Posted on 06/26/2006 8:22:44 AM PDT by bassmaner
You're resting your case on that? I hope you aren't a lawyer, or if you are, I hope for your clients' sake you don't have any.
Yeah, Rush would be an expert on that subject.
Certainly precautions ought to be taken, particularly by patients with compromised immune systems, but that falls well short of an argument for a blanket ban on medical use.
There are other drugs for nausea, you know. And they work quite well.
The fact that there's more than one reminds us that not every patient responds the same way to a drug ... which is exactly why marijuana ought to be an available option.
In rebuttal I quote your post #155: "This report summarizes and analyzes what is known about the medical use of marijuana; it emphasizes evidence-based medicine (derived from knowledge and experience informed by rigorous scientific analysis) ..."
If certain precautions should be taken, why isn't that written into state law? Perhaps it should be banned until they figure it out, huh?
"which is exactly why marijuana ought to be an available option."
Hey, as long as it goes through the same process as the other drugs I have no problem with that.
As to whether or not marijuana actually has medical benefits, that remains to be seen with further study.
Well that's exactly what the left wants, the freedom to smoke marijuana. It's got nothing to do with medicine since Marinol, a pure medicine derived from the plant, is already available.
Oral delivery has slow onset and is thus more difficult to titrate than a breathed medicine; and patients with nausea often can't keep pills down.
Of course there are other medicines that are more effective.
More effective for EVERY patient? Can you suppor that claim?
Rush Limbaugh made a good point. Libertarians want to pretend that everything they want to affects nobody else.
If Rush is claiming that "affecting someone else" is the test for justifying government force, he's no longer a conservative. The true test, of course, is whether rights are violated ... which they are not by drug sale and use.
A person using drugs affects wives, kids, loved ones and society in ways to numerous to mention.
Also true of the drug alcohol. Shall we re-ban that drug?
And if we're criminalizing "potential to harm our society" where do we stop? Ban junk food? Enforce bedtimes for adults? I didn't see your answer to this question.
That's because that line of argument is a leftist ploy designed to minimize drug use. It's no worse than eating junk food or not getting enough sleep.
That's not the argument.
Kids, drugs are for idiots.
Misrepresenting one's opponent's argument is for idiots.
So it's OK to ban things that make people vote liberal? Attending Harvard? Reading the NY Times?
There you go again. Taking drugs is no worse than attending Harvard or reading the New York Times.
Another cowardly misrepresentation. Imagine my surprise.
I think it should be, until we get to the real solution of legalizing and regulating production.
Perhaps it should be banned until they figure it out, huh?
Nah, the energy expended on banning would be better spent on legislating and/or publicizing those precautions.
Hey, as long as it goes through the same process as the other drugs I have no problem with that.
You mean the same process as other drugs that don't offer potential for large profits ... namely, the orpahn-drug process? That would certainly beat a flat ban ... although I prefer to see less government interference in medicine across the board.
The "claims" of medical research are more than just "claims."
As to whether or not marijuana actually has medical benefits, that remains to be seen
You can set the burden of proof as high as you like for yourself (and your minor children) ... just so long as you let sick people and their doctors make their own decisions.
No. That's moving in the opposite direction. Let's compound the problem by legalizing more drugs!
Huh? Who's talking about those? The same process for approval as was done for the other nausea drugs.
Problem with English?
If legalizing more drugs is "compounding the problem" then banning more drugs, such as alcohol, must be lessening the problem. Do you support that, and if not, why not?
Huh? Who's talking about those?
You should be, since medical marijuana fits the description, and you're such a fan of established regulatory processes.
Nope.
We tried it once. It lasted 13 short years. The people didn't want Prohibition. They still don't.
They did when it began. It took them only 13 years to learn the lessons today's Americans are still slowly figuring out after 30 years of the war on drugs ... but as a conservative I have no problem saying Americans had more common sense 70 years ago.
There are virtually NO reputable doctors that would argue that the benefit that comes from smoking a plant substance offsets the danger. But I expect you'll stop arguing for smoking pot as a medicine when this Dronabinol inhaler comes on the market?
More effective for EVERY patient? Can you suppor that claim?
Why would I have to support that claim?? If just one person claims that smoking marijuana is better than taking any legally available, studied, metered and dosed medicine does that mean we HAVE to consider marijuana a medicine? That's like saying we should be able to legally sell and take heroin on every street corner because it makes a lot of people feel good.
If Rush is claiming that "affecting someone else" is the test for justifying government force, he's no longer a conservative. The true test, of course, is whether rights are violated ... which they are not by drug sale and use.
You're going to have a tough time convincing anyone that Rush isn't a conservative. Why can't you just face the fact that you hold a liberal viewpoint on this issue?
Rights, as defined by the constitution, are inalienable rights granted by God to the people he created. God certainly didn't intend that people smoke dope or other drugs. They are the antithesis of the type of life God intends people to lead and drug use is specifically listed as one of those thing that are not Godly, but are works of the flesh.
A person using drugs affects wives, kids, loved ones and society in ways to numerous to mention.
Also true of the drug alcohol. Shall we re-ban that drug?
Let me get this straight, your argument is that we should allow any harmful substance because some people abuse alcohol?
That's because that line of argument is a leftist ploy designed to minimize drug use. It's no worse than eating junk food or not getting enough sleep.
That's not the argument.
That's not the argument, but it's certainly the ploy the left uses to make drug use more acceptable.
Kids, drugs are for idiots.
Misrepresenting one's opponent's argument is for idiots.
Equating drug use with attending Harvard, eating junk food and sleep is an idiotic line of argument.
The Institute of Medicine said they very well might for terminal patients. How's that crow taste?
But I expect you'll stop arguing for smoking pot as a medicine when this Dronabinol inhaler comes on the market?
I'll argue that those who can afford the latter should certainly consider it first.
If just one person claims that smoking marijuana is better than taking any legally available, studied, metered and dosed medicine does that mean we HAVE to consider marijuana a medicine?
It means the decision should be left to patient and doctor.
If Rush is claiming that "affecting someone else" is the test for justifying government force, he's no longer a conservative. The true test, of course, is whether rights are violated ... which they are not by drug sale and use.
You're going to have a tough time convincing anyone that Rush isn't a conservative.
Conservative is as conservative does. Conservatism existed long before Rush and is not defined by him.
Rights, as defined by the constitution, are inalienable rights granted by God to the people he created. God certainly didn't intend that people smoke dope or other drugs.
Where's the evidence that He intended people to imprison other people for it?
A person using drugs affects wives, kids, loved ones and society in ways to numerous to mention.
Also true of the drug alcohol. Shall we re-ban that drug?
Let me get this straight, your argument is that we should allow any harmful substance because some people abuse alcohol?
No, my argument is that if you believed the principle you're proclaiming you'd support banning alcohol ... yet you don't.
That's because that line of argument is a leftist ploy designed to minimize drug use. It's no worse than eating junk food or not getting enough sleep.
That's not the argument.
That's not the argument
Then don't drag that straw man into this exchange.
Kids, drugs are for idiots.
Misrepresenting one's opponent's argument is for idiots.
Equating drug use with attending Harvard, eating junk food and sleep is an idiotic line of argument.
I didn't make that line of argument. Leave your straw men at the door.
There's no danger if you're going to die soon, is there? From the "Institute of Medicine" report:
Smoking marijuana is not recommended. The long-term harm caused by smoking marijuana makes it a poor drug delivery system, particularly for patients with chronic illnesses.
Terminal cancer patients pose different issues. For those patients the medical harm associated with smoking is of little consequence. For terminal patients suffering debilitating pain or nausea and for whom all indicated medications have failed to provide relief, the medical benefits of smoked marijuana might outweigh the harm.
If this is the "best" you guys have for experts recommending smoking marijuana, then you're on very shaky ground.
