Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biggest current obstacles to medical marijuana are President Obama & progressives on SCOTUS
wordpress ^ | August 5, 2012 | Dan from Squirrel Hill

Posted on 08/06/2012 12:20:12 PM PDT by grundle

Full title: The biggest current obstacles to medical marijuana are President Obama and the progressives on the Supreme Court

I’m a libertarian, and I think that both medical and recreational marijuana should be legal. That being said, I myself have never smoked marijuana, or tobacco, or been drunk, or used any illegal drug. I do, however, think that it’s completely ridiculous to put non-violent people in jail for using mind altering substances. And I especially detest the idea of the government preventing people from using a medical treatment which has been proven in scientific studies to be beneficial for patients who are suffering from AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and other medical conditions. I voted for Ron Paul for President in 2008, and I will be voting for Gary Johnson in 2012. The ridiculous “war on drugs” has caused the U.S. incarceration rate to skyrocket in recent decades – to the highest rate of any country in the entire world. Ending the “war on drugs” is my #1 most important political issue.

During the Great Depression, while millions of Americans were hungry, the progressives who controlled the federal government passed laws that were deliberately designed to increase the price of food. For example, they passed a law that limited how much wheat farmers could grow, with the deliberate intent of raising its price. The people who supported this policy referred to themselves as “progressives,” and they had control of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.

A farmer named Roscoe Filburn had grown more wheat than he was legally allowed to grow. However, he never sold the wheat, and it never crossed state lines.

However, even though he never sold the wheat, and even though it never crossed state lines, the progressive majority on the Supreme Court still claimed that his growing of this extra wheat constituted “interstate commerce.”

Of course this ruling is absurd. He did not sell the wheat. The wheat never crossed state lines. Nevertheless, it was ruled as being “interstate commerce.”

This 1942 ruling, called Wickard v. Filburn, massively expanded the power of the federal government. What it meant was that pretty much anything could be considered “interstate commerce,” and that there were no longer any real limits on federal power. Progressives cheered this ruling – conservatives and libertarians were very critical of it.

Flash forward. In 1996, California legalized medical marijuana. This was completely in line with the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Because of the 10th amendment, when the federal government had wanted to outlaw alcohol in the early 20th century, it had to pass the 18th amendment, which gave the federal government the power to outlaw alcohol. Without the 18th amendment, the 10th amendment would have prevented the federal government from outlawing alcohol. The 18th amendment was ratified in 1919, and was later repealed by the 21st amendment in 1933. During the time that alcohol was illegal, it was controlled by organized crime, and was associated with murder, bribing of public officials, and contaminated “bathtub gin” that caused its drinkers to go blind, and sometimes even killed them. In many ways, it was extremely similar to today’s “war on drugs.”

As I said above, in 1996, California legalized medical marijuana, and the 10th amendment supported its right to do so.

A few years later, in California, a woman named Angel Raich was using medical marijuana, which her doctor had deemed necessary in order to save her from suffering from excruciating and life-threatening pain. According to California law, Raich’s medical marijuana was completely legal.

In addition, the medical marijuana that Raich was using was home grown – it had never crossed state lines, and no money had changed hands. So, according to the 10th amendment, it should not have been subject to federal control.

However, even though Raich’s medical marijuana never crossed state lines, and was never sold for money, the United States Supreme court still ruled that Raich’s medical marijuana constituted “interstate commerce.” This ruling, which took place in 2005, is called Gonzales v. Raich. The precedent cited for this ruling is the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn. Other than the fact that one case was about wheat and the other was about medical marijuana, the two cases are identical.

Thus, the 2005 ruling against medical marijuana is based on policies which were enacted and supported by progressives during the New Deal.

And if we look at how the different Supreme Court justices sided in the 2005 ruling, this becomes even more clear. In the 2005 ruling, every progressive justice on the Supreme court – every one of them, without exception – voted against medical marijuana. They did this – not because they have anything against medical marijuana per se – but instead, because they did not want to overturn Wickard v. Filburn.

So who were the dissenters in the 2005 medical marijuana ruling? The dissenters – those who supported states’ rights on the issue of medical marijuana – were justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas.

