Reefer Madness? (1 Viewer)

[Pacridge]

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on these Medical Marijuana laws? I read today that the Supreme Court is going to take up the issue in the near future.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041126/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_medical_marijuana

This may come as a shock to some of you, but I have several thoughts on the issue. I know sit back down and clean the coffee up off your key board. First, if it's true as the Bush administration states; "those laws violate federal drug rules and asserts that marijuana has no medical value." Then why did the FDA approve the drug Marinol, which is nothing but the chemical equivalent? If people are suffering and this is helping then what heck?

Second, If the States want to pass a law to approve something of this nature why is the Federal Government trying to force them in the other direction?

 

[Schweddy]

I think drugs should be legal.

If your old enough to die for this country you should be old enough to drink, smoke whatever you want, do whatever you want. "At your expense".

There are some REALLY stupid people out there. "War on Drugs" was created to circumvent those people from preying on other people. To be quite honest, most of us (IMO) could careless if someone where to commit suicide - less friend or family of course. But, taking another person out in the process is murder. Drugs, can make someone do those crazy type of things.

Back to medical use - I see no issue with it as long as they cannot drive or work.

 

[Schweddy]

I went back and actually read the article

[size=-1]

At issue is whether federal drug agents have the authority to prosecute individuals who are abiding by their state's medical marijuana law.

If they allow medical marijuana use against the federal government, I can see a whole new can of worms opening.

[/size]

 

[heyjoeo]

you and your "slippery slope" theories. New medicine was created that haved saved lives, but i'm sure people said "oh no this could open a can of worms." Give me a break. Take a risk, see how it works out. Stop assuming the worst.

 

[Schweddy]

I was refering that if the states laws overwiegh the federal laws, we are in for some very trying times in the future.

Extream example:
Say a state does not accept the definition of "free speech". austa lah bye bye first amendment.

Federal laws could become irrelivant - creating havoc and eventually a revolution.

 

[argexpat]

If I were to be a single issue voter, this would be my issue. That we criminalize marijuana, even for medical purposes, while promoting alcohol and tobacco use is itself a crime. The FDA regularly approves drugs that later turn out to be harmful, but let an emaciated chemotherapy patient dying from cancer smoke a joint? No no no!

This scandalous double standard single-handedly keeps the U.S. from the ranks of enlightened societies. While most industrialized nations are systematically decriminalizing not just marijuana but harder drugs, we're busting cancer patients.

Ultimately this is a states' rights issue. Yet, conservatives, the traditional proponents of states' rights, are suddenly AWOL on this. (They were for states' rights when it protected segregation, but not when it protects gays and sick people.) For an excellent primer see here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2104207/

All this talk of medical marijuana makes me want to do a bong load!

 

[CSA_TX]

I see no problem with the reefer. However I find it quite amusing the federal government amended the constitiution to stop booze and then amended the constitution to repeal prohibition. However they have never amended the constitution to fight the war on drugs. Whats up with that.

 

[Ender]

I was refering that if the states laws overwiegh the federal laws, we are in for some very trying times in the future.

Extream example:
Say a state does not accept the definition of "free speech". austa lah bye bye first amendment.

Federal laws could become irrelivant - creating havoc and eventually a revolution.

The states were originally to govern themselves as I understand it. But the Fed wants the power and has evolved into a stronger body as the years passed.

Damn shame folks are so interested in power for the sake of pushing thier opinions on others. Life would be all the sweeter without those who wish to tell others what they should do/think/feel.

 

[Ender]

If I were to be a single issue voter, this would be my issue. That we criminalize marijuana, even for medical purposes, while promoting alcohol and tobacco use is itself a crime. The FDA regularly approves drugs that later turn out to be harmful, but let an emaciated chemotherapy patient dying from cancer smoke a joint? No no no!

Marijuanna is benificial to chemotherapy patients due to it's side effects of hunger and a general feeling of well being. Chemo robs patients of appetite and drains their energy. Often leaving them depressed and with the feeling that they are "sick". Mental well being is extreamly important when fighting a malady like this. You -need- to -want- to live.

Ultimately this is a states' rights issue. Yet, conservatives, the traditional proponents of states' rights, are suddenly AWOL on this. (They were for states' rights when it protected segregation, but not when it protects gays and sick people.) For an excellent primer see here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2104207/

HA!! I haven't visited Slate in a dogs age.

Isn't it something how the repubs can morph their "Moral ideals and high values" when it suits them?

 

[Ender]

I see no problem with the reefer. However I find it quite amusing the federal government amended the constitiution to stop booze and then amended the constitution to repeal prohibition. However they have never amended the constitution to fight the war on drugs. Whats up with that.

Prohibition was a movement when Americans thought they should be "Better and more moral". So it of course fell to the wayside.

The laws against drugs in this nation were originally made through hysteria (yes, Americans had a tendancy toward hysteria even in the 60's) and have continued partially because of economic reasons. And partially due to "political rut".

 

[Pacridge]

I still don't understand why the Bush Admin. is pushing this? Their claim of "it has no medical value" doesn't hold water when the FDA approved Marniol. Sorry boys you can't have it both ways. It's almost like their saying, it works- but only if a large drug company can make money off it- if you grow it in your back yard, well then no way.

