Posted on 06/30/2005 2:51:57 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
UN Report Puts World's Illicit Drug Trade At Estimated $321 Billion
It's like how liberals always hide behind children to ram their social agendas down our throats. I'm sick of being manipulated by these losers. The real victims are just pawns in their relentless narcissism.
And Michael Jackson is still at large...
Libertarians turned Classical Liberalism into the liberalism of the left, minus the economic ignorance. The paganism of libertarians that leftists like John Stewart Mill developed his views on liberty, which were integrated into a liberalism representing a lawless valueless mentality that libs share today - which deviates from liberalism historically as it developed in the West with Judeo-Christian values. It goes against the core faith that the Founders and Colonists of this nation. Basically, the pagans saw the world as a survival of the fit selfish universe, and their fellow pagans observed that, which is basically what you see in Deadwood. Other pagans were obviously upset, so they founded Socialism, and thus the return to the centralization of authority under man-kings and subjectivism. Those who we would call libertarians today, the pagan capitalists, seperated the institutions from the values, values that made the difference in a world that is thousands of years behind where they could be without them, and thus produced very destructive social theories, while natural innovation carried on based on the inherited productivity of the societies of Europe. People can forget that sometimes technology can be far ahead of moral values, and it can seem that that which is backwards and a return to barbarism, is actually something that is a result of progress. The millions of supporters of the National Socialist German Workers Party and Bolshevik, and the global communist movements (including many high level US govt officials and academics) really believed that they were making the future, while it had yet to happen, according to their materialistic viewpoint on the timeline of history. But they were not. The same thing happened in academia, the attempt to be trendier than thou led us to go from academic libertarianism to academic socialism.
"...What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not." - Jonah 1:6
"'Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm upon you: for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you.' Nevertheless The men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them." - Jonah 1:12-14
"Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly," - Jonah 2:1
Jonah in the belly of the beast illustrates the experience and crucible that God's Crusaders have to navigate and endure in order to answer the cries of lost souls. All that the pessimistically conditioned man has to do is read between the lines and he will be just as in awe of the Word of God as he was in more ancient times. I've seen news stories where someone was shot in the head with a nailgun or pierced by an arrow that pierced through the brain and survived, with apparently very little effect. So I am open to the idea that someone could have survived for three days inside of a sea creature. It wouldn't take much divine intervention for that to happen.) The sea (representing the universe?) is tempestuous and will not calm itself unless we are in harmony with the Lord and lose our contempt for what is right.
That really is the bottom line. America's Founders understood this. How did John Witherspoon put it? "Love to God, and love to man, is the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do." That these prevailed more in the United States than in any other comparable area is due to the faith and guidance of the Redeemer of Man. The whole world can be like the United States, and even better than it is now. Where my beliefs differ from that of the thoughtful atheist or agnostic is in that besides the miracle of creation, I believe in the miracle of the incarnation; that these were divine interventions/events. This is the key to the difference between libs who would produce another France or whatever in our country, and the Christians which would produce another America abroad. I say that the second group has it right.
Do they give breathalyzers too?
Don't knock it until you have MS and are able to try it.
Soros is a very smart guy, very evil, and a chess player.
I suspect he cares very little about legalizing pot for any principled reason --- or cares about it because he sees it as a way of making money and/or hurting the US or interests he opposes in the US (say like Coors family, for example --- Republican and active against the queer agenda).
While the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" often makes sense, it's very dangerous. Stalin was worse than Hitler. The Taliban worse that Russia. Etc.
In short, when you make a deal with the Devil, he generally gets the better end of the transaction.
Good post, interesting perspective differs from my view, but the psychology is most accurate...
Thanks. Feel free to add your perspective.
How exactly this screen name describes a lot of my closest friends!
If you had a loved one or friend who was in pain and that person told that they found relief from Pot what would you do? Would you call the authorities and report them?
Unofficial estimate....at least half the people on this site are uninterested in (or opposed to) liberty or rights.
Do yourself a favor. Stop using drugs. Its bad for you and everyone around you.
Is it your custom to stop for red lights? If you insist the issue is, in fact, that government may not command obedience, then your answer must necessarily be ‘No!’ What end for government is possible if it may not command obedience? We might as well do without government. Perhaps that is your object?
