This ticks me off

[Ron 10]

Quote

What's wrong with that?

Well for one, it would be illegal.

Don't like it? You are a lwayer, take it to the SC pro bono.

Quote

It's a shame that palliative remedies are not available to people who will be dead shortly. If a person is guaranteed of being dead in six months, why the hell wouldn't we want to give them a chance at some comfort for those months? Because we're worried that it might kill them in 15 years?

Both of the women in this case are not going to be dead in 6 mths. It has been 8 mths since it was argued. Yet they are still here.

Whats your take on "Mercy Killings"? I mean why not just shoot Grandma...She is gonna die in a few mths anyway and is not awake...Think of all the pain we will save her from.

Quote

It makes about as much sense as not allowing a last cigarette for the guy about to be executed because of the health risks.

It is illegal...Like I said, don't like it take it to the SC...You can do that, you have a JD.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,110]

>Pot was never found to be "Safe" in fact studies have shown the
>opposite:

>Smoking pot increases psychosis risk in young people . . .

OK, so contraindicated for children, like many other drugs.

>Researchers say the level of resistance to blood flow among light and
> moderate marijuana users improved over the course of the abstinence
> month. But there was no improvement among heavy marijuana users.

So contraindicated in the case of someone with vasoconstriction problems.

>Low doses of the main active ingredient in marijuana (search) slowed
>the progression of hardening of the arteries in mice, suggesting a hint for
>developing a new therapy in people.

So indicated for prevention of angina and atherosclerosis.

The cases you have listed indicate issues that are common with many drugs - they have benefits and drawbacks. In some cases, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. In other cases the opposite is true. Seems like a doctor is the best person to make that call.

>What about blood letting? It seemed to work well enough in the past
>according to some...Should we bring that back?

Funny you should mention that! We are indeed bringing back leeches. Turns out they work pretty well to unblock surface veins, and they help wounds heal. The FDA recently approved their usage. And although they have a high ick factor, they do not have a 'war on leeches' to contend with, so their approval was only tedious instead of impossible.

[Alias 0]

Quote

Do you have proof that it fixes all these problems?

What, Lilly making many THC like drugs isnt good enough for you?


Goodman, L. S., and Gilman, A.: "The Pharmacological Basic of Therapeutics," 2nd Edition, Macmillan, New York, 1955

Hardman, Harold F., Domino, Edward F. and Seevers, Maurice T., "General Pharmacological Actions of Synthetic Tetrahydrocannabinol Derivatives," 1971. Unpublished

All based on case study

and lets not forget the American Public Health Association

[url]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/apha.htm">http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/iom/IOMReport.htm[url] a good start.

And, yes I have seen proof. I've seen chemo
patients NOT eat until given marijuana in forms such as butter or vapors. Appetite increased dramatically allowing them to eat and maintain the caloric count necessary for recovery. I've seen cancer patience so sick they could not only not eat, but funtion enough to get out of bed. Marujuana relieved them of this issue to some degree. I've seen AIDS patients find comfort in smoking marijuana. I've seen many applications in many cases - proof in my eyes because I witnessed it with my own eyes

James Anthony of John Hopkins also disagrees with you Ron. I can tell you he seems the type to have never tried it, but his findings contradict your views. His studies have shown him the same benefits with his patients...evidence I think we call that. In a study environment, by a medical professional with serious credentials.

[url]http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_medical_info3.shtml[url/]


***Cause some disagree:***

um, Since 1996, ten states have legalized medical marijuana use - so some also agree huh?

Just in case you need details:

State Statutes Recognizing Marijuana's Medical Value


Alabama Code SS 20-2-110 to -120 (1984)

Arizona Rev. Stat. Ann. SS 36-2601 to -2606 (supp. 1975-1984)

Arkansas Stat. Ann. SS 82-1007.1 to -1052 (supp. 1985)

California Health & Safety Code SS 11260-11270; S 11480 (West supp. 1985)

Colorado Rev. Stat. SS 25-5-901 to -907 (1982)

Connecticut Gen. Stat. Ann. SS 21a-240 to -308 (West 1985)

Florida Stat. Ann. S 402.36 (West Supp. 1985),

repealed by Laws 1984, ch. 84-115, S 9 (1984)

SS 893.01-.15 (West 1976 & Supp. 1985)

Georgia Code Ann. SS 43-34-120 to -126 (1984)