Imagine that – all the progressives on the court ruled against medical marijuana, while three conservative justices voted in favor of it. Of course it wasn’t the medical marijuana per se that they were ruling on – instead, it was the states’ right to make their own decision on medical marijuana that they were truly ruling on.

Flash forward a few more years. Barack Obama is running for President of the United States. In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it’s legal. I cheered Obama for this. I said to myself that if Obama kept this promise, he would be my favorite president so far during my lifetime. (I was born in 1971).

Also in 2008, Obama said that he supported the

“basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs”

and that he was

“not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.”

Again, this was fantastic news, and I looked forward to this taking place.

In November 2008, Barack Obama was elected President. He was inaugurated in January 2009.

However, in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a state where medical marijuana is legal.

Also in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal.

In July 2010, the DEA raided at least four medical marijuana growers in San Diego, California.

Also in July 2010, the DEA raided a medical marijuana facility in Covelo, California.

Then in September 2010, the DEA conducted raids on at least five medical marijuana dispensaries in Las Vegas, Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal.

In 2011, the DEA conducted raids on medical marijuana in Seattle, Washington, West Hollywood, California, and Helena, Montana, all places where it is legal.

In April 2012, the DEA carried out several raids on medical marijuana in Oakland, California.

In February 2012, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Obama’s war against medical marijuana went

“far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush.”

In April 2012, Mother Jones magazine wrote:

“The president campaigned on the promise that he’d stop federal raids on medical marijuana operations that were in compliance with state laws, a vow that Attorney General Eric Holder repeated after the election. But then the Obama administration raided more than 100 dispensaries in its first three years and is now poised to outpace the Bush administration’s crackdown record.”

In May 2012, the Washington Post wrote:

“Obama has become more hostile to medical marijuana patients than any president in U.S. history.”

In May 2012, U.S. Congressperson Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said she had

“strong concerns”

about Obama’s forced closure of five medical marijuana facilities in Pelosi’s congressional district.

In April 2012, commenting on Obama’s crackdown on medical marijuana, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said:

“I’m very disappointed… They look more like the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.”

In July 2012, federal prosecutors filed civil forfeiture actions against Harborside Health Center, a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland, CA, which claims to be the world’s largest, and which claims to serve more than 100,000 medical marijuana patients.

In May 2012, ABC News reported that during Obama’s youth, he often smoked large quantities of recreational marijuana. I’m not upset that Obama did that – but I am upset by his hypocrisy. His marijuana wasn’t even medical – it was recreational. And yet now, he is taking large scale, widespread action to prevent people with AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and other illnesses, who have prescriptions from their doctors, from using their prescription medicine. This makes me so angry.

In April 2012, federal agents raided Oaksterdam University, an educational institution in Oakland, CA, which teaches people about medical marijuana.

In April 2012, federal agents raided a medical marijuana facility which had been serving 1,500 patients near Lake Elsinore, CA.

In June 2012, the Obama administration filed asset-forfeiture lawsuits against two landlords who rented their buildings to medical marijuana stores in Santa Fe Springs, CA. The Obama administration also sent warning letters which threatened similar legal action to dozens of other, nearby landlords.

During the first seven months of 2012, the DEA shut down 40 medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, all of which had been operating in compliance with state and local law.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: cannabis; drugs; drugwar; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; medpot; pot; potheads; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
This friendly message from Jim Robinson has recently been brought to my attention: when we post our own blog, we are supposed to post the entire thing, so that's what I am doing. I had posted the same link previously, but only with a very short excerpt.

For the record, wordpress is a legitimate website - it does not contain any malware, viruses, or other malicious code. In addition, my article at the blog contains links to citations to back up every claim that I made.

1 posted on 08/06/2012 12:20:23 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grundle

I agree. This is more about over-reach by the federal gov’t and the Supreme Court’s many bad decisions that have expanded Gov’t power. When even a suppossed “Conservative” Supreme Court led by a “Conservative” Chief Judge won’t strike down a clearly un-constitutional piece of legislation like Obamacare we are in trouble. If Republicans regain the Senate and keep the House then reigning in Federal Power and limiting control should be at the top of the “To-Do” list........


2 posted on 08/06/2012 12:35:09 PM PDT by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

There is no such thing as “medical” pot. If this is reaaaaly medical then any perscription should have an instantaneous medical suspension of all vehicle licenses. There is no instant roadside test for pot use.