You ask if there is no limit to which I would permit myself to be governed and controlled by others. I contend that is the issue. Whither is the limit to be set?
You assert the absolute right to ingest anything you choose, anywhere, any time, in any manner. Then it must be that you oppose absolutely any laws governing, for instance, open containers, public drunkenness, or DUI. Presumably, then, you likewise assert the absolute right to evacuate whatever you ingest anywhere, any time, by whatever means. You apparently wish to live in a state of nature. You can do that. Forty-six percent of the globe’s land mass remains a wilderness.
You observe that we are governed by men (men in the generic sense). Obviously. Some will insist that we are (or should be) governed by law. They are right, of course, but I take your point just the same. Madison once said “if men were angels, there would be no need of government.” Since men are not angels, a sovereign must be found. Whence shall he come? Hamilton wanted a King. Madison suggested the people. In fact, Madison, Jefferson, &co, proposed that the people are sovereign, and that all wisdom resides in their will. If this sounds reckless, even so revolutionary
as to be suicidal, propose an alternative. What does “governments ... deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed” mean, if not that? And, ‘consent’ suggests that it is the people who
set the limits.
I do.
What makes you think that the marijuana you give your dad doesn't contain fungi and bacteria -- portentially lethal to a person on chemo? Did you even know that, Dr. I-got-my-medical-degree-at-marijuanaiscool.com?
Hamadeh and associates. Chest, Vol. 94/2, pp.432-433, 1988. "Invasive aspergillosis has become a significant cause of death in immunosuppressed patients". Physicians should be aware of this potentially lethal complication of marijuana use in compromised hosts such as patients with AIDS or malignancies.)
Transplantation, Vol. 61, June 27, 1996. (Marijuana smoke transmits aspergillosis, a fungus having up to a 90% fatality rate if contracted by transplant patients. Researchers have strongly warned against the use of marijuana in immuno-compromised patients such as those with AIDS, chronic granulomatous disease, bone marrow transplants and those receiving chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer.)
Voth EA, Schwartz RH. Medicinal applications of delta 9 THC and marijuana: a perspective. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997: 126:791-8. (Marijuana is not a panacea. It is an impure weed that introduces immuno compromised patients to bacteria, fungi, and other toxic complications. We recommend sticking with predictable medical therapies and not deviating from FDA approved medicine in exchange for herbal remedies.
An amendment was desired, not required.
Where did you read that one was required? Seriously.
He clearly hasn't. His only Constitutional reference so far asserted that the general welfare clause gave the federal government unlimited power. That hardly shows having read the document.
Don't feel bad. I don't expect you to have followed the debate closely, with you being drunk and all.
All you have to do is look at the way liberals want legalization to *be* and you'll understand why Soros supports it. Just look at how medical marijuana works, for example. The government controls it with ID cards and lists and approved stores and growers and whatnot. It's a plant for crying out loud, yet these idiots create an entire bureaucratic monstrosity to take care of distribution and use even though any 5-year-old could grow this stuff in his living room. The liberals don't want simple legalization--they want to replace the current prohibition regime with a just-as-oppressive authoritarian regime that emphasizes *forced treatment* and *social services* and *education* and all the other useless feel-good PC nonsense that normally goes hand-in-hand with any liberal program (including most of all TAX DOLLARS, of course).
Of course Soros is on board. Why wouldn't he be? He's a Socialist who thrives a building socialist programs. This is his forte.
Conservatives can either sit back and watch it happen, or fight for a legalization regime that doesn't include all the leftist government-mandated social services and sign-up sheets and ID cards and tax-dollars and whatnot.
Legalization of marijuana is inevitable.
The only thing left to decide is *what* kind of legalization regime we're going to end up with.
So far, socialist legalization ala Soros is the only option currently on the table. While conservatives twiddle their thumbs. It's too bad, really.
Your figures are from a formula, the variables of which consist of guesses*. You cannot support it.
An actual survey by SAMHSA shows a decrease.
*such as a numerical factor for the relative truthtelling of heroin users vs. cocaine users.
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.