Illinois Rev. Stat. ch 56 1/2, SS 701-719 (Supp. 1985)

Louisiana Rev. Stat Ann. SS 40:1021-:1026 (West Supp. 1985)

Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, SS 2401-2420 (1964 & Supp. 1984-1985)

Michigan Rev. Stat. Ann. SS14.15(7335)-(7336) (Callaghan Supp 1985-1986)

Minnesota Stat. Ann. S152.21 (West Supp. 1985)

Montana Code Ann. SS 50-32-101 to -405 (1983)

Nevada Rev. Stat. SS453.740-.810 (1983)

New Hampshire Rev. Stat. Ann. S318-B:10 (1984)

New Jersey Pub. Health Law SS 26:2L-1 to -9 (West Supp 1985)

New Mexico Stat. Ann. SS 26-2A-1 to -7 (supp. 1983)

New York Pub. Health Law SS 3397-a to -g (McKinney 1984-1985)

North Carolina Gen. Stat. S 90-101 (1981)

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. SS 3719.85-.87 (Page Supp. 1984),

repealed by 138v.S.184, S 4 (1984)

Oklahoma Stat. Ann. SS 2-101 to -610 (West 1984 and Supp. 1984-1985)

Oregon Rev. Stat S 475.515 (1983)

Rhode Island Gen. Laws SS 21-28.4-1 to -11 (1982)

South Carolina Code Ann. SS 44-53-610 to -660 (Law Co-op. 1985)

Tennessee Code Ann. SS 44-53-610 to -660 (Law Co-op. 1985)

Texas Stat. Ann art. 4476-15, SS 7.0-1-.10 (Vernon Supp. 1985)

Vermont Stat. Ann. tit. 18, S 4471 (1982)

Virginia Code S 18.2-251.1 (1982)

Also:

Massachussets Senate Bill 1582, passed by both houses and signed by

Governor William Weld on December 31, 1991





***So other than anicdotal evidence, has any Medical studies proven pot to be a good drug***


A bit dated - short on time at the moment

Ames, Frances: "A clinical and metabolic study of acute intoxication with cannabis sativa and its role in the model psychoses," "J. of Mental Science," 104:972-99, Oct. 1958

Goodman, L. S., and Gilman, A.: "The Pharmacological Basic of Therapeutics," 2nd Edition, Macmillan, New York, 1955

Hardman, Harold F., Domino, Edward F. and Seevers, Maurice T., "General Pharmacological Actions of Synthetic Tetrahydrocannabinol Derivatives," 1971. Unpublished

All based on case study

and lets not forget the American Public Health Association

[url]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/apha.htm

Carpe Diem

[Alias 0]

Quote

Do you have proof that it fixes all these problems?

***Cause some disagree:***

um, Since 1996, ten states have legalized medical marijuana use - so some also agree huh?

Just in case you need details:

State Statutes Recognizing Marijuana's Medical Value


Alabama Code SS 20-2-110 to -120 (1984)

Arizona Rev. Stat. Ann. SS 36-2601 to -2606 (supp. 1975-1984)

Arkansas Stat. Ann. SS 82-1007.1 to -1052 (supp. 1985)

California Health & Safety Code SS 11260-11270; S 11480 (West supp. 1985)

Colorado Rev. Stat. SS 25-5-901 to -907 (1982)

Connecticut Gen. Stat. Ann. SS 21a-240 to -308 (West 1985)

Florida Stat. Ann. S 402.36 (West Supp. 1985),

repealed by Laws 1984, ch. 84-115, S 9 (1984)

SS 893.01-.15 (West 1976 & Supp. 1985)

Georgia Code Ann. SS 43-34-120 to -126 (1984)

Illinois Rev. Stat. ch 56 1/2, SS 701-719 (Supp. 1985)

Louisiana Rev. Stat Ann. SS 40:1021-:1026 (West Supp. 1985)

Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, SS 2401-2420 (1964 & Supp. 1984-1985)

Michigan Rev. Stat. Ann. SS14.15(7335)-(7336) (Callaghan Supp 1985-1986)

Minnesota Stat. Ann. S152.21 (West Supp. 1985)

Montana Code Ann. SS 50-32-101 to -405 (1983)

Nevada Rev. Stat. SS453.740-.810 (1983)

New Hampshire Rev. Stat. Ann. S318-B:10 (1984)

New Jersey Pub. Health Law SS 26:2L-1 to -9 (West Supp 1985)

