075. The reasoning, by which the doctrine is maintained, that the power to regulate commerce cannot be constitutionally applied, as a means, directly to encourage domestic manufactures, has been in part already adverted to in considering the extent of the power to lay taxes. It is proper, however, to present it entire in its present connexion. It is to the following effect. - The constitution is one of limited and enumerated powers; and none of them can be rightfully exercised. beyond the scope of the objects, specified in those powers. It is not disputed, that, when the power is given, all the appropriate means to carry it into effect are included. Neither is it disputed, that the laying of duties is, or may be an appropriate means of regulating commerce. But the question is a very different one, whether, under pretence of an exercise of the power to regulate commerce, congress may in fact impose duties for objects wholly distinct from commerce. The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.

Sadly, Justice Story was correct.

DonR101395
March 24, 2007, 11:48 AM
Antipitis,
Using your argument. Anything that is not spelled out in the constitution, but is instead enacted by congress is not a legal law. Murder is not spelled out in the constitution therefore it's not illegal to kill someone? Guess, we no longer have a need for a legislative branch.:confused: :confused:

Playboypenguin
March 24, 2007, 11:50 AM
Is tobacco in general a multi-billion dollar enterprise for organized crime?
Actually, it is. Contraband cigarettes are a huge blackmarket/criminal industry. Illegal cigarettes are bg business...especially in midwest states, Canada, eastern Europe, and China. Here are a couple quotes from the Kohl/Hatch bill.

"Contraband cigarettes contribute heavily to the profits of organized crime syndicates, specifically global terrorist organizations," stated Hatch. "Furthermore, illegal cigarette trafficking has had a damaging impact on the economies of numerous states."

"Compounding the problem, counterfeit cigarettes, on which smugglers have paid no taxes, are becoming more and more common. In 2001, the U.S. Customs Service made 24 seizures of counterfeit cigarettes. In 2002, they made 255 seizures. Phillip Morris estimates that 100 billion counterfeit cigarettes are produced in China alone."

Playboypenguin
March 24, 2007, 12:02 PM
The Mayo Clinic is a political group, they have to be. A single report stating that is rebutted by the history given in the previous post. Which one is correct? Can you perhaps find a company that produced medical-grade marijuana during the time period mentioned? I'm not being smart, just couldn't find one, myself.
The Mayo Clinic is a political organization??? Where the hell do you get that. They deal solely with medical and health care topics. How are they a political organization???

Plus, all you have to do is research marijuana itself and you will find many, many sources that colaberate that statement. You will also find record that it was an approved medical treatment until it was removed in the 40's for "moral and political" reasons. It was removed without negative studies or any other reason after much political presure.

applesanity
March 24, 2007, 01:07 PM
Using your argument. Anything that is not spelled out in the constitution, but is instead enacted by congress is not a legal law. Murder is not spelled out in the constitution therefore it's not illegal to kill someone? Guess, we no longer have a need for a legislative branch.

Wow, I can dance circles around that statement, but I'll just let everyone reflect on its absurdities.

rem33
March 24, 2007, 01:15 PM
Man I tell ya this thread has gone on and on and on and except for Antipitas and very few others it has gone nowhere.
Whats the big deal? Anyone that so desires to smoke the stuff will have no problem getting their hands on it, and with any kind of caution at all never bring the law down upon themselves.

Gosh guys go smoke it if you feel that strongly about it.
I Donna know if the getting high is such a good idea but I doubt it is any worst or as bad as Alcohol and the industrial growing and use should be legalized. IMO.

Ya'all are just going n circles seems to me.

JR47
March 24, 2007, 02:19 PM
The Mayo Clinic is a political organization??? Where the hell do you get that. They deal solely with medical and health care topics. How are they a political organization???

The Mayo Clinic receives funding from various Foundations, and the State and Federal government. They have to espouse many lines to obtain this funding. Do you really think that this isn't one of the most common definitions of political.

Plus, all you have to do is research marijuana itself and you will find many, many sources that colaberate that statement.

Which is, of course, political-speak for "How would I know?"

If you'll excuse me, your entire post was a giant "I don't know".:D

contender6030
March 24, 2007, 02:27 PM
The only reason pot is illegal is because the government and the drug companys can't figure out a way to make money on it. Yes there are drugs that do the same thing as pot, so ask yourself one question "why are THOSE drugs legal?". Because someone is making a pile of green off of it. Liquor has almost the same affect as pot too but It will kill you if you drink to much (IE alcohol poisoning) when is the last time you heard of someone dieing from a POT overdose?:rolleyes: Therefore, liquor being the more deadly substance, should it not have been first to be made illegal? Tell that to the governments that are making millions off the taxes on liquor!:cool:

Al Norris
March 24, 2007, 02:36 PM
Using your argument. Anything that is not spelled out in the constitution, but is instead enacted by congress is not a legal law.
Wouldn't that be the definition of limited but enumerated powers?

