Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Medical marijuana: The real stakes
TownHall.com ^ | 12-10-04 | Jeff Jacoby

Posted on 12/17/2004 9:12:14 AM PST by inquest

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-442 next last
To: Beckwith
"If I am not well and I smoke a doobah and become well, then it's medicine enough for me."

How does it follow that it is then medicine for everyone? Anecdotal stories do not form the foundation of our medical and medicinal system.

We do peer-reviewed studies. We use control groups, placebos. Reports are written, studied, duplicated. The dosage is known. The frequency of the dosage is known. We know about side effects and drug interactions. The drug is then FDA approved.

It's just a little more than "I smoke doobah. Doobah good".

Criminy. We live in the most medically advanced nation in world history, and you're taking us back to Clan of the Cave Bear where we're chewing on roots and dancing naked in the moonlight.

101 posted on 12/17/2004 1:07:18 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Do you have anything of any historical consequence? A quote by someone else agreeing with you, without providing any basis for how that conclusion was arrived at is no more autoritative than your own opinion. Can you provide any reference to the nature and scope of the Necessary and Proper clause from the founders that indicates that this is indeed an valid exercise of that power?


102 posted on 12/17/2004 1:07:49 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: VaBarrister
I wasnt saying I bought his application of it, just supplying a possible source of his logic.

The source of his logic is a fear that his children might smoke pot some day, and an absence of scruples about what he'll do to keep that from happening.

103 posted on 12/17/2004 1:09:53 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Beckwith
But an across the board refusal to move marijuana into Class II forbids anyone to test its effectiveness much less allow the FDA to look into it as a result. There is no reason why marijuana shouldn't be a Schedule II drug and then undergo tests by the FDA. Instead it is deemed to have no medicinal value by the DEA. Raw opium and cocaine are schedule IIs, why shouldn't marijuana be added?
104 posted on 12/17/2004 1:11:59 PM PST by VaBarrister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

>>The source of his logic is a fear that his children might smoke pot some day, and an absence of scruples about what he'll do to keep that from happening.<<

The out of context quotes from cases and the use of law review articles is really building his credibility though....


105 posted on 12/17/2004 1:13:46 PM PST by VaBarrister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"against injustice among the States themselves,"

Key words. Injustice among the states meant that some states benefitted, some didn't.

I, too, would oppose any federal legislation which did this or which allowed this.

But legislation which bans the commerce of a product between all states for "the positive purposes of the General Government" is, of course, allowed.

106 posted on 12/17/2004 1:15:32 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
We do peer-reviewed studies. We use control groups, placebos. Reports are written, studied, duplicated. The dosage is known. The frequency of the dosage is known. We know about side effects and drug interactions. The drug is then FDA approved.

Vioxx. *cough cough*

107 posted on 12/17/2004 1:16:38 PM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras; Beckwith
I'll simply quote my favorite, Ms. Coulter:

"Until several weeks of negotiations with the Connecticut Libertarian Party over its pro-drug legalization stance, my position on drugs was to refuse even to discuss drug legalization until I don't have to pay for the food, housing, transportation and medical care of people who want to stay home all day shooting up heroin."

"It's not as if we live in the perfect Libertarian state of nature, with the tiny exception of those pesky drug laws. We live in a Nanny State that takes care of us from cradle to grave and steals half our income. I kept suggesting to them that we might want to keep our eye on the ball here. (The Libertarians' other big issue is privatizing Yosemite. Seriously.)"

"In theory, our areas of agreement should have included, among other things: eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation, eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax."

"Our sole area of disagreement was whether to abolish the drug laws before or after completing the above tasks."

And I say after.

108 posted on 12/17/2004 1:20:49 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Something rp omitted from his selected quote from United States vs. The William:

"In illustration of their argument, gentlemen have supposed a strong case; a prohibition of the future cultivation of corn, in the United States. It would not be admitted, I presume, that an act, so extravagant, would be constitutional, though not perpetual, but confined to a single season. And why? Because it would be, most manifestly, without the limits of the federal jurisdiction, and relative to an object, or concern, not committed to its management."

109 posted on 12/17/2004 1:22:25 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
"All this "pot isn't medicine" nonsense is a smoke screen for authoritarianism."

And all of this "pot IS medicine" nonsense is a smoke screen for marijuana legalization.