3 posted on 08/06/2012 12:42:10 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
If this is reaaaaly medical then any perscription should have an instantaneous medical suspension of all vehicle licenses.

That's an excellent point. I agree with you.

4 posted on 08/06/2012 1:21:38 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
There is no such thing as “medical” pot.

Ignorant nonsense - cannabis has a number of scientifically established medical uses, such as for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation.

5 posted on 08/06/2012 2:08:56 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Ludicrous - Is there ANY prescription for which this is done?


6 posted on 08/06/2012 2:34:17 PM PDT by KEVLAR (Liberty or Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

For every 100 people who have prescriptions for Medical Weed, .05% may receive some form of benefit. The rest are just abusing the system.


7 posted on 08/06/2012 2:38:18 PM PDT by spawn44 (moo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KEVLAR

yes, also and look at people who suffer from seizures.

nice try.


8 posted on 08/06/2012 2:41:30 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: spawn44
There is no such thing as “medical” pot.

Ignorant nonsense - cannabis has a number of scientifically established medical uses, such as for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation.

For every 100 people who have prescriptions for Medical Weed, .05% may receive some form of benefit. The rest are just abusing the system.

Since .05% of 100 people is .05 people, I think you're pulling numbers out of your nether orifice. And even if your numbers were right, they still wouldn't prove your claim that 'there is no such thing as “medical” pot.'

People abuse the prescription system for opiate painkillers, too - is that a reason to ban those medicines?

9 posted on 08/06/2012 2:43:30 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; KEVLAR
Is there ANY prescription for which this is done?

yes,

Which one(s)?

also and look at people who suffer from seizures.

Taking medicine before driving is voluntary, having a seizure is not. Nice try.

10 posted on 08/06/2012 2:46:09 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Since you are a libertatrian and obviously one who is at the extreme end of the spectrum.... I don’t really care what you think. You have no personal experience ( by your own admission) of the devastation that medical marijuana causes in the communities that it is available. Go peddle your drugs for everyone to someone else.


11 posted on 08/06/2012 2:49:46 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

and IF you really need cannaboids then you would get a suppositroy of Marinol. Nice try though because smoking dope is so safe


12 posted on 08/06/2012 2:51:13 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

so then take the actual pill with is available at the pharmacy. If it is medical that is.

If it is REALLY medical where are the doctor perscriptions for the in existence pills? There are very few if any because this is only about a pretext to excuse recreational use that ends up killing people. (ie potheads driving)


13 posted on 08/06/2012 2:51:48 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

in most states dr. would have the affirmative duty to report the inability to drive.


14 posted on 08/06/2012 2:54:50 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Drinking alcoholic beverages is legal. There is no identification on anyone's driver license that says: "I drink alcoholic beverages." And, since alcohol IS legal, then it is also not legal to automatically suspend, on "medical grounds", all the drivers who are admitted consumers of alcoholic beverages. There is no reason for it to be any different for anyone who is using medical marijuana.

In most states now, DWI no longer means just driving while too drunk, it means driving while under the influence, of alcohol or some drug. No new laws are needed in most states to charge someone for driving while “high”.

And, yes, it's true, just like drunks we usually do not know someone was DWI - the vast majority of the time - unless they have an accident or are noticeably driving erratically.

If a cop thinks a driver is driving erratically but, after questioning, suspects the driver is not drunk but is high, they can be held on suspicion of driving while “under the influence” for a period of time in which an immediate blood test and one 4 to six hours later can confirm, or not, the presence of THC in the blood. The first test would usually confirm it if they had last smoked a joint six hours earlier, otherwise the second test would confirm it if they had just smoked a joint right before they were stopped.

Using medical marijjuana is no excuse for "driving while under the influence" any more than is the mere legality of alcoholic beverages. Resonsible use is what the law expects, not abstinence.

If a driver is NOT driving erratically in any fashion, then a question of their alcohol consumption or if they had a joint recently does not come up - because they are not driving erratically - period.

If one thinks that every road should have daily DWI checkpoints just because medical marijuana is in practice, then that same logic says they should be already calling for daily DWI chekpoints on every road to catch all the alcohol consumers who mights have had one two many, though their driving manner does not show it. Oh that would be too Gestapo like? RIGHT!!! Yes, it would, as it would for no reason than to summarily “find every pot head on the road”.

