Video Exposes Medical Marijuana as Hoax - (shows addicts LOL-ing about what a joke the law is!)

A.I.M.ORG ^ | JUNE 30, 2005 | CLIFF KINCAID

[CHARLITE]

Rhode Island Governor Donald L. Carcieri has vetoed a "medical marijuana" bill, saying it would encourage marijuana use and criminal activity. His veto comes as an anti-drug group has released dramatic video footage of a marijuana activist declaring that he uses dope for a health problem that he doesn't really have. The bottom line for this activist, Ed Rosenthal, is that "I like to get high. Marijuana is fun." The video has the potential of dealing a major blow to the "medical marijuana" movement, largely funded by billionaire George Soros.

The video footage, posted at the website http://www.sorosmonitor.com, gives the lie to the claim that we often see in the media that smoking marijuana is a legitimate medical treatment for people with diseases. Rosenthal, who was associated with High Times magazine for many years, is shown speaking to dozens of marijuana activists. "With all the talk about medical marijuana, I have to tell you that I also use marijuana medically (laughter)," he says. "I have a latent glaucoma, which has never been diagnosed (more laughter). And the reason why it has never been diagnosed is because I've been treating it (laughter)…But there is a reason why I do use it. And that is because I like to get high. (cheers, applause). Marijuana is fun."

The video proves that "medical marijuana" is a joke to those on the inside of the pro-pot movement who realize that getting the public and the media to accept the notion that smoking marijuana alleviates health problems is a major step down the road to complete legalization of dope.

[Publius6961]

Come to the cancer ward and spew this dogma.

You think anybody buys that "cancer ward" BS?

Just explain why hospital cancer wards need a "store" in dozens of neighborhoods (where other illegal activities take place routinely) in order to service their patients who are in so much pain they can barely move... ?

[Sirc_Valence]

This is more than ONE person here. This is part of a strategy and campaign to legalize drugs. These are the leaders of the "medical marijuana" trojan horse, on tape, with a bunch of old hippy baseheads laughing like a bunch of utterly stoned zombies.

The advisor to the Drug Policy Foundation: "Once there's medical access, if we continue to do what we have to do, and we will, then we'll get full legalization"

Didn't you see the director of the Drug Policy Alliance of San Francisco recommending "positive role models" to kids who use drugs? Anyone in the role of advocating something bad for the brain or the country is not a positive role model.

This is not a small group of people guilty of racial ignorance, this is a large group of people with ignorance toward the reprecussions of what they support:

[Publius6961]

I'm with you and I'd go further. Whatever will help people in pain should be given without reservation or fear of the law coming down on you. I don't care if it's pot, morphine, heroin or whatever. Give it to them.

If I had a loved one in pain, I would find some myself.
I agree completely.

But this thread is transparently being hijacked indignantly (protesting waaaaay too much) and defended with pretend outrage by losers who just need to hide behind the suffering and the terminally for their recreational grass.

[thoughtomator]

Sorry, where is the government authorized by our Constitution to carry on prohibition in the first place?

[Publius6961]

I just knew this thread was gonna be good. A Bush-bashing Pot party!!

LOL!

I didn't see this amount of impassioned outrage after the Eminent Domain" decision...

Ah yes. Proportionality.

[Sirc_Valence]

When libs talk about "positive role models"

[sausageseller]

My son has leukemia, and I would never get him a joint to smoke, much less light it!

[Sirc_Valence]

When it authorized the representative system together with the general welfare clause.

[thoughtomator]

Whether people want to smoke pot for recreation is no more of your business - or the government's - than whether you want to drink or smoke cigarettes for the same purpose.

[Sirc_Valence]

Just like with the prohibition against drunk driving. Though I admit the degree of harm that one thing causes is greater than the other.

[thoughtomator]

So you're one of those 'living Constitution' folks who think that any clause in the Constitution can be made to be infinitely flexible, thus giving the central government effectively absolute power? If the general welfare clause covers it, why would any other powers be enumerated? And what's with those pesky 9th and 10th Amendments?

[Sirc_Valence]

A majority of Americans would not ban cigarettes.

[FlingWingFlyer]

There's nothing more hilarious than potheads arguing about the wonders of their wonder drug, "medicinal" marijuana. They crack me up. ROTFLMAO!

[thoughtomator]

So you favor mob rule, then?

If a majority of Americans supported the end of religious liberty, you'd have no principled objection?

[Sirc_Valence]

No, I don't see the Constitution as infinitely malleable. That's why I mentioned that it established a representative system. We don't ban cigs, but we ban marijuana. When something harms society, the Constitution allows room for that to be dealt with.

[Sirc_Valence]

I'de object, but the majority would have to change the constitution to do that.

[Black Tooth]

I am generally libertarian and consider the war on drugs a waste of my tax money.

Your not alone.

Most of those that kick in doors for a living, agree with that position.

[Sirc_Valence]

I'de object, but the majority would have to change the constitution to do that.

[G32]

You mean it's all a soros inspired fantasy? NOOOOOOO....

Duh.

[Skywalk]

Why is that an Amendment was needed for alcohol but not for any regulation or banned substances?