• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Medical Marijuana?

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is a usual topic isn't it? Looks like it won't go away til our government wises up and catches up to the will of the people.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Government can arrest a cancer patient for using Marijuana even if the state they live in says it is legal for them to use it. The ruling doesn't touch the state laws which have been largely passed in referendum by a large majority of the people's vote which would indicate to even the most hard headed Republican or Democrat that this is what the majority of that state's people want.

Too bad Chief Justice Rhenquist hasn't been able to take advantage of the medical properties of Marijuana with his throat cancer because it would surely have had not only a medical benefit for him but also a positive influence on his vote when he considered his fellow Americans that suffer from diseases that either rob them of their well being and appetite or the medical treatments such as Chemo that do the same.

I for one have procured Marijuana for a sick relative/friend in the past, would do it today and would do it if in that position tomorrow. What is that position? To see someone go from 210 pounds to 95. To see someone sitting in a bed knowing that they are only waiting to throw up so they can rid themselves of that constantly sick feeling. By the way, after they throw up, they are immediately sick again. Or for that person who is in constant pain.

These are just some of the things Marijuana can help with not to mention eye conditions such as glaucoma. Say Marijuana is helpful with a disease that could make you blind? You want to disregard that in favor of some teenager abusing the drug he is going to get anyway regardless of whether the term "medical" is attached to it or not? Did the ruling stop the illegal use of the drug?

My admission about my procurement of the drug for someone else in my past may or may not lend me to prosecution. I don't care. While out on bail, I would find it for someone that asked me to. While out on parole I would find it for someone that asked me to. I would do it without hesitation if I knew the person were actually in need. Shame on our Federal Government and the Supreme Court's decision.
:duel :cool:
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Location
Hotlanta, GA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The Feds still want to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals with these archaic laws & beliefs over merrywanna. It sure is sad.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One arguement is that there is only limited research. The federal government has kept Marijuana illegal since the 1930's so research could get one arrested and if we even begin to think about those who would have wanted to research the drug, what do you think the government, which has done what it has done, would have done. They would have given a big NO.

Cannabis Sativa was officially in the United States Pharmacopoeia until 1937, recommended for a wide variety of disorders, especially as a mild sedative. It is no longer an official drug, although research in the medical potential of some of the cannabinolic constituents or their semi-synthetic analogues is at present very active, particularly in relation to the side-effects of cancer therapy. In other words, it has medical value.

"The Emperor Wears No Clothes" - Probably the best book around about the history, uses, and war on this plant. Over 300 pages of text, photos, illustrations and charts. This book has been an eye opener. You would be hard pressed to find a more complete source for information relating to the suppression of the hemp industry in the United States.

1937 is when we lost the use of Marijuana for health or pleasure but there had been laws against it in 27 states from 1915 to 1937. But the big deal against Marijuana comes from the Mormon Church:

The Mormons outlawed polygamy (multiple wives) in 1910 as a religious mistake. Many Mormons that disagreed moved to northern Mexico to convert the heathen and have multiple wives. They were not successful in converting the Mexicans and after 1914 they moved back to Utah but, they brought Marijuana with them. Well the church didn't like Marijuana and in 1915 they outlawed it for their members. In October of 1915 the State Legislature of Utah made marijuana possession a crime. Note the lack of research.

From 1932 through 1937 the American Medical Association opposed nearly every piece of FDR's New Deal legislation and the government simply got tired of hearing it so when the hearings on Marijuana were heard they lasted less than 2 hours. If you are at all knowledgeable about hearings in Washington D.C. you know they go on for weeks and months. Looks like Marijuana is illegal for flimsy reasons like not liking what doctor's may have had to say when they weren't allowed to say it.

Now our doctor's, at least some, know Marijuana is good for some patients, especially those in most need. ANYONE saying that the complete defeat for the use of Medical Marijuana is a good thing is only passing on the evil of the past. Go ahead. Stand by the bed with the chin pan to catch the vomit. Don't forget to be repulsed but also, don't forget to forget to help.
:duel :cool:
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I haven't read the decision yet, but my understanding was that the Federal law over ruled the State law. It will be up to the legislature to correct the law. Maine supports medical marijuana, so enforcement is the key to this. Hopefully, Feds have better things to do than worry about a pot smoker. Maine won't prosecute, so how will they know? If it isn't being grown and sold outside of the state, I doubt the Feds will do anything.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I have very mixed feelings about this one.