Like "Mr Conservative" - William F. Buckley, argued years ago, and much more eloqunetly than I could, decriminalize of pot would be better for the more positives it would represent than any potential negatives that might be feared from it.

The vast majority of people who drink alcoholic beverages do not in their lifetime incur a DWI violation or a DWI induced accident. It is no different in the population of the many different people that smoke a joint. Just as their are alcoholics among those who drink alcoholic beverages, there are pot heads amont those who smoke point, and they too represent a minority of everyone who has marijuana on occasion.

The fears of many people are not represented by the facts.

We created the Mafia with prohibition and we have created the drug cartles with the war on drugs. It's a simple and dumb act of not learning from history.

15 posted on 08/06/2012 5:31:35 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
so then take the actual pill with is available at the pharmacy.

Pills are slow-onset, so it's difficult to adjust the dose to the minimum required at the time (aka titration); they're hard for nausea patients to keep down; and Marinol contains only one of marijuana's active ingredients.

If it is REALLY medical where are the doctor perscriptions for the in existence pills? There are very few if any

Do you have evidence for your claim?

16 posted on 08/07/2012 8:51:02 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Is there ANY prescription for which this is done?

yes,

Which one(s)?

Well?

also and look at people who suffer from seizures.

Taking medicine before driving is voluntary, having a seizure is not. Nice try.

in most states dr. would have the affirmative duty to report the inability to drive.

Beside the point - one can choose to not take medication prior to driving, whereas one can't choose to not have a seizure while driving, so the situations are not comparable.

17 posted on 08/07/2012 8:54:07 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wuli; longtermmemmory
Drinking alcoholic beverages is legal. There is no identification on anyone's driver license that says: "I drink alcoholic beverages." And, since alcohol IS legal, then it is also not legal to automatically suspend, on "medical grounds", all the drivers who are admitted consumers of alcoholic beverages. There is no reason for it to be any different for anyone who is using medical marijuana.

Good point. Also, I've been prescribed medicines - including an anti-inflammatory - whose labels warn 'do not drive after taking' but I haven't had my license suspended.

18 posted on 08/07/2012 8:59:35 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
smoking dope is so safe

Using a vaporizer to consume medical marijuana would be much safer. But many medicines are 'unsafe' due to side effects while still being safer than not taking them - that should be up to doctors and patients to decide.

19 posted on 08/07/2012 9:03:48 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
IF one truly has a medical need then Marinol has and continues to be the best medicine. Pot ‘dispensaries’ are populated by aging hippies and youngsters who are dopers
20 posted on 08/07/2012 10:10:57 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/medical/faqs.aspx?FAQTypeSub=1010&FaqQ=

This is regarding commercial licenses. (I was very suprised to find INSULIN as a disqualifyer). Pot is SPECIFICALLY a “NO” and it would not be a big extension to make it to passeger cars. Keep in mind to just HAVE a CDL means you have to abide by ALL the rules at all times.

__________________

2.

Can CMV drivers be qualified while being prescribed Provigil (Modafinil)?

Provigil (Modafinil) is a medication used to treat excessive sleepiness caused by certain sleep disorders. These sleep disorders are narcolepsy, obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome and shift work sleep disorders. Provigil has several concerning side effects such as chest pain, dizziness, difficulty breathing, heart palpitations, irregular and/or fast heartbeat, increased blood pressure, tremors or shaking movements, anxiety, nervousness, rapidly changing mood, problems with memory, blurred vision or other vision changes to name a few. Many drugs interact with Provigil which include over-the-counter medications, prescription medications, nutritional supplements, herbal products, alcohol containing beverages and caffeine. The use of Provigil needs careful supervision. Provigil may affect concentration, function or may hide signs that an individual is tired. It is recommended that until an individual knows how Provigil affects him/her, they may not drive, use machinery or do any activity that requires mental alertness.

Drivers being prescribed Provigil should not be qualified until they have been monitored closely for at least 6 weeks while taking Provigil. The treating physician and the Medical Examiner should agree that the Provigil is effective in preventing daytime somnolence and document that no untoward side effects are present. Commercial motor vehicle drivers taking Provigil should be re-certified annually.

4.