I'm also troubled that this is how we're spending our resources. Heroine, Crack, Meth, PCP- fine. I'm on board with all of those being drugs that we should be using our tax dollars to fight. But I'm not sure I give a rat ass if some "Dead Head" wants to light up and jump around in circles while listening to "Uncle Johns Band." I'm almost certain I don't want to pay the cost of investigating it, prosecuting it and then locking up that "Dead Head." Back in the eighties I remember we were letting hard core violent criminals out becasue of federal minimun drug sentencing laws. Rapest out, pot dealer in- yeah that made sense. Now the Feds are going after people who, by their own doctors account, are benefiting from the drug. And no I am not a marijuana user- just don't see the logic here.

 

[Schweddy]

The states were originally to govern themselves as I understand it. But the Fed wants the power and has evolved into a stronger body as the years passed.

I agree.
But, I also think that if there is a FEDERAL law it should be the end of it. States should not be able to trample on the law. This Federal law, and many others, should be ellimiated. IMHO.

 

[IronTongue]

I'm going to dissect my opinion into two parts:

Medical marijuana: as far as we know, there are some effects, but there hasn't been enough study to prove WHAT those effects are. Studies say it affects your long-term memory, others say it heals glaucoma. No one really knows how it interacts with drugs like claratin or prozac, or other prescription drugs; on the other hand, no one has EVER died as a result of smoking. In my opinion, we shouldn't label marijuana medical until we KNOW that it's safe and heals people.

Recreational marijuana: Americans spent billions of dollars (about $10 bil) last year on reefer; all of that money went to drug dealers and organizations. If the government controlled weed like they do alcohol, there would be a large gain in taxes. Making reefer legal might cut down that numer to $5 bil, if you factor in users who would only smoke if was legal. Put a 50% percent tax on it and the government makes $2.5 billion dollars which we can spend on whatever. Obviously this plan would require economists and businesses to look over the plan and determine the best tax system and distribution method. Anything is better than giving the money to drug lords.

 

[Mr.America]

What if the person who had a perscription decided that he wanted to use it for other puposes than medication (he could get some money by selling it to drug dealers). :-|

 

[Pacridge]

I'm going to dissect my opinion into two parts:

Medical marijuana: as far as we know, there are some effects, but there hasn't been enough study to prove WHAT those effects are. Studies say it affects your long-term memory, others say it heals glaucoma. No one really knows how it interacts with drugs like claratin or prozac, or other prescription drugs; on the other hand, no one has EVER died as a result of smoking. In my opinion, we shouldn't label marijuana medical until we KNOW that it's safe and heals people.

.

There are studies that show it heals glaucoma? That's pretty amazing, someone should tell the medical marijuana people about this study. Since even they're not claiming it cures anything. The only claim they're making is that it alleviates the symptoms of some ailments, usually pain.

And no one has ever died from smoking? Someone needs to get that info out to the Tabacco Companies and quick. They've been sued many times by many people (and some governments) for it, among other things, killing people.

 

[IronTongue]

And no one has ever died from smoking? Someone needs to get that info out to the Tabacco Companies and quick.QUOTE]

I meant smoking marijuana, not cigarettes

 

[Pacridge]

And no one has ever died from smoking? Someone needs to get that info out to the Tabacco Companies and quick.QUOTE]

I meant smoking marijuana, not cigarettes

The stuff in the papers here in Oregon during the last election (we were voting on a MJ Medical meassure) said that marijuana contained more tar and cancer causing agents then tabacco.

 

[IronTongue]

You might want to check your facts first.

 

[Pacridge]

Ok here ya go-

" One joint deposits four times as much cancer-causing tars in the smoker's airways as does tobacco smoke. Smoking three to five joints a week is equal in harmful effects to smoking 16 cigarettes daily. Smoking one joint a day is equal to a pack of cigarettes daily. Three joints smoked per week for three to six months carries the same probability of developing lung cancer as smoking a pack of cigarettes daily for 20 to 30 years.

[font=Arial,Helvetica,Univers,Zurich BT,sans-serif][size=-1]Because the pot smoker tends to breathe in the smoke more deeply and hold it longer than the tobacco user, greater harm is done to the lungs. Five times as much carbon monoxide (associated with coronary diseases) is inhaled in marijuana smoke as in tobacco smoke."[/size][/font] ​

​

​

I did a cut a paste of this from the WCTU-Cancer web site. You can find several sites with the same info by going to google.com and typing in the words marijuana and cancer.​

But honestly I don't give a rip if this is or isn't good for people. The people using marijuana to subue pain are taking other drugs that are damaging as well. The people using it for recreation, well people do harmful things to themsleves all the times. Alcohol isn't exactly health food. I'm just saying I'm tried of my government spending my tax dollars on this issue.​

 

[IronTongue]

My point is this: how many people have died from alcohol, be it poisoning, DWI, or whatever. There will always be those who are not smart enough to control themselves; that doesn't mean we have to make laws around them.

 

[Pacridge]

My point is this: how many people have died from alcohol, be it poisoning, DWI, or whatever. There will always be those who are not smart enough to control themselves; that doesn't mean we have to make laws around them.

Then you and I agree.