1. Feds should stay OUT of states business.
2. What good is a state law if Fed's overturn them?
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Medical Marijuana won't have any effect on kids doing drugs if they were educated to the fact say by one picture of a 13 year old skeleton sitting in a hospital bed with vomit spreading down it's hospital gown. It's eyes would look at you like a hunted animal and they would not blink. It would lick its lips and even with the bile clinging to its lips the tongue would still stick. It wouldn't think to raise its hand and wipe the vomit from its face because it would be far too much of an effort to raise its arm.

I step up to that bed and I ask, "Danielle? Let me clean you up dear." My granddaughter looks back at me with those huge, soft brown eyes but there is no sign of recognition; no smile that used to make her face so beautiful. Step up to the bedside with me and look at her; look at her pain and know what she knows. Food and drink is her enemy. The smile will not come.

At 13, Danielle died last February. A vision I always had in my mind of something beautiful died that day. The trememdous pain, nausea and fear she once had is gone and for that I am grateful. I wish I could have given her marijuana. I wish any poster here that disagrees with Medical Marijuana could have helped me clean her up. I wish I had to clean her up today.

Valium is abused. Oxycontin is abused. Antibiotics are abused. Cigarettes and alcohol are abused even though legal. Marijuana is abused. Medical Marijuana isn't abused. If Medical Marijuana is abused then it is just Marijuana. Do you think Marijuana will ever go away and no one will use it? Let me just say one thing to those of you that don't see the need for Medical Marijuana. Danielle.
:duel :cool:
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
I have very mixed feelings about this one.

1. Feds should stay OUT of states business.
2. What good is a state law if Fed's overturn them?
I agree 100%. States should rule themselves. I also believe governments should have very limited power over the public. Time after time through out history it's been proven that when governments get increased control, bad things happen.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
gordontravels said:

Too bad Chief Justice Rhenquist hasn't been able to take advantage of the medical properties of Marijuana with his throat cancer because it would surely have had not only a medical benefit for him but also a positive influence on his vote when he considered his fellow Americans that suffer from diseases that either rob them of their well being and appetite

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas all dissented so I doubt his using would have changed his vote.

When you had to "procure" some marijuana for your sick relative, did you have any trouble finding it?
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge said:
Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas all dissented so I doubt his using would have changed his vote.

When you had to "procure" some marijuana for your sick relative, did you have any trouble finding it?
Marijuana is nearly as easy to buy as gas for your car. You just need to know someone that knows where. I would go through my friends and then go to the let's say usual hangouts. Could I be arrested? Yes, even though I would buy in small quantity and then I would tell the judge what an evil system or that portion thereof he was supporting or enforcing. The latter would depend on his personal thoughts.

So yes, for my sick granddaughter I would have bought, possessed, transported over state lines and given it to a minor. This law can kiss the big one.
 

SHodges

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
All marijuana should be legal, I can't even believe there's a debate over this. It would cut down on prison over population, it would cut down on drug trafficking's income, it would create a new industry and once legalized and corporatized, has the potential to create jobs both at home and abroad, to say nothing of the fact that there just isn't a good reason for it to be illegal in the first place. "Weed" being illegal is a joke.
 

...Why?

New member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The biggest problem with the Feds arresting people even though they are protected under stated law is that it is aginst the constitution. There is nothing about marijuana possesion in the US Constitution so it should be up to the states. The states have voted and the government didn't like it.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
...Why? said:
The biggest problem with the Feds arresting people even though they are protected under stated law is that it is aginst the constitution. There is nothing about marijuana possesion in the US Constitution so it should be up to the states. The states have voted and the government didn't like it.
Welcome to Debate Politics!
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
...Why? said:
The biggest problem with the Feds arresting people even though they are protected under stated law is that it is aginst the constitution. There is nothing about marijuana possesion in the US Constitution so it should be up to the states. The states have voted and the government didn't like it.
This is yet another reason why the Republican Party has no business calling themselves Conservatives. What they are doing, along with the Democrats, is trashing the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which says that powers not explicitly given to the federal government belongs to the states and to the people. In doing so, they have twisted the Commerce Clause into a knot.

The way I see it, if someone wants to smoke weed, seek out a prostitute, or even paint himself purple and flap his arms like a chicken, he should have every right to do so, as long as in doing so, he does not infringe on the rights of anyone else.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
danarhea said:
This is yet another reason why the Republican Party has no business calling themselves Conservatives. What they are doing, along with the Democrats, is trashing the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which says that powers not explicitly given to the federal government belongs to the states and to the people. In doing so, they have twisted the Commerce Clause into a knot.

The way I see it, if someone wants to smoke weed, seek out a prostitute, or even paint himself purple and flap his arms like a chicken, he should have every right to do so, as long as in doing so, he does not infringe on the rights of anyone else.
Sounds pretty darn close to the Libertarian party line.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
danarhea said:
This is yet another reason why the Republican Party has no business calling themselves Conservatives. What they are doing, along with the Democrats, is trashing the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which says that powers not explicitly given to the federal government belongs to the states and to the people. In doing so, they have twisted the Commerce Clause into a knot.

The way I see it, if someone wants to smoke weed, seek out a prostitute, or even paint himself purple and flap his arms like a chicken, he should have every right to do so, as long as in doing so, he does not infringe on the rights of anyone else.
Sounds pretty darn close to the Libertarian party line.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Pacridge said:
Sounds pretty darn close to the Libertarian party line.
Sounds so nice, he had to say it twice...:lol:
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacridge
Sounds pretty darn close to the Libertarian party line.


Sounds so nice, he had to say it twice...
I just hope no one takes the 10th ammendment as insanely vague as that individual does.

So if I decided to murder someone becasue I wanted to its ok under the 10th ammendment? Hey I am not infringing on his rights casue he will have all the rights in the world casue hes dead. :lol:

Sounds pretty funny to me.
 

Stormflame

New member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is nothing wrong with medical weed. ANY drug that is prescribed is illegal outside of prescription means. Weed is no different. This drug just has a taboo placed on it because it has been a constant 'wedgie' in the world. It is no different than any other drug derived from any other ingredient.
If we had never heard about weed before, and it was a new drug or dormant name, then there wouldn't even be a discussion going on right now about it.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SKILMATIC said:
I just hope no one takes the 10th ammendment as insanely vague as that individual does.

So if I decided to murder someone becasue I wanted to its ok under the 10th ammendment? Hey I am not infringing on his rights casue he will have all the rights in the world casue hes dead. :lol:

Sounds pretty funny to me.
Actually, if you had killed someone, you HAVE infringed on his rights - His right to not only life, but liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well. Anyone can see that your comparison is not accurate at all.
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
gordontravels said:
One arguement is that there is only limited research. :duel :cool:
Well...

I had a vertebra broken some years ago, and no doc diagnosed it before 9 months after the fact.
Now, there are a lot of muscular problems left. I usually have one or two days a week (usually when it's wet, and there's a LOT of wetness over here :cool: ) that I can't get out of my bed.

Of course, there were plenty of pills prescribed. Great. Stomach problems, liver problems, and nearly everything you can imagine problems. Every doc told me "if you want to get up in the morning, that's the price".

I just started taking weed from time to time (I can tell when it will happen). No second effect, no problems. I can get up in the morning and go to work without any problem. I don't smoke at work, of course. But smoking the previous day, when I feel I will have a problem the next day, allows me to have a totally normal life.

What would have happened if I didn't try and adopt this?

1/ I would have lost my job (Hey... you can only call sick so many days a year..). So, I would be on jobless benefit.
2/ I couldn't have helped my wife starting her own business. She would be on jobless benefit too.
3/ I would be crippled. That means that I couldn't enjoy what I like in life (photography, my godchild, etc..)

What would have been the benefits? More taxes, less joy.

Marijuana for pain relief is the best thing since sliced bread.

Y
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
One of the most idiotic things about not allowing medical marijuana is the fact that synthetic THC is legally available for prescription, Marinol being one name brand for it.

So, if it's true that marijuana has no medicinal benefit, the standard argument put forth, that must mean that the sesame oil that the synthetic THC is suspended in to make Marinol must really be the active ingredient.

Absolute idiocy...
 

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge said:
Sounds pretty darn close to the Libertarian party line.

Im curious are they unpatriotic and traitors lending support to the enemy know. After they said that about me I quit watching fox news. Anyone?
 
Top Bottom