What medical conditions disqualify a commercial bus or truck driver?

The truck driver must be medically qualified to not only drive the vehicle safely, but also to do pre and post trip safety inspections, secure the load and make sure it has not shifted. Bus drivers have different demands.

By regulation, Specific Medically Disqualifying Conditions Found Under 49 CFR 391.41 are Hearing Loss, Vision Loss, Epilepsy and Insulin Use.

Drivers who require a Diabetes or Vision exemption to safely drive a CMV in addition to those pre-printed on the certification form are disqualified until they receive such an exemption.

81.

Can a CMV driver be disqualified for using a legally prescribed drug?

Although the driver has a legal prescription, he/she may be disqualified if the medication could adversely affect the driver’s ability to drive a CMV safely.

88.

Can a driver be qualified if taking prescribed medical marijuana?

No. Drivers taking medical marijuana cannot be certified.


There is the big one. This is just commercial vehicles and in most states they have duplicated these rules for in state CDL.

All states have a reporting requirement. Some are mandatory some are discretionary. There is precident for pulling a license.

You also have to consider how legislators can EASILY make license forfeiture automatic under impairment rules. Insurance companies can have specific exclusions (as with other criminal acts) which makes a pot head a de facto unlicense driver in a mandatory insurance state.

The other option is to adjust the impairment rules to the point where ANY trace of use will be presumed a violation. You also adjust the testing rules to allow for a test time longer than two house as with DWI/DUI.

Either way, the trend to to say pot means no license, period. (see Ghandi and “you win” , so laugh it up)
__________


21 posted on 08/07/2012 11:05:51 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
IF one truly has a medical need then Marinol has and continues to be the best medicine.

Pills are slow-onset, so it's difficult to adjust the dose to the minimum required at the time (aka titration); they're hard for nausea patients to keep down; and Marinol contains only one of marijuana's active ingredients. Marinol may be best for some, but certainly not for all.

Pot ‘dispensaries’ are populated by aging hippies and youngsters who are dopers

Irrelevant to the medical usefulness of marijuana.

22 posted on 08/07/2012 11:38:28 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
This is just commercial vehicles

OK.

All states have a reporting requirement. Some are mandatory some are discretionary. There is precident for pulling a license.

You also have to consider how legislators can EASILY make license forfeiture automatic under impairment rules. Insurance companies can have specific exclusions (as with other criminal acts) which makes a pot head a de facto unlicense driver in a mandatory insurance state.

The other option is to adjust the impairment rules to the point where ANY trace of use will be presumed a violation. You also adjust the testing rules to allow for a test time longer than two house as with DWI/DUI.

Nobody said it's impossible to medical pot grounds for losing a license, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Either way, the trend to to say pot means no license, period.

What "trend"?

23 posted on 08/07/2012 11:44:06 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I have three acquaintances who use medical marijuana:

1. Had a blood cancer. Treatment made him nauseous. Now in remission for two years. Hasn’t had any treatment in 18 months. Still gets his marijuana.

2. Had back problems. Debilitating. Most pain meds ineffective. Plays in a flag-football league and shares his stash with his teammates.

3. She has MS. Her symptoms have not improved, but she really enjoys her medicine while soaking in her hot tub.

Other stories abound about friendly doctors prescribing it to their friends for phantom pain management, anorexia, and various other questionable ailments.

While I am sure there are some who use medical marijuana because it is the only effective treatment for what ails them, I am also sure that there are few if any checks to see if ongoing “treatment” is necessary.


24 posted on 08/07/2012 11:51:24 AM PDT by Crusher138 ("Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Crusher138
Other stories abound about friendly doctors prescribing it to their friends for phantom pain management, anorexia, and various other questionable ailments.

While I am sure there are some who use medical marijuana because it is the only effective treatment for what ails them, I am also sure that there are few if any checks to see if ongoing “treatment” is necessary.

So what's the answer? Throw the baby out with the bathwater by denying medical marijuana to all, even those for whom it is the only effective treatment for what ails them?

25 posted on 08/07/2012 12:00:31 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Nope. Just as I cannot get Vicodin or Oxy for forever, there should be some guidelines implement by the states for follow up. Seems that in many states there is no limit on how long one can receive this prescription, nor are there standards for efficacy.


