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 ...
Yes. But that is not what I said.
I said today's attitude is, "If it isn't illegal I can do it, and don't you dare judge me or impose your morals on me". That is what is guiding today's behavior.
Take the most recent case if Jack Ryan's 2004 Senate race here in Illinois. He dropped out because it was uncovered that he was going to sex clubs with his wife. He responded that he wasn't doing anything illegal, and the fact that he went with his wife supposedly negated any immoral part.
Now, did he know it was "wrong"? Of course he did -- he tried to bury the court documents to that effect. Did he believe it should be considered wrong by society? I'm equally sure he did not.
"Stealing is not immoral? Please."
Stealing bread from a store to feed your starving family could be moral. However, since the right to own property of the store owner has been violated, it's a crime. End of story.
Murder is not a crime when done in self defense. Fundamentalist Christians still consider it to be a crime, though our law does not.
Is divorce a crime? Is adultery a crime? Is alcoholism a crime? Is swearing in public a crime? I consider all of these things to be "wrong", yet they are not illegal. Are you alleging that the majority of Americans think divorce and adultery are "right" according to your black/white right/wrong scale?
As I said, the laws you cite are based on a person's rights being violated. The ones we need to repeal are the ones which don't violate any person's rights.
The government exists to protect me from force and fraud. Is that simple enough for you? Black and white enough?
You're arguing that generally people hold that notion, and that being the case we need to base our legal system on that idea.
"He dropped out because it was uncovered that he was going to sex clubs with his wife."
So what? Does that somehow imply that he would have been an ineffective legislator? I don't care if my Senator goes to church, sex clubs, or the golf course so long as he shows up to work and executes his responsibilities in accordance with the will of the people he represents and the Constitution of the United States.
In theory, I agree with you, but not this example.
Nope. Actually, I believe many know that it's not right, but will not admit it.
As I stated before (which I guess you did not read), the attitude is, "It's not illegal. Therefore I can do it and don't you dare judge me or impose your morals on me".
My whole point is that the concept of "right" and "wrong" is passe and is being replaced by what is "legal" and "illegal" as a guideline to behavior.
And I'm saying that IF that is the case, then we're going to have to have more laws if we wish to minimize that behavior.
You want our laws based strictly on the presence of force or fraud on another. Is there, or has there ever been, any country in world history that has based their societal laws on that premise?
No, and for good reason.
You know as well as I do that drugs weren't always illegal in this country. When more people started using them, abusing them, when they started to pose a problem, restrictions were put in place.
You're also asserting that we have reached that "critical mass", and that prior to some unspecifed time in our history this wasn't necessary because you simply counldn't find "one or more people" that held that notion.
"Is there, or has there ever been, any country in world history that has based their societal laws on that premise?"
No, but no other country has ever achieved the power or prosperity we have, so there is no reason to take much stock in how they run their societies.
Just look at how fast they went from monarchies back to atheistic socialism. At least our cycle has lasted longer and amounted to more.
What's the "good reason"? Are you saying we should only model ourselves after something that has already been done by a society which never amounted to anything near what we are? I submit that's precisely a good reason to try something new and radical. We have no civilization or culture to model anymore. We took what we could from Europe, Rome, etc... now we're on our own at the cutting edge of humanity with not much history to draw upon anymore. We know what doesn't work, namely big government, high taxes, societal atheism, tyranny, etc...
" When more people started using them, abusing them, when they started to pose a problem, restrictions were put in place."
Did those restrictions have any net positive effect?
Are we better off today in terms of drug use/abuse in America than we were 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago?
Laws can't stop people from using drugs. Never have, never will. The current strategy is a failure, and it's time to try something new. Putting drug users in jail and spending tax dollars to line the pockets of Colombian "police" officials is a FAILURE.
Insanity = doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
I didn't vote him out. I didn't impeach him. I didn't write negative articles about him.
He dropped out.
"I don't care if my Senator goes to church, sex clubs, or the golf course ..."
Obviously most Republicans do -- and Jack Ryan knew that. Most Republicans want a moral man in office, I guess. That's to distinguish them from the Democrats.
You don't care? I'm not surprised.
What does surprise me is that you are so naive as to expect your hypothetical immoral Senator to "execute his responsibilities in accordance with the will of the people he represents and the Constitution of the United States".
When a law is written governing some behavior that was not governed before, then I'm saying that some "critical mass" has been reached.
Well, you can say it. I don't see you putting forth any arguments to support it. Most of the new laws written governing some behaviour that wasn't governed before seem to address behaviour that was previously technologically impossible.
This is way off topic.
You still have not presented any real proof that laws can effictively curb activity which is contrary to laws which violate majority "morality" but which don't violate the rights of another person.
Nor have you offered any proof to suggest that the current strategy against the war on drugs is working and should be continued.
"Did those restrictions have any net positive effect?"
The restrictions placed on drugs, prostitution, pornography, and gambling? Yes, I believe they did.
"Are we better off today in terms of drug use/abuse in America than we were 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago?"
In 1979, drug use in the U.S. was at an all time high. When we got serious about enforcing the existing drug laws, drug usage dropped over 60%. Were we better off? Again, I would say yes.
"Putting drug users in jail and spending tax dollars to line the pockets of Colombian "police" officials is a FAILURE."
The alternative you're proposing is the legalization of all drugs. That will never, ever, happen in this country and you know it. So cool it with your Chicken Little Columbian "police" officials.
I'd have to look it up, but I believe about 1/3 of the illegal drug users in this country are under 21. Unless you're going to lower the drug age, they will remain illegal and a market for the Columbian "police" officials.
You say yes, there's your proof.
Even that is "off topic" of the question as to wheather the laws we have are within the powers granted to Congress by the states. Virtually all of the threads on the topic will end up being lead away from those questions by supporters of the status quo.
Go look at Drudge.
40% of Americans use drugs.
Our "War on Drugs" is a FAILURE.
All this amounts to is a battle between Merck/Phizer and the Colombian drug lords.
Merck finances campaigns, so their interests are listened to. People want to use drugs, and will continue to do so whether they are needed or not.
If Americans gave up Prozac for pot, Merck would suffer while the people would be better off. I don't know many people who commit suicide when going through withdrawl from marijuana.
Game over, man.
Geez, give the woman her meds. Even Morphine is used medically these days. A lot of drugs are deadly if not administered properly. The trouble is the drug companies can't make enough off of Marijuana.
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.