New Mexico Stat. Ann. SS 26-2A-1 to -7 (supp. 1983)

New York Pub. Health Law SS 3397-a to -g (McKinney 1984-1985)

North Carolina Gen. Stat. S 90-101 (1981)

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. SS 3719.85-.87 (Page Supp. 1984),

repealed by 138v.S.184, S 4 (1984)

Oklahoma Stat. Ann. SS 2-101 to -610 (West 1984 and Supp. 1984-1985)

Oregon Rev. Stat S 475.515 (1983)

Rhode Island Gen. Laws SS 21-28.4-1 to -11 (1982)

South Carolina Code Ann. SS 44-53-610 to -660 (Law Co-op. 1985)

Tennessee Code Ann. SS 44-53-610 to -660 (Law Co-op. 1985)

Texas Stat. Ann art. 4476-15, SS 7.0-1-.10 (Vernon Supp. 1985)

Vermont Stat. Ann. tit. 18, S 4471 (1982)

Virginia Code S 18.2-251.1 (1982)

Also:

Massachussets Senate Bill 1582, passed by both houses and signed by

Governor William Weld on December 31, 1991





***So other than anicdotal evidence, has any Medical studies proven pot to be a good drug***


A bit dated - short on time at the moment

Ames, Frances: "A clinical and metabolic study of acute intoxication with cannabis sativa and its role in the model psychoses," "J. of Mental Science," 104:972-99, Oct. 1958

Goodman, L. S., and Gilman, A.: "The Pharmacological Basic of Therapeutics," 2nd Edition, Macmillan, New York, 1955

Hardman, Harold F., Domino, Edward F. and Seevers, Maurice T., "General Pharmacological Actions of Synthetic Tetrahydrocannabinol Derivatives," 1971. Unpublished

All based on case study

and lets not forget the American Public Health Association

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/apha.htm

Carpe Diem

[lawrocket 3]

Ron:

I understand your points. But, I also think that there should be some exceptions to it - especially for some of the FDA's general rules.

I personally think that there are probably a large percentage of people who get these sham prescriptions. I believe that there are plenty of "Ricky Williams" sorts who just like pot, and hope to have some form of prescription for it to make their lives easier in using it.

Is it illegal? Yes, it is. My problem is that "by holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power."

This is, to me, the equivalent of Congress regulating love coupons from my son, i.e., making it illegal for a person, using articles of interstate commerce, to create individual care items. Since the crayons and papers were part of interstate commerce, Congress is perfectly free to make the making of "love coupons" illegal.

In fact, it even causes problems for the gift card industry - we can't have little kids using crayons and construction paper duty free when there's money to be made off of taxes for gift cards.

Under a case liek this, the federal government's authority to regulate is almost unlimited. By "almost" i mean, "for all intents and purposes."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Ron 10]

Quote

What, Lilly making many THC like drugs isnt good enough for you?

If it is so good, then why not go about it legally?

If you have proof, join Lawrocket and take it to the SC.

The SC ruled correctly here.

Don't like it? Change the law. They even said that much in the ruling.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Let the patient suffering from chronic pain, cancer, nausea, AIDS wasting, lack of appetite, schizophrenia, glaucoma and especially nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy continue to suffer - because Congress calls it "illegal"?

Do you have proof that it fixes all these problems?

Cause some disagree:

Quote

"Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion. To date, science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy, said Monday.

So other than anicdotal evidence, has any Medical studies proven pot to be a good drug?

The reason is easy to see; Congress has decreed that weed has no medicinal value, and it is illegal to do the research to prove otherwise. This is a case where absence of evidence proves nothing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I understand your points. But, I also think that there should be some exceptions to it - especially for some of the FDA's general rules.

Then take it to the SC and make it legal.
I dont care about Pot one way or another...But it is currently illegal, and the SC did its job by this ruling.

Quote

Is it illegal? Yes, it is. My problem is that "by holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power."

Congress may over ride States when it comes to States trying to over rule Federal Laws.

The beauty of the system is that even the courts agree that you can try to change the law...But you have to change Federal law in *Federal courts*. Not just passing a law in a State.

Federal trumps State. Now you can claim that it takes power away from the States....Yes it does.

If you find that wrong, please bring it to the SC.

Quote

This is, to me, the equivalent of Congress regulating love coupons from my son, i.e., making it illegal for a person, using articles of interstate commerce, to create individual care items. Since the crayons and papers were part of interstate commerce, Congress is perfectly free to make the making of "love coupons" illegal.