But I'm willing to be swayed, Don.

So tell me, why was an amendment required to make Alcohol unlawful but not required to make certain drugs unlawful?

As for the other part of your statement, it is meaningless. A non-sequitur. Murder was a common law offense long before it was codified into law.

Whats the big deal?
Put quite simply, the usurpation of power by the Federal government. That should be enough to get any thinking Americans dander all in a fluff!

Playboypenguin
March 24, 2007, 02:45 PM
The Mayo Clinic receives funding from various Foundations, and the State and Federal government. They have to espouse many lines to obtain this funding. Do you really think that this isn't one of the most common definitions of political.
You just decribed how pretty much every single public hospital in the USA gets it money. That does make them a 'political" institution. The mayo clinic receives funding from all ends of the political spectrum and shows a great history of impartiality and factual study practices. Show me a case where they have not?
Which is, of course, political-speak for "How would I know?"

If you'll excuse me, your entire post was a giant "I don't know"
No, the post was full of "it is easy to find and public record". You are just trying to use the tired internet tactic of "show me every little piece of cut and paste info you can find (whichI will probably deny also) or I will invalidate your whole argument with a shrug, a glib statement and a true lack of interest in learning the truth." This tactic is so old and so sad. It is just a way for people to say "unless you can beat me over the head with information I am too intellectually lazy to look it up and unwilling to let go of my own ignorance unless forced to do so." It so much easier to deny, deny, deny than it is to defend your own side ofthe argument.

publius42
March 24, 2007, 03:49 PM
Better in the states that are legal? How about that bust in San Diego? Anybody of ANY age with a doctor's "recommendation" can purchase MJ, but the vast majority was dealing most of their MJ to others on the street. Guess it's OK for kids, not just adults.

Kids have more trouble buying alcohol than pot because people who sell alcohol operate from a fixed location, have a license, and the cops have a better chance of catching them if they're selling to kids. People who sell pot sometimes are kids, and they're darn difficult to catch.

The only thing which will really put a black market out of business is a legal market.

gunslinger555
March 24, 2007, 06:43 PM
Kids have more trouble buying alcohol than pot because people who sell alcohol operate from a fixed location, have a license, and the cops have a better chance of catching them if they're selling to kids. People who sell pot sometimes are kids, and they're darn difficult to catch.

The only thing which will really put a black market out of business is a legal market.


wow that is the only reason kids in my home town (Lima, Ohio) smoke weed is because we couldn't get alcohol. And yeah a legal market for a product will put the illegal market out of business, hence why their is no illegal market for cereal.

DonR101395
March 24, 2007, 10:45 PM
Wouldn't that be the definition of limited but enumerated powers?

That was intended more as a question than a statement. It confuses me also at times. Sorry for the confusion. I was in a hurry on the way out the door to the range.



But I'm willing to be swayed, Don.

My legal abilities aren't that of a lawyer. I know when I'm out of my lane, and constitutional law is out of my lane.

So tell me, why was an amendment required to make Alcohol unlawful but not required to make certain drugs unlawful?


Not the right answer, but the best I can come up with is that courts and legislatures change as do their interpretations of laws and powers.


As for the other part of your statement, it is meaningless. A non-sequitur. Murder was a common law offense long before it was codified into law.

Ir was a common law offense stemming from religious beliefs. Therefore if you have no religious beliefs it should not be an offense. Once again not practical, but could be argued I suppose.

Just to set the record straight. As ferociously as I've been arguing the opposing point. I'm simply playing devils advocate. In reality I'm not totally opposed to legal mj. I just don't see it being a solution that will work.
I don't believe the government will allow "home brew" marijuana. If they legalize it, they will regulate it to the point that only drug companies will be able distribute it and the home growers will still be arrested for doing such. Much like if you tried to make "home brew" codeine for your consumption.
I've really enjoyed the debate, but I'm leaving town for the summer tomorrow and my internet access will be limited at least for the next few weeks.
If anyone would like to further the conversation pm me or email me and I'll get back with you as soon as I can.


PP,
You make good arguments. I've enjoyed it.