As admitted by the leaders of this movement.

110 posted on 12/17/2004 1:25:01 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But legislation which bans the commerce of a product between all states for "the positive purposes of the General Government" is, of course, allowed.

Not on your best day.

111 posted on 12/17/2004 1:26:27 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I'll simply quote my favorite, Ms. Coulter:

Here comes the dance.
You would do better to quote yourself.

So I ask you again, You have no problem with anyone using any substance they want as long as they take the responsibility?

112 posted on 12/17/2004 1:28:09 PM PST by Protagoras (Christmas is not a secular holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So what? I said that. There must be an echo.

RE-legalization of all substances and therefore the return of liberty is the goal of all true Americans.

I have never hidden my agenda. I don't dance around the real issues like the authoritarian elitists.

113 posted on 12/17/2004 1:31:22 PM PST by Protagoras (Christmas is not a secular holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: VaBarrister
The out of context quotes from cases and the use of law review articles is really building his credibility though....

Yep. He gets positively illuminating when you start talking about applying that dogmatic reliance on stare decisis to Roe v Wade.

114 posted on 12/17/2004 1:32:14 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; VaBarrister
"The decision states "by reason of their control of the carriers"."

"by reason of their control of the carriers" was the necessary nexus which allowed the court to rule as it did.

The court was saying that because there was a connection, a relationship, between the interstate and intrastate rates by a carrier, Congress could step in a regulate the overall rates. The predecessor to "substantial effects" if you will (the court used "substantial relation").

115 posted on 12/17/2004 1:35:33 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
So I ask you again, You have no problem with anyone using any substance they want as long as they take the responsibility?

Sign me up.

I would gladly sign a document swearing off any current or future Govt assistance if the Govt would simply leave me alone to pollute my body with whatever I want.

116 posted on 12/17/2004 1:37:25 PM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

I understand where you are coming from but we don't have prisons full of gay's and we don't spend billions trying to keep people from becoming gay.

It costs too much to worry about pot. The idea would be to allow it in private homes but not in public. No pot bars, no pot sales at the grocery store,etc. If you have a car wreck while high it should be treated like a dui.

Actually the losers who smoke pot will eventually end up in the criminal justice system sooner or later for other reasons and the ones who don't, well no harm no foul.

John

John


117 posted on 12/17/2004 1:38:46 PM PST by jrfaug06
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Nope. Don't wanna.

Not until you do something for a change. Other than constantly asking me to provide you with proof, links, studies, cites, etc.

118 posted on 12/17/2004 1:42:12 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The court was saying that because there was a connection, a relationship, between the interstate and intrastate rates by a carrier, Congress could step in a regulate the overall rates. The predecessor to "substantial effects" if you will (the court used "substantial relation").

Nope. They said:

"by reason of its control over the interstate carrier in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce"

The relationship between intrastate and interstate commerce is irrelevant. The only relevant relationship is between the carriers and interstate commerce - in all matters, intrastate or otherwise.

119 posted on 12/17/2004 1:45:32 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Nope. Don't wanna.

Can't, and won't admit it.

120 posted on 12/17/2004 1:46:25 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
We don't have different laws for different people. So, no, I'm not in favor of one set of laws for responsible people and another set of laws for irresponsible people.

Get rid of the nanny state first, then I'm willing to discuss the legalization of drugs.

121 posted on 12/17/2004 1:47:26 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So are you saying that the existence of the "nanny state" should allow the government to make anything illegal that taxes that system? What about cigarettes? They have been shown to severely tax federal programs. So long as those programs exist, under your logic, the federal government should be able to prevent people from making any choices that would add further cost to the system. Maybe there should be a federal law that doesn't allow people to run with pointy objects because that would prevent us from having to pay for their injuries.

The nanny state may be wrong, but it is not an argument that the government can control conduct because people aren't responsible enough and will cost the rest of us money.
122 posted on 12/17/2004 1:52:43 PM PST by VaBarrister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: jrfaug06
"The idea would be to allow it in private homes but not in public."

They tried that in Alaska, actually. Up to 4 ounces, in your home only, was legal for adults.

Then the University of Alaska did a study in 1988 and found that twice as many Alaskan teens were using pot as the lower 48. The parents went ape, pushed for and passed a public referendum in 1990, and made pot illegal again.

