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 ...
They post all over DU for this conservative cause of theirs as well. ;-o
Or anarchists.
You have no right to put all the extra responsiblity on society for your problems with illegal and dangerous guns.
(Enjoy, that's what you'll hear from President Clinton II)
would a bunch of WOD proponents stage a fake video to uphold their multi billions of dollars of yearly income they receive?
would they want to protect their 'asset forfeiture' privileges ad as the current 'ruling class?'
would a governor subvert the will of the people to keep MILLIONS or billions of dollars in state aid they are using to buy whores and legally prescribed drugs of choice for rich elites???
pass the viagra gov!
I am against drugs.
AND the war on "some" drug users.
It's a government power grab.
and a fait accompli.
and it's over with...
nobody gives a flip.
now watch when somebody stops a state's move to amend eminent domain laws, to restore property rights... and some 'conservative' leader finds a way to fillibuster or veto it in THEIR state... after the people have spoken...
the supposed conservatives amongst us, will go nuts.
But, as long as some of us oppose the nanny state in some areas while supporting it areas we agree with... the nanny state under this republican administration and majority will continue to expand from double it's size under clinton, where bush has it today... to fully quadruple the size we have today, under some other nanny statist leader.
like I said... it's over.
It's actually not illegal to drive drunk on your own property. However, the roads aren't your property - they are shared property. A human body is not a public utility.
I couldn't agree more.
By the way, I don't think the video is fake, I just don't think it has any bearing on the issue.
Drug prohibition is irrational, it's stupid and it's destructive. There is only one drug that has been so destructive that it has had significantly negative societal effects. That drug is alcohol. If you were logical, you'd start with alocohol prohibition. Oops, can't do that, been there, done that.
Drug prohibition is also a threat to our national security. Terrorists from Afghanistan to North Carolina use drug prohibition to finance their attacks on innocent American civilians. Drug prohibition also creates vast networks of corruption from prison guards, to police, to the FBI, to the CIA, to attorneys, sheriffs and you name it.
Labelling the legalization of highly addictive, inebriating, and mentally disabling substances social WMD is in my view apt. You disagree, that's fine. But such a thing is not protected by the Constitution in our constitution. There are difficult issues like this one which take the careful consideration of the citizens and their representatives. Unlike religion, drug dealing and production is not specifically protected under the U.S. Constitution. Seat-belts save lives, so the brutal legislation requiring them to be worn is not against the Constitution. Remember, laws are made to protect the general welfare, as well as our individual rights. In this case, I think that the first would be more compromised than the latter is now.
Exalty right.
If drugs were legalized, crime would be way down, since a large percentage of crime is merely the possession of drugs.
I don't think anyone here would agree to deny some who has an illness that MIGHT be helped with marijuana access to controlled amounts. The article just points out that some folks just want marijuana legalized to get high. Latent glaucoma...give me a break. As an RN with 30 years in hospitals behind me I have talked to many chemotherapy patients who report that smoking marijuana helps increase their hunger while reducing the nausea caused by chemotherapy. Helping someone maintain their nutrition is a major concern when someone is undergoing therapy.
I've never met a pot addict.
So in your view, alcohol is "social WMD" and should be made illegal? It certainly fits your description: "highly addictive, inebriating, and mentally disabling". (Pot isn't addictive, by the way, any more than is chocolate.)
What a thoughtful remark, thoughtomator!
Thanks!
Char :)
I'll introduce you to some of my high school friends. They're in their 40's and haven't stopped using for over 30 years.
And legalizing theft would also "drive crime down" since a large percentage of crime is merely the taking of an object that belongs to someone else without permission.
Even if you defined the crime out of existence, the purpose of the law would remain. Overall the legalization of drugs would do more harm than banning them does good.
If I am wrong about that then they should be legalized.
It's not merely a matter of definition. Drug use and possession harms no one but the willing user. Theft involves the violation of another person's liberty. How is your liberty infringed when a stranger smokes a joint?
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.