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 ...
I never liked the stuff. I don't care if it's legalized, just don't BS me about its health benefits. It's bad for you, but I believe people have a right to hurt themselves if they want to. My liver proves it. And I ain't "holdin'" nuttin but ouzo.
"You call it abuse. I call that a hoax -- "deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage"."
That's like saying "medical morphine is a hoax," because some people abuse it.
Note the use of the quantifier, SOME.
" It doesn't apply to Oxycontin since Oxycontin is legal -- legal because it has recognized medical use in the U.S."
The US Government supplies Marijuana to some patients, and denies it to others. It recognizes the medical use for some, but not all.
Marijuana IS legal - to a very small set of people.
Oxycontin is legal - to a larger set of people.
It has the negative side-effects of any smoked substance, but it undeniably does have positive effects for some medical conditions. Whether the negatives outweigh the positives will vary from case to case, and so should be decided by each patient and his doctor, not by the government.
yeah, i suppose if smoked enough pot it would.
I gather that "nanny statism" is how one describes the outlawing of one's favorite vice?
No need. It's a rhetorical question.
I concur with you. I don't care if it's legalized either.
Having said that, I stopped smoking it when hydroponic pot passed 115 generations from sensimilla.
Today's pot can lead to extreme paranoia and dangerous lowing of blood sugar levels. It can be a very scarey drug for new users, especially kids.
Still substituting personal attacks for reasoned debate, I see. (As it happens, I haven't smoked marijuana in about fifteen years, so it hardly qualifies as my favorit vice.)
No, it discontinued the study program -- those remaining on the program were grandfathered in and were to continue to report results.
"Marijuana IS legal - to a very small set of people."
Yes, of course it is. That "very small set of people" (a grand total of seven) represents the last of a failed (and discontinued) government study.
I sincerely hope you don't think you're making a point with that analogy.
Go back to familiar ground -- comparing marijuana to alcohol. This Oxycontin thing ain't workin' for you.
Oh, I noticed it all right. I simply ignored it, since I don't call 99% "some".
Yes, 99%. In a California study, 99% of medical marijuana "patients" were already smoking marijuana prior to their first doctors visit to obtain a "recommendation".
Coincidence, I'm sure.
Just how many cases are we talking about that fit the description of 1) nothing else works, and 2) the positives outweigh the negatives?
100?
We should legalize medical marijuana because of 100 patients?
Great opportunity here for the Hidden Law, but you'll have nothing of THAT! By gawd, if it's legal for those 100 patients, then it's legal for everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Libertarian.
"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."
The people DO set the limits... BUT only to the degree that they cannot get government to do in their names and on their behalf that which the individual cannot legitimately do for himself. In other words, if YOU do not have the legitimate authority, as an individual, one of the sovereign People, to go to your neighbor's house and, on pain of locking him in your basement for five or ten years, compel him to ingest or refrain from ingesting what YOU think right and proper for him, then you cannot have someone else (government) do it in your name or on your behalf. And trust me, you as an individual, do NOT have that sort of authority over anyone but yourself (and your children living under your roof).
I sincerely hope you don't think you're making a point with that analogy.
There's nothing sincere about your post. You know very well what the point is, and you're squirming to avoid it.
Why should that be the criterion, rather than "nothing else works as well"?
and 2) the positives outweigh the negatives? 100? We should legalize medical marijuana because of 100 patients?
Beats letting them suffer.
Great opportunity here for the Hidden Law, but you'll have nothing of THAT!
Nor will you when it comes to any other abusable medicine, hypocrite.
Hey, I'll tell you again. It's irrelevant whether the medicine may be, or is, abused.
Oxycontin has accepted medical use. It's been researched, studied, accepted, ... and approved by the FDA. The fact that is is abused by some is no reason to make it illegal and dispensed with a wink and a nudge.
Get smoked marijuana approved as medicine by the FDA with endorsements by the major medical organizations and we'll talk about comparing the two drugs. Until then, we have nothing to discuss.
Ditto for medical marijuana.
Get smoked marijuana approved as medicine by the FDA
I'd rather take back medical decisions from bureaucrats and return them to doctors. But that's just me.
Ask yourself, "If there are a half-dozen legal drugs that work, and IF illegal smoked marijuana works 'just as well', is that a good enough reason to legalize marijuana?"
A hollow-point to the brain is 100% effective in curing migraines. Other than the obvious side effect, it works just as well (if not better) than any drug out there. Should that be an accepted medical procedure?
Wrong question ... the correct question in a free country is, "Is there good enough reason to ban marijuana?" With your givens, the answer is no.
A hollow-point to the brain is 100% effective in curing migraines.
False analogy: that negative outweighs the positives in 100% of cases.
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.