Teen use dropped to that of the rest of the country. Maybe you don't care. I do.

123 posted on 12/17/2004 1:55:28 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: VaBarrister
A nanny state is not a state that dictates our behavior. You have the wrong interpretation. A nanny looks after and cares for her charge.

In my post #108, I listed some functions of the nanny state: The Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the National Endowment of the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, for starters.

If people are willing to rid thenselves of these agencies, then perhaps they're willing to take on personal responsibility. As I said, then we can talk about drugs.

You legalize drugs first, you're just going to add people to the welfare and healthcare systems and we'll never get rid of those federal agencies.

124 posted on 12/17/2004 2:04:18 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Right so you're arguing that the existence of welfare and social departments, in your opinion, should give the government the right to prevent new people from entering into these programs? In order to end these programs, you have to prevent people from becoming even more dependent on them and therefore you have to dictate behavior as a means to end the programs.
125 posted on 12/17/2004 2:09:45 PM PST by VaBarrister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: VaBarrister

Wickard is an insult to personal property or any reasonable view of the power of government to regulate trade. Frankly, I think the Constitution should be amended to take the power to regulate intrastate commerce away from Congress. I understand the reason for its original inclusion, but it has been of virtually no benefit and an unimaginably large source of mischief.


126 posted on 12/17/2004 2:22:56 PM PST by Reaganghost (Reagan could see the Renaissance coming, but it will be up to you to make it happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
In my post #108, I listed some functions of the nanny state: The Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the National Endowment of the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, for starters.

Glaring omissions from your nanny-state list: the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, i.e. the "Drug Czar".

Neither of which have any constitutional basis for their continued existence, just like the others you mention.

127 posted on 12/17/2004 2:24:39 PM PST by bassmaner (Let's take the word "liberal" back from the commies!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner

Let me guess. You think those agencies should be the first to go.


128 posted on 12/17/2004 2:30:19 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Then the University of Alaska did a study in 1988 and found that twice as many Alaskan teens were using pot as the lower 48. The parents went ape, pushed for and passed a public referendum in 1990, and made pot illegal again.

How was the study performed? Many people who use illegal substances aren't likely to report them to someone conducting a survey.

129 posted on 12/17/2004 4:52:29 PM PST by supercat (To call the Constitution a 'living document' is to call a moth-infested overcoat a 'living garment'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: inquest

interesing analysis. I'm no lawyer, but I'd say the Supreme Court was wrong in the Wickard case. How can the Federal Government tell people what they can and can't grow on their OWN land?!?!

How can the Federal government tell citizens what they put in their OWN bodies??!!?!?!

That's teh direction I would approach this case from.


130 posted on 12/17/2004 5:08:17 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/terrorism.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"In theory, our areas of agreement should have included, among other things: eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation, eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax."
---


GOOD IDEAS!!!!!!


131 posted on 12/17/2004 5:16:59 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/terrorism.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The 21st amendment, Section 2, did exactly that for alcohol. I would suggest that we get a similar amendment for drugs if we want to go down that path.

This is true, because , as you stated, some states have already decriminalized it. IMO, prohibition on MJ doesn't work , in the same way that it did not work for alcohol.

132 posted on 12/17/2004 5:32:23 PM PST by Jackknife (.......Land of the Free,because of the Brave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

i go with legalize.
moderation moderation and dont drive.

has anyone ever seen the government ,either, produced or sanctioned movie REEFER MADNESS? what a hoot.
and there is a group of record albums called
them dirty blues, one of them is tunes with all drug references with some mighty big names in big band music singing them.


133 posted on 12/17/2004 5:57:04 PM PST by 537cant be wrong (no kittie! thats my pot pie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
That's teh direction I would approach this case from.

FWIU, the Supreme Court is very loath to reverse itself, but is less loath to issue rulings which change the effect of earlier readings but are nonetheless consistent with them.

For example, a compelling part of the argument in Filburn was that by growing his own wheat, the farmer was depriving a would-be seller of a buyer. Even if the farmer would not have personally bought wheat from out of state, his failure to buy the wheat would have shifted (by the amount of wheat in question) the supply/demand balance within his state and thus affected interstate commerce.