26 posted on 08/07/2012 12:13:42 PM PDT by Crusher138 ("Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Crusher138
So what's the answer? Throw the baby out with the bathwater by denying medical marijuana to all, even those for whom it is the only effective treatment for what ails them?

Nope.

Good to hear - that would be immoral.

Just as I cannot get Vicodin or Oxy for forever, there should be some guidelines implement by the states for follow up. Seems that in many states there is no limit on how long one can receive this prescription, nor are there standards for efficacy.

Me, I don't have a problem with leaving medical decisions up to doctors and their patients - even if that system is "abused" by people getting recreationally euphoric without hangovers or vomiting.

27 posted on 08/07/2012 12:42:39 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

suppositiories are fast acting


28 posted on 08/07/2012 12:46:15 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“Good point. Also, I’ve been prescribed medicines - including an anti-inflammatory - whose labels warn ‘do not drive after taking’ but I haven’t had my license suspended.”

I am on nerve-pain medicines. Among the many possible side affects, to varying degrees, can be: light headedness, dizziness, blurred vision, sleepiness (for example) - though no law in my state requires that I register these prescriptions with the DMV and have my driving privileges suspended “for medical reasons”.

Just like some other major medicines that warn of “drowsiness”, I know I must be careful and proactive about watching the side affects of my medicines, just as any consumer of alcoholic beverages must be when it comes to how many and what type of alcoholic beverages they’ve had before they hit the road. Why should medical marijuana be any different of an issue - it shouldn’t.


29 posted on 08/07/2012 1:28:47 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
suppositiories are fast acting

Marinol contains only one of marijuana's active ingredients, so it's useful only for patients who need only that active ingredient.

30 posted on 08/07/2012 1:39:14 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Make that: Nobody said it's impossible to make medical pot grounds for losing a license, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
31 posted on 08/07/2012 1:42:41 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

it is ALREADY grounds to revoke a license and where actual impairment is at issue physicians are OBLIGATED to report the impairment. it is the law NOW.

So if a physician considers the use an impairment then that person MUST be reported. period.

anyone who is perscribed pot is INELIGIBLE to hold or maintain a cdl. it is the law.

use pot you can’t drive commercially (or even off duty),

use pot and a your regular non pothead doctor may have the affirmative duty to report your use of pot as an impairment to safety.

read.


32 posted on 08/07/2012 2:39:25 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
That doesn't add up to your proposal that "any perscription [sic] should have an instantaneous medical suspension of all vehicle licenses." But you knew that, or you wouldn't have said "should." So you're still not making a coherent point.
33 posted on 08/07/2012 2:50:42 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

smoking dope causes ill effects in the lungs (regardless of the ereason why) ingesting food or tea still takes as long as most pills. Just suck it up and admit that you like smoking dope and be done with it


34 posted on 08/07/2012 3:32:15 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
Pot ‘dispensaries’ are populated by aging hippies and youngsters who are dopers

And yet, many states have enacted medical mj policies. Do you support their 10th Amendment authority to do so... yes or no?

35 posted on 08/07/2012 6:31:00 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

that wasn/t even part of the discussion


36 posted on 08/07/2012 7:03:11 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

The article mentions the 10th Amendment several times, as well as the Wickard Commerce Clause. It’s an on-topic question. What is your answer?


37 posted on 08/07/2012 7:17:43 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

I am not a ‘purist’ as some are. Federal drug laws have been on the books and upheld by various courts for the better part of a century. One of the libertarian persuasion may well want to have all laws over turned since the federal government should do nothing other than provide a military for defense at home. I am not that extreme. The ones who want to rant and rave over all of the tenth amendment violations can go ahead and have at it.


38 posted on 08/07/2012 9:42:04 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
smoking dope causes ill effects in the lungs (regardless of the ereason why)

Using a vaporizer avoids the harms of smoking. And many medicines have harmful side effects - but we don't for that sole reason ban them or declare them medically useless.

Just suck it up and admit that you like smoking dope and be done with it

I don't smoke dope. Your resort to argument ad hominem is duly noted.

39 posted on 08/08/2012 7:49:17 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nifster; Ken H; Jim Robinson
I am not a ‘purist’ as some are. Federal drug laws have been on the books and upheld by various courts for the better part of a century. One of the libertarian persuasion may well want to have all laws over turned since the federal government should do nothing other than provide a military for defense at home. I am not that extreme. The ones who want to rant and rave over all of the tenth amendment violations can go ahead and have at it.

