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
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