The argument doesn't work in the pot case, however, because there is no legal interstate market. Although it is certainly possible that growing pot within the state for immediate in-state consumption might cause people who might otherwise have done so to stop buying out-of-state pot, it would be hard to argue that their failure to buy out of state pot was somehow a bad thing.

134 posted on 12/17/2004 6:04:32 PM PST by supercat (To call the Constitution a 'living document' is to call a moth-infested overcoat a 'living garment'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

if you link this subject of medicinal maryjane as an evil soros plot and therefore not worthy to persue, then by that logic the DUmmies ,Cheney/haliburton ,rants could be said to have merit?
it's late and i may have missed your point.
and or i'm not making mine clear.


135 posted on 12/17/2004 6:09:18 PM PST by 537cant be wrong (no kittie! thats my pot pie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: supercat

sorry, I meant to say I would not approach it from the Filburn angle. (although I agree with your analysis)

I would approach it from the angle that the United States was the first country to take away power from the King (divine right of king = the king has his power from god by law). The US eliminated the middle man (the king) and gave each person the divine right of kings power for his own property. Thus - every man a king. Remarkable.

William Pitt said in a speech to the British Parliment (explaining this new American idea):

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!"

If every man is a king on his own property (as enshrined by the Constitution) then it follows that the man may grow what he will and injest what he will with no one to answer to but whom he recieves his 'divine right from' - ostensibly God.

Now, I don't know how to frame that legally, but thats what I meant. :)


136 posted on 12/17/2004 6:18:00 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/terrorism.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: inquest

I am about as right-wing a Christian as you can get, and I am emphatically for allowing states to determine whether or not to legalize the prescribing of marijuana for medical use.

I had cancer a few years ago, and while I didn't require any special pain/nausia medication, I understand that some people would benefit greatly from MJ.

Those who are against MJ for medical purposes don't understand how powerful physician-prescribed medicines are....


137 posted on 12/17/2004 6:21:40 PM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
sorry, I meant to say I would not approach it from the Filburn angle.

The federal government will cite Filburn. Anyone supporting California must therefore argue that (1) Filburn is wrong, or (2) Filburn does not apply. One may make other arguments as well, but if Filburn can be used to bind this case it will.

138 posted on 12/17/2004 6:31:37 PM PST by supercat (To call the Constitution a 'living document' is to call a moth-infested overcoat a 'living garment'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"We live in the most medically advanced nation in world history, and you're taking us back to Clan of the Cave Bear where we're chewing on roots and dancing naked in the moonlight."

"The history of the world is not intelligible apart from a Government of the World" W. V. Humboldt

For history's sake remember the founding fathers grew this plant on their estates. Of what clan are you, the fight club? Much medicine's source is plant life, as well as our diet. What plant shall we war against next when we are finished eradicating this wonder from the face of Earth? What gives this government, or any government the power to eradicate a gift from God? Is it the power of the increasingly inept oligarchy of Doctors and corporate chemists which you desire to maintain?


139 posted on 12/17/2004 7:16:03 PM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

You can't see the absurdity of your question which has nothing to do witn the matter at hand? It is a perfect reason why I don't argue with WOD drones anymore.

That doesn't deserve and answer.


140 posted on 12/17/2004 9:46:45 PM PST by Indie (Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

But how does one do research on a banned substance? From what I understand, it's extremely difficult to get a permit or a grant to conduct such a study.


141 posted on 12/17/2004 10:02:14 PM PST by Spyder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: jakkknife
"... prohibition on MJ doesn't work , in the same way that it did not work for alcohol."

I believe the prohibition on marijuana is working -- keep in mind that marijuana has been illegal now for what, almost 70 years? And I don't see and end to it, do you?

Alcohol prohibition, on the other hand, lasted a mere 13 years before it was overturned.

One other thing. People are calling for the legalization of one drug, marijuana, and expecting big results. Imagine if, during Prohibition, only wine was made legal. Would you expect big results by legalizing just wine?

142 posted on 12/18/2004 6:56:50 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
One other thing. People are calling for the legalization of one drug, marijuana, and expecting big results. Imagine if, during Prohibition, only wine was made legal. Would you expect big results by legalizing just wine?

Uh, the alcohol in wine is chemically the same as the alcohol in beer, whisky, grain alcohol, etc. Try again!