No I don't see it that way since "Love coupons" are not illegal. If they were illegal under Federal Law, then the Federal Government would have the right to prevent a State from over rulling a Federal Law.

Federal Laws trump State Laws. If you think a Federal Law is unjust, you are allowed to take that up with the SC.

In this case a State tried to legalize something that the FEDERAL Government said was illegal.

Forget about the topic for a second....It is about a State trying to over turn a Federal Law. The SC did its job here.

Now if you want Pot to be legal (Forget it...With all the lawsuits against tabacco...yeah) Take it up with the Federal Government, not the State.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

The reason is easy to see; Congress has decreed that weed has no medicinal value, and it is illegal to do the research to prove otherwise. This is a case where absence of evidence proves nothing.

It is not illegal to do research.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152653,00.html

Otherwise these people should be in jail.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

You said it was found "safe" it has not been found "safe".

Quote

Sometimes that makes sense, when anecdotal/historical evidence says it's safe

Quote

The cases you have listed indicate issues that are common with many drugs - they have benefits and drawbacks. In some cases, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. In other cases the opposite is true. Seems like a doctor is the best person to make that call.

When he has information from studies....Sure. Right now I don't see any studies that show smoking pot to be healthy.

Even the artical I posted earlier said that the benefits of THC were with doses lower than one would get if they smoked it. And that the added does from smoking it WAS NOT better.

So study it all ya want, make little pills all ya want.

But you have not proven that smoking it is healthy.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

No I don't see it that way since "Love coupons" are not illegal. If they were illegal under Federal Law, then the Federal Government would have the right to prevent a State from over rulling a Federal Law.

That's just the problem. The Constitution is set up to enumerate the powers of the US Government. Since the 1930's, these enumerated powers have been expanded to be limitless.

The Constitution limited these powers to ensure that the federal government doesn't intrude on the states. So the law was challenged because people (myself included) thought that the federal government had no business making this law, or, at the very least, that the law cannot Constitutionally cover activities that were not related to interstate commerce. If you note that the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to regulate "commerce" but only "interstate commerce" you'll see my point.

Another point? What's to stop the feds from passing a law that bans love coupons?

Final point - I can't challenge this law in the SC. It's already run it's course. We'll just have to live with it until Congress decides they want to limit their power by taking this law off of the books.

Yeah, right. Congress ain't in the business of making your life easier. It's in the business to create more limits on what you or I can do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Ron 10]

Quote

That's just the problem. The Constitution is set up to enumerate the powers of the US Government. Since the 1930's, these enumerated powers have been expanded to be limitless.

There are checks in place.

Quote

The Constitution limited these powers to ensure that the federal government doesn't intrude on the states

Yes, but this is a case of the States trying to over ride the Federal Government.

The Fed says that Pot is illegal. The States cannot come in and say..."Well, here its legal".

That would be like a State saying, "Here in FL. we don't pay Federal Taxes".

Where does the States rights end? When is the State over stepping its bounds and trying to change FEDERAL Law?

Should a State be allowed to make whatever rules it wants irreguardless of the Fedral laws?

Quote

Another point? What's to stop the feds from passing a law that bans love coupons?

The SC for one.

But if The Federal Government says that Racism is illegal...Does that mean that Alabama can say that racism IS legal?

Where is the line drawn?

Quote

Final point - I can't challenge this law in the SC. It's already run it's course. We'll just have to live with it until Congress decides they want to limit their power by taking this law off of the books.

You can't fight THIS law, but you can try to get the Legislative branch to try and legalize Pot.

Quote

Yeah, right. Congress ain't in the business of making your life easier. It's in the business to create more limits on what you or I can do.

ALL laws prevent. People who don't break the laws don't need them....Only those who will break them need them. And then they have to be appplied to them, they will not follow them just becasue they are laws.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

The reason is easy to see; Congress has decreed that weed has no medicinal value, and it is illegal to do the research to prove otherwise. This is a case where absence of evidence proves nothing.

It is not illegal to do research.

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, defined as having a high potential for abuse and no medicinal value. In 1972, a petition was submitted to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (now known as the Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA) to reschedule marijuana so that it could be prescribed to patients. In 1988, the DEA's chief administrative law judge, Francis L. Young, ruled that, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known . . . It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance . . ." The DEA refused to implement this ruling and continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule I substance.