FYI, Jim Robinson appears to be an "extreme" "purist" "who wants to rant and rave" - when asked, "Do you want to legalize only HALF the dope in this country?" he replied, "Only in the half of the states that would." He then went on to quote the text of the Tenth Amendment.

40 posted on 08/08/2012 10:05:12 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

SO out of curiosity are you suggesting that the states can do whatever they want whenever they want? Is it okay if the states decide that DOMA is incorrect and so they will pass same sex (or any other version of aberration) marriage and have no interference from the federal government?

Since I am not on SCOTUS and I never will be my opinion is of little value to anyone. I do read those who are better educated on these things than I am (such as Mark Levin and Anton Scalia and others). Even they admit to limitations to the Constitution. It is our best hope for freedom no doubt. But it is not the word of God. It was written by men and serves us well. I am an originalist. Not agreeing with you or Jim Robinson on this issue does not worry me. Since we probably agree on so much more than this.


41 posted on 08/08/2012 11:02:23 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Vaporizers??? And how well do you control dosage with that???

Look I’m done. This disagreement is merely that. There are more pressing issues that we need to deal with before this really even hits my radar


42 posted on 08/08/2012 11:04:16 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
SO out of curiosity are you suggesting that the states can do whatever they want whenever they want?

I'm saying the Tenth Amendment means what it says. If you had read it, you'd know it does not say the states can do whatever they want whenever they want.

(such as Mark Levin and Anton Scalia and others). Even they admit to limitations to the Constitution.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean - and I'll bet neither Levin nor Scalia has ever used those words.

I am an originalist.

An "originalist" who thinks consistent adherence to the Tenth Amendment is extreme ranting and raving?

43 posted on 08/08/2012 11:21:39 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Your sense of consistency is by no means perfect either. You want one form of consistency and yet would not even comment on the one that might be of concern to some.....DOMA. In the 1950s and early 1960s there was much discussion and many cases that involved states rights and the limits of federal authority. Like it or not those cases have consequences for today.

Scalia and Levin HAVE used exactly those words.

Look I am doen with this. Go do some reading. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. Just because a citizen has an opinion does not guarantee that it is correct


44 posted on 08/08/2012 11:28:47 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
Vaporizers???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer_%28cannabis%29

And how well do you control dosage with that???

Quite well - every bit as well as you do by smoking.

There are more pressing issues that we need to deal with before this really even hits my radar

... he said after 8 posts on the issue.

45 posted on 08/08/2012 11:54:05 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
Your sense of consistency is by no means perfect either. You want one form of consistency and yet would not even comment on the one that might be of concern to some.....DOMA.

I'm all for DOMA, which by allowing states to enact or reject same-sex marriage protects the states' rights that you are content to see violated by the federal War On Drugs.

In the 1950s and early 1960s there was much discussion and many cases that involved states rights and the limits of federal authority. Like it or not those cases have consequences for today.

Of course rulings by the liberal SCOTUSes of the past have consequences - ones that should be rejected by conservatives, and whose overturning should be supported by conservatives.

Scalia and Levin HAVE used exactly those words.

That there are "limitations to the Constitution"? Prove it.

46 posted on 08/08/2012 12:01:24 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
Scalia and Levin HAVE used exactly those words.

A Google search on "Mark Levin" OR Scalia "limitations to the Constitution" returns only 2 results, neither of which supports your claim.

The second result does paraphrase Justice Thomas as saying there are "key structural limitations to the constitution that ensure that the federal government does not amass too much power at the expense of the states." One such structural limitation is the Tenth Amendment - I guess Clarence Thomas is another extreme ranter and raver.

47 posted on 08/08/2012 12:23:12 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Scalia used the term in a recent interview with Fox News....his was a reference to the 2nd amendment but it reveals his thinking. Have you even read Men in Black?


48 posted on 08/08/2012 12:45:16 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

since I don’t smoke go pound sand


49 posted on 08/08/2012 12:46:38 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
since I don’t smoke go pound sand

I never said nor implied you did.

50 posted on 08/08/2012 1:40:28 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson