Posted on 12/18/2014 2:20:21 PM PST by balch3
This latest paper did not include new research, but analyzed previous literature on the subject. Advocates of medical marijuana have long argued that medical research of the drug continues to operate under the assumption that it's dangerous. Research on the drug has been hard to come by, mostly thanks to the federal government's classification of the drug as a schedule 1 substance -- the most dangerous type of drug with "no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse."
Last year, Sanjay Gupta, neurosurgeon and CNN's chief medical correspondent, apologized for his role in dismissing the medical legitimacy of marijuana. "It doesn't have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works," he wrote in an op-ed. "We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that.
Only a small percentage of marijuana studies consider medical benefits, with the vast majority focusing solely on potential ill-effects. "
I don't think this article gives a ringing endorsement for your stated position. Especially when you consider that it is part of the evidence that you posted to support that position, as opposed to one that I posted to refute it.
Fed law states it is illegal but of course this liberal admin ignores their certain laws for their own agenda.
here ‘s a thought for the usual B/S excuse to get drugs legal for the druggies.
There are so much pain meds already and I Know this after many surgeries, broken back and yes cancer.\\
Don’t need smoking weed fort he dopes to use as an excuse.
We all know many who want this drug pretend to have pain to get high, only an idiot would pretend otherwise
correct
so you want all drugs to be legal , is that it?
exactly
I stopped at when you had written about 3 Docs were laughing at you.
PPFFTT
correct
You were also wrong,assuming “exactly” was in support of fwdudes’s erroneous assumptions.
in your opinion.
so you want all drugs to be illegal , is that it?
>>Legal drugs.
“Both Washington and Jefferson tried growing hemp on their Virginia farms, with mixed success. Washington was never able to turn a profit on the crop despite sustained effort. Jefferson also seems to have grown hemp strictly for local consumption, from which we deduce he couldn’t make money at it either. In short, not only were Washington and Jefferson marijuana farmers, they were unsuccessful marijuana farmers.”
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/38205/george-washington-was-a-pot-head
legal, really profitable, drugs?
Evidently Washington and Jefferson learned what the Pharma-insurance syndicate knows — when something grows like a weed, a profitable cash cow it isn’t.
Evidently to turn something that grows like a weed into a cashcow, it must be made illegal.
Profiting from the illegal drug trade is something the AKSARBEN crowd would NEVER get involved with... would they?
“Nope. FedGov doesn’t have a constitutional right to make drug laws in the first place, therefore it can never actually be constitutional for something involving them to be ‘federal jurisdiction.’”
The Constitution states:
“The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and to promote the general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
That section allows the feds to tariff, control, and dictate whatever it wants re. international trade. Any product, legal or contraband, originating outside the U.S. can and SHOULD be regulated by the federal government. If a state like Colorado decides for itself what’s allowed at its border, that’s not only bad for other states, it’s also bad for business.
Like it or not, that’s the rules. And it includes illegals. If a state has a problem with it, escalate to the Supreme Court. Not sure what the big mystery is here.
Do you support the original intent of the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment?
If 'yes', then do you agree that the feds should butt out of a state's internal commerce?
That doesn’t even make sense.
You were agreeing that fwdude was right about my opinion, when he was in fact wrong about my opinion.
When I call you on it, your response is “in your opinion”.
Well, duh! I am certain that I know my own opinion far better than you know my opinion.
Of course states should regulate their own internal products. Drugs don’t work that way. It’s like booze, cigarettes and coffee. Majority of suppliers are interstate/International.
Not sure what the argument is here. It’s not like pot is new and never existed before 2014 can only be found in the lower valleys of Colorado.
Do you support the original intent of the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment, yes or no?
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.