Note how very narrow and limited this ONE agency says smoked marijuana MIGHT be helpful. MIGHT.
To listen to the leftist propagandist one would think that smoking marijuana is the cure for every type of illness known to man.
But I expect you'll stop arguing for smoking pot as a medicine when this Dronabinol inhaler comes on the market?
I'll argue that those who can afford the latter should certainly consider it first.
Why am I not surprised. And if an inhaler were cheaper than buying pot would you THEN come out and condemn smoking marijuana as an effective medicine?
If just one person claims that smoking marijuana is better than taking any legally available, studied, metered and dosed medicine does that mean we HAVE to consider marijuana a medicine? It means the decision should be left to patient and doctor.
Let me guess....you're all for "assisted suicide" too, aren't you?
Rights, as defined by the constitution, are inalienable rights granted by God to the people he created. God certainly didn't intend that people smoke dope or other drugs.
Where's the evidence that He intended people to imprison other people for it?
Actually the penalty was death.
No, my argument is that if you believed the principle you're proclaiming you'd support banning alcohol ... yet you don't.
Of course I don't. Alcohol is biblically and legally sanctioned, although drunkneness is not.
That's because that line of argument is a leftist ploy designed to minimize drug use. It's no worse than eating junk food or not getting enough sleep. Then don't drag that straw man into this exchange. Kids, drugs are for idiots. Equating drug use with attending Harvard, eating junk food and sleep is an idiotic line of argument.
Hey, I'm not the one that compared drug use to:
A. Eating junk food.
B. Sleeping.
C. Attending Harvard.
D. Reading the New York Times.
If you don't want these comparisons to be called idiotic then don't make them.
That's enough to indicate that the decision should be up to doctors and patients.
To listen to the leftist propagandist one would think that smoking marijuana is the cure for every type of illness known to man.
Why do you keep dragging in the alleged arguments of anonymous others? I've never argued that smoking marijuana is the cure for every type of illness known to man.
And if an inhaler were cheaper than buying pot would you THEN come out and condemn smoking marijuana as an effective medicine?
If there were cheaper and more effective inhalers for every medical condition for which there is evidence of marijuana's effectiveness, then I would agree that prescribing/recommending smoked marijuana is unsound medicine.
If just one person claims that smoking marijuana is better than taking any legally available, studied, metered and dosed medicine does that mean we HAVE to consider marijuana a medicine?
It means the decision should be left to patient and doctor.
Let me guess....you're all for "assisted suicide" too, aren't you?
No ... death doesn't treat any condition, whereas marijuana does.
Rights, as defined by the constitution, are inalienable rights granted by God to the people he created. God certainly didn't intend that people smoke dope or other drugs.
Where's the evidence that He intended people to imprison other people for it?
Actually the penalty was death.
Where in the New Testament does it say that?
No, my argument is that if you believed the principle you're proclaiming you'd support banning alcohol ... yet you don't.
Of course I don't. Alcohol is biblically
The First Amendment clearly rules out basing laws solely on biblical grounds. (Not that the bible condemns marijuana.)
and legally sanctioned
You're arguing in circles; the question is whether, according to your professed principles, alcohol SHOULD be legally sanctioned ... and the answer is clearly no.
I'm not the one that compared drug use to:
A. Eating junk food.
B. Sleeping. [That was "not getting enough sleep," actually.]
You said pot is illegal because of its "potential to harm our society;" I asked where we drew the line, and you falsely claimed I had equated pot use with A and B ... and you've still never honestly answered the actual question despite numerous opportunities.
C. Attending Harvard.
D. Reading the New York Times.
Again, you said that pot should be illegal because "Pot makes its users docile, stupid and susceptible to liberal propaganda. Since they can remain in this docile and stupid state for decades they make the perfect voting bloc for liberal propaganda." I asked where we drew the line, and you falsely claimed I had equated pot use with C and D ... and you've still never honestly answered the actual question despite numerous opportunities.
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.