Posted on 11/28/2004 9:20:33 AM PST by Ellesu
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/28/MNGQ4A2RL11.DTL
Partially paralyzed, in constant pain from multiple disorders and desperate for help after trying nearly three dozen doctor-prescribed medications, the 30-year-old woman, a product of a conservative upbringing that made her recoil from illegal drugs, decided pot "might be my last shot.''
She's suffered back pain from scoliosis and pelvic pain from endometriosis since her teenage years. She became partially paralyzed from an allergic reaction to doctor-recommended birth control pills in 1995.
Since then, she's been diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and a wasting syndrome. She keeps 98 to 100 pounds on her 5- foot-4 frame only by gorging on high-calorie foods and using marijuana to maintain her appetite.
There's no euphoric effect. I do not like using it.''
Still, she takes her pipe everywhere, even to the Oakland Police Department, where she's worked with officers on their encounters with medical marijuana patients. She also vaporizes the drug, mixes it with massage oils, or bakes it in zucchini bread, which she eats in large quantities before a rare and agonizing plane trip like her journey to Washington for Monday's hearing.
Raich, now 39, has a doctor's recommendation for marijuana, as required by Prop. 215, and says she needs the medication every two hours. She wakes up in pain every morning and requires help getting out of bed. She uses 8 pounds of marijuana a year and gets it for free from two caregivers -- "my heroes'' -- in thanks for her work as an advocate.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Morphine is God's gift to dying people. If opium works the same, so be it.
What I'm getting at is that any medical organization which attempts to classigfy firearms as a "health" issue loses credibility with me when it comes to other health-related issues. Fair enough?
What makes pot any more or less moral than alcohol?
"what is the best way to accomplish this?"
Some private accrediation firm. NOT government. Drugs should not be "legalized", only "approved" or "not approved" by some private institution.
It's fair only to those who can't see the difference between a stance on guns and a stance on recreational drugs and who cannot separate the two.
The liberal agenda of the AMA is apparent in their stances on both issues. They are one of the biggest supporters of the "it takes a villiage" mantra. I would bet good money that they are a supporter of Bush's assinine program to mentally screen the entire population. The RWJF is.
There is nothing immoral about alcohol in moderation. Drugs not used for medical purposes are immoral.
Straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Need a link?
That's a self-contradictory statement.
Straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Need a link?
I'm a Lutheran and have major issues with the Catholic Church. My respect for others' beliefs prevents me from airing them on FR.
I'm sorry, but the liberal position on drugs is pro-legalization.
The conservative position is to end the Federal War on Drugs and let the states make their own drug policy. At least that's what the owner of the Internet's premeir conservative forum thinks.
My $0.02...
liberal/conservative really only applies to economic issues (i.e. liberal = marxism, conservative = capitalism)
http://www.politicalcompass.org for more on this.
the libertarian position is legalization, the Constitutional position is States decide (remember, a "liberal" state could decide to legalize).
PS. In current practice, children may be prescribed the heaviest of narcotics if circumstances warrant - even cocaine in certain extraordinary situations - so I fail to see any reason why marijuana should be held to a unique standard.
Not to non-nitpickers.
"I'm a Lutheran and have major issues with the Catholic Church."
Fine. I'm Catholic. That's how I view drugs. That is what you asked, isn't it? I certainly can't speak for others, even other Catholics.
Is it the position of the Lutheran Church that both alcohol and other recreational drugs are immoral? Or both are moral?
I don't mean to turn this into a religious post, but people usually find their morality in the teachings of religion.
No problem at all. We're more mature than 80% of the idiots who frquent the FR religion forum.
To be honest, I'm not sure what the "official" position is. As a sola scriptura denomination, this is often the case.
My personal belief is that yes, overindulging in substances to the point of negatively affecting one own life or the lives of others is sinful.
However, letting one's hair down once in a while is not. Consider when Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding. It would have been just as easy for Him to trn it into grape juice.
That said, I find no distinction between drugs when it comes to morality, be it alcohol, pot, or whatever. If you abuse it enough to screw up yourself or others, it is immoral. If you are able to enjoy it without causing problems, then I personally see no problem with it.
You wrap yourself in federalism and states rights and tenth amendment when you know all along that turning the decision over to the states is a Pandora's Box disaster.
The federal component will remain to protect the border against incoming drugs that are not legal in any state (eg., heroin, methamphetamine, possibly cocaine), and to prevent the export of our legal recreational drugs to other countries where they remain illegal. More than likely, "illegal" states will request federal assistance at their borders with "legal" states to stop the flow of interstate drug traffic. A thousand other issues.
Pass an amendment similar to the 21st if you want the drug decision at state level. Short of that, I'm against it.
1) Morrison is a very recent case, by the same court that is hearing Raich.
2) Morrison was a break from precedent, too
3) this case is different because the marijuana is not being used for recreational use (such that it could displace marijuana sold on the market). Cancer patients (and other seriously ill people) are just too small a group to have any non-trivial effect on interstate commerce.
I think that one can make a case that liberals and conservatives, for the most part, divide on moral issues (drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography, suicide, gay agenda, abortion, etc.) in addition to economic issues.
No, that's a libertarian position. A conservative position is what's in place today.
Yeah. Why just last weekend I was at a wedding reception where the best man made a toast to the bride and groom, and everyone shot up heroin.
In moderation, of course.
No, I don't know. In fact, I think that the vast majority of states will continue to prohibit currently illegal drugs, including pot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.