In 1997, Conant v. McCaffrey, a class-action lawsuit, was filed on behalf of physicians and seriously ill patients against Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey and other top federal officials who threatened to revoke prescription licenses or criminally prosecute physicians who recommend medical marijuana.




Yup, that makes it real easy to do clinical trials.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes, but this is a case of the States trying to over ride the Federal Government.

The Fed says that Pot is illegal. The States cannot come in and say..."Well, here its legal".

That would be like a State saying, "Here in FL. we don't pay Federal Taxes".

How do you see those are remotely similar, Ron?

Federal taxes pay for centrally provided services, including national defense. That is one of several roles provided in our compact in the Constitution.

Local drug use [should be] a local community standard. If Californians want to allow its citizens to smoke pot in CA, how does that affect the you in Florida or the nation in general? Just as each state regulates alcohol, strip clubs, and other social standards.

As for research, I think we need to look outside this country for useful science. Here politics has deeply penetrated, just as it has in gun statistics. Do you agree with the CDC that gun violence is an epidemic?

Very ill people are in a lot of pain. It's quite clear that smoking weed is a coping drug, and with far less side effects than the pharma drugs. Also less addictive than many of these painkillers. That medical pot is abused by potheads shouldn't be enough reason to declare it unacceptable.

[lawrocket 3]

Ron, thank you for showing the questions.

Quote

Yes, but this is a case of the States trying to over ride the Federal Government.

The Fed says that Pot is illegal. The States cannot come in and say..."Well, here its legal".

There are supposed to be only certain things the Feds can call "illegal." With this law, they are using the enumerated power of the commerce clause, which allows congress to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce. For example, Congress could ban jerking off for the stated reason that it affects interstate commerce. Before today, such a law would probably be stricken since jerking off does not have that effect.

Simply put, the states can tell the feds to screw off if the feds do something that they have no power to do. As of today, the list of things the feds cannot do has been whittled away substantially.

Quote

That would be like a State saying, "Here in FL. we don't pay Federal Taxes".

No it isn't. The states used to be able to do that with regards to income taxes until the Sixteenth Amendment. The states couldn't say that about apportioned taxes, though.

Quote

Should a State be allowed to make whatever rules it wants irreguardless of the Fedral laws?

Nope. But when federal laws are unconstitutional, I'd love to see the states do it.

Quote

But if The Federal Government says that Racism is illegal...Does that mean that Alabama can say that racism IS legal?

Where is the line drawn?

It used to be like that. Then the 13th-15th Amendments were passed guaranteeing equal rights. The Constitution said nothing of that at first. The states did not have to abide by those laws. So they didn't. See? Enumerated v. non-enumerated powers.

The Constitution gave the Congress power to make laws ensuring equal access, etc. Then Congress passed laws pursuant to these amendments to eliminate Jim Crow.

Congress had specifically enumerated powers to do so where it had none before.

Quote

You can't fight THIS law, but you can try to get the Legislative branch to try and legalize Pot.

Yep. Or get the executive branch not to enforce it (the latter is a popular thing, too.)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Yup, that makes it real easy to do clinical trials

Yous aid you can't...I showed on where they did. That by itself proves you wrong.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

How do you see those are remotely similar, Ron?

In both cases the State would try to over rule the Federal Government.

Quote

Local drug use [should be]

Should be...Well its not. Change that first then the SC's ruling would have been different.

Quote

As for research, I think we need to look outside this country for useful science. Here politics has deeply penetrated, just as it has in gun statistics. Do you agree with the CDC that gun violence is an epidemic?

Violence is an epidemic...Guns just make it easier.

Quote

Very ill people are in a lot of pain. It's quite clear that smoking weed is a coping drug, and with far less side effects than the pharma drugs. Also less addictive than many of these painkillers. That medical pot is abused by potheads shouldn't be enough reason to declare it unacceptable.

Who cares about side effects if the very ill people need the pain killers?

Like I have said several times...I don't give a rats ass about Pot. But it is Illegal, and the SC made the right call. Dont like it? Then try to change it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Yup, that makes it real easy to do clinical trials

Yous aid you can't...I showed on where they did. That by itself proves you wrong.

Umm- in case you hadn't noticed, that was a trial on MICE. Are you a mouse?