143 posted on 12/18/2004 7:04:28 AM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"The argument doesn't work in the pot case, however, because there is no legal interstate market."

Ah, you just have to look for it.

Number one, if marijuana were made legal for medical purposes on a state-by-state basis, legal medical marijuana interstate commerce would soon spring into existence (surely if it's legal in State A and State B you wouldn't stop them from shipping to each other -- that's silly).

Number two, a patient who smokes medical marijuana for their condition does not purchase legal products for their condition (which are interstate commerce). This is almost identical to the Filburn case, and why I believe the USSC will overturn the Ninth Circuit (yet again).

One last thing. Raich was decided by the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned Circuit Court in the country. Her case was heard by only three judges of the Ninth, one of whom dissented on Filburn grounds! (The Ninth circuit refused to hear the case en banc.) This is not a real strong case.

144 posted on 12/18/2004 7:22:49 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
"For history's sake remember the founding fathers grew this plant on their estates."

Are you saying that the Founding Fathers grew this plant so they could sit around and smoke dope?

If you're not saying that, then what you have to say is irrelevant.

145 posted on 12/18/2004 7:28:20 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Indie
The matter at hand? The matter at hand is medical marijuana.

But that didn't stop you from piping in about "hypocrites WOD supporters" who should be "consistent with your fascism and outlaw alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine".

YOU'VE expanded the matter at hand, so deal with it. YOU'VE changed the subject, but now you're backpedalling.

I'll ask you again. If you favor the legalization of marijuana because the fascist government has no right to be involved, then YOU need to be consistent and call for the legalization of ALL drugs. That is, unless it's okay for the fascist government to ban everything BUT marijuana -- talk about a hypocrite!

Furthermore, if the fascist government has no right to regulate drugs (which harm no one but the user -- right my little libertarian anarchist?), then surely the government has no business regulating pornography, gambling, prostitution, etc.

C'mon. Take a stand! Grow a pair and speak your mind!

146 posted on 12/18/2004 7:42:50 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

You disgust me! You are more concerned with the founding fathers intent in growing a gift from God than you are in their intent in the wording of the Constitution. Relevance is assured for the God given rights of individuals despite all your fascist dictates to the contrary.


147 posted on 12/18/2004 7:56:23 AM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Spyder
"From what I understand, it's extremely difficult to get a permit or a grant to conduct such a study."

I'll give you that.

And if this were really about medical marijuana, and helping patients, and easing suffering, the major pro-medical marijuana groups (like NORML, the Marijuana Policy Project, the Drug Policy Alliance, etc.) would be investing their money, time, and efforts to pressure the federal government to make this kind of research possible.

Unfortunately, medical marijuana is a scam. It's a ruse to get marijuana legalized, and these Soros-sponsored groups are using the sick and dying as pawns.*

These groups do NOT want to see medical marijuana in the form of a pill, patch, injection, mist, or suppository. And if medical marijuana took that form? Why they would then call smoked marijuana the "poor man's" medicine for those who can't afford the FDA-approved form.

Geez, the pharmaceuticals know this. You don't get to be a multi-billion dollar company by being stupid. Look at Marinol for nausea -- listen to the objections on this board (acts too slow, too expensive, hard to adjust, whine whine whine).

So a pharmaceutical is going to spend $100 million to come out with say, a marijuana patch to control nausea, when 1) there are already 10 FDA approved products out there that do the job faster and cheaper. and 2) have their customer base use this research as a tool to promote smoked marijuana for nausea? I doubt it.

*"In 1979, the director of NORML, told an Emory University audience that they would be using the issue of medicinal marijuana as a "red herring" to give marijuana a good name."

148 posted on 12/18/2004 8:07:56 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Nobody need purchase a thing.
There is no commerce involved.
A plant, an herb is grown from seed.
God given herb is consumed by
a soveriegn individual in their own home.
What enumerated power exists
to deny this right to individuals?


149 posted on 12/18/2004 8:08:09 AM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
Purposely overlooking my point?

If you're going to compare the benefits of ending alcohol Prohibition to ending drug prohibition, then you have legalize all drugs.

Legalizing just marijuana is equivalent to legalizing just wine during Prohibition.

150 posted on 12/18/2004 8:13:06 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-442 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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