Don

Al Norris
March 24, 2007, 11:15 PM
Don, I'm no lawyer either. I just argue with 'em. :D

Oh, and you'll find that the crime of murder goes back to the Code of Hammurabi, Mesopotamia (Babylon), ca. 1760 B.C. Recognized as one of the first codex of written laws.

Enjoy your summer and look in on us, from time to time.

rem33
March 24, 2007, 11:56 PM
Put quite simply, the usurpation of power by the Federal government. That should be enough to get any thinking Americans dander all in a fluff!

How true,

It should but folks become so conditioned to losing rights in the name of safety and for the betterment of us all or so we are told, that they take it. So far it seems if one stands he stands alone and is made an example of till no one else whats to be in his shoes.
Unlike the folks of a little over 200 years ago this is our government not a foreign entity and freedoms or the loss of haven't quite reached such a awful state as then. Also like the tree of gun freedom I keep harping on, the loss of freedoms and the taking of more power by the powers that be come one chip at a time.
Hope that simpleton explanation is understood.

I for one feel it is/will be a snow ball effect and as time moves forward it will increasingly move faster in the wrong direction. Isn't that what has happened in the past? and man today is no different than man of yesteryear.

applesanity
March 25, 2007, 12:29 AM
I for one feel it is/will be a snow ball effect and as time moves forward it will increasingly move faster in the wrong direction.

Fortunately for you and me, we have things like message boards. Ain't nothing gonna slip under the radar when everyone can find out about it within minutes. Like that article that some other member posted - we don't have to wait on the NRA or ____ to do the heavy lifting anymore. Enough of us can cry foul, and totally destroy someone's carreer and future if we disliked that person enough. Nobody's safe - not even those in our own ranks; not even old hunters from Wyoming.

As soon as Feinstein or Boxer really start pushing on HR1022, or if the media really starts making a big deal, I assure you that overnight, everyone will know about the CCW permits that Feinstein and Boxer carry. CCW permits from Cali, no less.

And some other poster brought this up. Drugs can be bad. And so can guns. We expect to be trusted with our guns, so does the analogy apply to a joint or two on the side? (not to be mixed together, of course, your accuracy would go hell).

Rangefinder
March 25, 2007, 01:03 AM
(not to be mixed together, of course, your accuracy would go hell).


That could be debated... The best squeeze is a relaxed squeeze. And focus--uh-uh-UHM! That could make one box of shells last all afternoon! Your concentration might go to hell though. I could see it now...

"WOW! That orange dot is, like--HUGE! Whoa..."
(insert several minutes or maybe half an hour while hypnotized by the cool orange spot that looks like it's the size of a manhole cover...)

BANG!!

"Whoa, what was that? Oh yah, nevermind. Hey, there's a black spot on the orange spot now! Cool... Pass me the chips while I check out that new black spot..." :D

Yah--I know :D Amazing what late-night imagination can do...

applesanity
March 25, 2007, 01:37 AM
And focus--uh-uh-UHM!

Touche. You win this round. But what about etiquette? Smokers can be slobs.

"I swear, I thought I checked the action to make sure there was nothing chambered! I musta been munchin' on some Doritos or something man. Whoa look! The blood patterns are making all sorts of trippy swirly patterns, dude!"

On a related note, back when I *inhaled*, I noticed that it improved my driving. Unlike what the state-sanctioned commercials on tv said. And then one day, I had to go find myself a job. So no more dabbling for me.

publius42
March 25, 2007, 05:16 AM
I don't believe the government will allow "home brew" marijuana. If they legalize it, they will regulate it to the point that only drug companies will be able distribute it and the home growers will still be arrested for doing such. Much like if you tried to make "home brew" codeine for your consumption.

State governments which have allowed medical use have not smothered growers with regulations, and planting a codeine seed will probably not yield a satisfactory result, but planting a cannabis seed probably will. Growing cannabis is much less complicated than making beer or wine (neither of which is all that hard), and people do those things all the time.

invention_45
March 26, 2007, 08:19 AM
To all the "right to self medicate" or "do whatever you want with drugs in your own home":

You go buy yourself an aircraft (bear with me, I know they're expensive). Have someone just getting high as a kite do extensive maintenance on it and you personally take off in it AS SOON as the aircraft is finished being airworthy. By the way, no parachutes, of course. You don't have them on an airline, so no safety nets or hypetheticals.

Call it what you will. Talk big all you want. But, you and I KNOW that no one has a hair on their a$$ to trust a mechanics' work being under the influence of drugs.

So we let our aircraft mechanics jabber away on a cell phone while they do their work. Anyone read any studies on how this affects concentraction in traffic? Bet it's not much different from the effects on concentration during work of any kind.

How bout we outlaw having a fight with your wife over the cell phone because someone might do it while maintaining aircraft?

Redworm
March 26, 2007, 11:02 AM
The fact that MM hasn't been studied nearly enough for FDA approval renders that statement valueless. What it's interactions with other medications, or even other mega-dose vitamins or minerals will be, is unknown. While the effects may be benign health-wise, they may render the pain-relief null and void. If there is a discussion, let's keep it on an even field. Because research continues to be blocked. Still, much research has been done here and overseas. The US Government even conducted its own research and to this day still supplies one of its patients with a canister of joints to smoke.

JR47
March 26, 2007, 11:32 AM
No, the post was full of "it is easy to find and public record". You are just trying to use the tired internet tactic of "show me every little piece of cut and paste info you can find (whichI[sic] will probably deny also) or I will invalidate your whole argument with a shrug, a glib statement and a true lack of interest in learning the truth." This tactic is so old and so sad. It is just a way for people to say "unless you can beat me over the head with information I am too intellectually lazy to look it up and unwilling to let go of my own ignorance unless forced to do so." It so much easier to deny, deny, deny than it is to defend your own side ofthe[sic] argument.

Hardly, but the same can be said for your tired old tactic of "you're just too lazy to find what I believe must be out there, it just HAS to be." I'm really not interested in attempting to find information that you have already found. So, I ask for the location. I don't need cut and paste, just the web site, and the important info's location. There's nothing glib about that, unless, of course, you don't have it.

Could you also see where I've taken a side in this argument? I have simply pointed out errors in the logic used, on both sides. While I believe that MM must be studied further, and that the various locales that it is grown in yield different results. Some aren't as good at relieving pain as others. As has been repeatedly brought up by both camps, medications affect people differently. You wouldn't want to give someone a medication that was less effective, would you? The fact that various strains of Marijuana are different is the same thing, like it or not. Not only that, but prople with terminal illnesses would be far better served with the use of Heroin as a pain-killer than either marijuana or morphine, as Heroin, in the proper doses, does the analgesic without dimming the mind, as the other two are wont to do.

Because research continues to be blocked. Still, much research has been done here and overseas. The US Government even conducted its own research and to this day still supplies one of its patients with a canister of joints to smoke.

That's merely stating what I said, not replying. The governments research wasn't into analgesic effects, nor interactions with other classes of drugs. There actually hasn't been much in the manner of FDA studies (as a class of study) done outside of this country, especially not recently.

We can rant and rave all day about the supposed advantages of marijuana, but the truth of the matter is inescapable. There has been little research done about the drug, or it's interactions, or anaphylactic properties. There has been practically zero work done on the advantages and disadvantages of a particular strain of marijuana over another. Until these questions can be answered, marijuana lies in the realm of the Superdrug that has been developed, but is hidden away by the "Drug Companies".

Redworm
March 26, 2007, 11:41 AM
That's merely stating what I said, not replying. The governments research wasn't into analgesic effects, nor interactions with other classes of drugs. There actually hasn't been much in the manner of FDA studies (as a class of study) done outside of this country, especially not recently.

We can rant and rave all day about the supposed advantages of marijuana, but the truth of the matter is inescapable. There has been little research done about the drug, or it's interactions, or anaphylactic properties. There has been practically zero work done on the advantages and disadvantages of a particular strain of marijuana over another. Until these questions can be answered, marijuana lies in the realm of the Superdrug that has been developed, but is hidden away by the "Drug Companies".

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/medpaper.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/ctptoc.htm
http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science/pierson.bhtml (bad coding but the study can still be looked up)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana#Citations_of_modern_medical_reports_on_cannabis

JR47
March 26, 2007, 12:23 PM
Redworm, the study involving the military admits that it was for the purpose of using TCH as a disabling agent, sir. The Wikipedia is a summation of quotes for and against it's use. The first study is a history, and doesn't actually present any study results. The study done by California is relevant as far as it goes. Thank you for supplying it. I may be able to reference even more info through it.

However, it wasn't a study based on FDA criterion. We will simply have to have that before utilization on a Federally-approved level becomes possible. You will also note that the oral, as well as inhalable, doses were laboratory prepared, and of medical grade cannabis. I'm fairly certain that this is considerably more therapeutic than the local doobie.:)