It's easy to claim "no medicinal value" when you threaten any doctor who conducts a clinical trial on a human with a federal felony.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[fallingchip 0]

Quote

Quote

Let the patient suffering from chronic pain, cancer, nausea, AIDS wasting, lack of appetite, schizophrenia, glaucoma and especially nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy continue to suffer - because Congress calls it "illegal"?

Do you have proof that it fixes all these problems?

Cause some disagree:***

______________________________________________________

Have you ever been on chemotherapy? Neither have I, but I have been at the side of someone dear to my life that IS. "Pot" when smoked or eatend can relieve the chronic pain better and cheaper than most prescription medications. Also, if your not aware, one of the MANY side effects of chemotheropy is loss of appetite which is one of the more life threatening side effects. People on chemotheropy have unknowingly caused further harm to their already fragile bodies and few have even died just from starvation. Chemotheropy makes you sick to your stomach, the last thing you want to do is eat. Everybody knows "pot" causes the "munchies" and IS EFFECTIVE in combating the lack of appetite problem. Seeing as how I am watching a loved one going through this and I seeing first hand that "Pot" is more effective than any of the medications she is on. I don't need a buch of politicians telling me something I can see with my own to eyes, especially when 90% of the politicians are wined and dined by the pharmasceutical companies including Mr. John Walters.
____________________________________________________________

______________________________________________
"A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

• Quote

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Local drug use [should be]

Should be...Well its not. Change that first then the SC's ruling would have been different.

Lawrocket covered this angle. The Constitutional backing for this ruling is weak.

Quote

Who cares about side effects if the very ill people need the pain killers?

Fallingchip covered this one.

Quote

Like I have said several times...I don't give a rats ass about Pot. But it is Illegal, and the SC made the right call. Dont like it? Then try to change it.

They did. Put an initiative on the ballot here and the voters passed it. Should be end of story. People in other states have acted accordingly. It shouldn't be necessary to convince a majority of people/states of a practice that is considered acceptable within a single state.

Will you still be a fan of no states rights when another Clinton is in the White House, Ron?

[Zenister 0]

the 'studies' that reported that were about as impartial as a christian who goes to look for God using the bible as his sole source.....

they had their answers before they conducted a single test...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 3,110]

>When he has information from studies....Sure.

Then he should be able to prescribe.

British Journal of Anaesthesia: "Cannabis has a long history of therapeutic use in the Middle East and Asia, with references as early as the 6th century BC... In recent years data have accumulated which supports a therapeutic effect of cannabis for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy for neoplastic disease, spasticity and muscle spasms associated with spinal cord lesions or multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma."

Western Journal of Medicine: "Two-thirds of U.S. doctors believe that the legal penalties for cannabis are too severe, and 41% favor outright legalization for recreational and medical use."

US Institute of Medicine: "The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation."

8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections: "What these data show is that short-term use of marijuana is safe in people with HIV/AIDS who are taking HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy.)"

>But you have not proven that smoking it is healthy.

It is no more "healthy" than morphine is. (Ever seen a morphine addict?) But as skydivers, we are very glad that doctors can use that dangerous and addictive drug, even though it is loaded with side effects, to temporarily reduce pain. When the medical use of marijuana is finally legalized (which it eventually will be) then HIV and chemotherapy patients will be similarly glad. Until then they will suffer.

[Guest]

I think the biggest problem with legalization is that people will just go apeshit and the overall burden to society will be worse.

We're a "compassionate" society, remember? We'll pay even more to rehab all those dopers that wouldn't have gotten there in the first place if it weren't for legalization.

IF, and I do mean IF society would both provide all the dope to the dopes that want them ANY DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO STOP OR HELP THEM WHEN THEY DESTROY THEMSELVES, I guess we'd "weed" out (hehehe) the druggies, and Darwin take the rest.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Zenister 0]

not really, that is simply a fallacy often used as a scare tactic....look at the record for prohibition to see the 'real' anticipated effects..

if you imprison people for WHAT THEY DO, as opposed to what they might POTENTIALLY do, then we wouldnt have so many issues at all, and a MUCH lower prison population...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We're a "compassionate" society, remember? We'll pay even more to rehab all those dopers that wouldn't have gotten there in the first place if it weren't for legalization.

how many potheads get rehabbed? Is there even a course of treatment?

Come on - the penalty to society is pretty low. They'll be marginal employees, maybe. A significant number of the IT people in the Bay Area continue to smoke weed in spite of increased testing and seem to be functional enough.