Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Science of Medical Marijuana Prohibition (Op-Ed)
Frontiers of Freedom ^ | June 15, 2006 | Kenneth Michael White

Posted on 06/15/2006 4:53:24 PM PDT by Wolfie

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 481-497 next last
To: robertpaulsen

"Typical stoner response":

GOD MADE POT
MAN MADE PHARMIES

LMAO

This is a fun thread


41 posted on 06/16/2006 12:50:54 PM PDT by xpertskir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: xpertskir

Will never happen.

I leave it for "scientists" like you to destroy your brain cells and lungs.


42 posted on 06/16/2006 12:58:58 PM PDT by MrCruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
"Call your representative now and instruct him or her to support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment. In a sense, the future of science is at stake."

Science? Science? The amendment has nothing to do with science:

"None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington from implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those States."

This amendment is attached year after year. Last year it was defeated 60%-37%.

Federal law trumps state law. Those states are violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In my opinion, those state legislators should be tried for sedition.

43 posted on 06/16/2006 12:59:52 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xpertskir
"No Seriously all day long. LOL"

Actually, for glaucoma, you would have to smoke it all day and all night since the effects only last 2-3 hours.

44 posted on 06/16/2006 1:03:30 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Federal law trumps state law.

But the drug "legalzation" crowd pretend they don't know that.


45 posted on 06/16/2006 1:03:53 PM PDT by MrCruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Wolfie; PaxMacian; WindMinstrel; philman_36; headsonpikes
Good afternoon, RP. I see you are out dispensing your usual insanity. You seem to think that we care what you think, just because you are able to get response.

It doesn't matter what study you cite, they are typically as useless as your farts. I am pretty sure they are all biased, rather its from one side or the other. But, that is irrelavant to the central issue. It is your need for attention, and control that I am addressing.

You are a typical "village idiot". You hear something you agree with, and believe it is Gospel. You don't have to have proof, when it already fits your agenda. You fit into the mold of a proper "sheeple"

After almost half a century of real time experience, (and I'll bet I can get a few amens, right brethern and sistern?), I am convinced there is no more harmful effects from the use of marijuana, than from rising from my bed in the morning.

I am 58, reasonably healthy, reasonably wealthy, and no less wise, though I have probably smoked bales of the stuff. I have a great family, and live a comfortable fulfilled life. I own lots of properties and possessions and am grateful to a sweet wife who loves me, and a good dog who likes to go hiking and kayaking together. I spend as much time playing, as working, and still manage to have a greater tax bill than most people's incomes. I am a conservative, politically, and feel that speaks to true libertarian values, not just the crap we get from uour 'Pubbies of today.

Up yours, and please go away. Give these threads some space for their reality, instead of your consistently deceitful posits and bickering... I don't know whether you really have no idea what you are talking about, or you just wish to be abrasive. You NEVER have anything new to add, just your same old shiite! Respond is you must, but you will convince nobody herein, of anything you wish to debate! You don't tell us what to do, and neither does this stinkin' gum't , when it comes to the privacy of our homes. Check your Constitution, and call yourself "gay" for a minute!

We KNOW better than to listen to your crap! It smells too highly!

46 posted on 06/16/2006 1:15:51 PM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MrCruncher
Then don't post. Conservatism is based on experience, Liberalism is based in theory. Perhaps you should got to Daily Kos.
47 posted on 06/16/2006 1:38:17 PM PDT by xpertskir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; MrCruncher
Federal law trumps state law.

And natural law trumps federal law.

Shuffle and deal.

48 posted on 06/16/2006 1:48:59 PM PDT by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: xpertskir

SOROS bankrolls the drug legalization movement.

Where does that put YOU ?

LOL.

HINT--CONSERVATISM does not equal smoking marijuana.


49 posted on 06/16/2006 2:05:00 PM PDT by MrCruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MrCruncher
SOROS bankrolls the drug legalization movement.

And he wears pants. Does that make pants unconservative?

CONSERVATISM does not equal smoking marijuana.

Who said it did? Conservatism also does not equal banning non-rights-violating acts.

50 posted on 06/16/2006 3:20:29 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Wolfie
Federal law trumps state law.

Federal law exercising legitimate constitutional authority trumps state law.

51 posted on 06/16/2006 3:21:52 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Labyrinthos
Of course, you know the side effects of those drugs because the FDA requires it. Marijuana, the wonder drug, somehow gets a pass.

I'm all for requiring marijuana to be labelled with its side effects.

You tell me. Why shouldn't marijuana have to go throught the same approval process as any other prescription drug? Why is marijuana so special?

It's not ... no adult should need the government's permission to ingest any substance.

52 posted on 06/16/2006 3:24:46 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MrCruncher
HINT--CONSERVATISM does not equal smoking marijuana.

According to whom? It isn't about smoking marijuana, duh! It is about the RIGHT to smoke marijuana. That is right in line with classic and current conservatism. It is statists such as you who wish to confuse the issue and make it into a health issue. It is not unhealthy to smoke anything. It is life in action... and shiite happens!

With folk like you, it is all about your own selfish interests, which have NOTHING to do with conservative principles...

yYou are a control freak, which is a common psychosis, and that can be treated, with the proper medication. Just ask your Doc!


53 posted on 06/16/2006 3:25:50 PM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MrCruncher; mugs99
WHO DOES bankroll the "scientific" industry?

Mostly the anti-drug federal government ... which by the principle of 'statement against interest' makes anti-WOD scientific results more credible than pro-WOD ones. Thanks for asking!

54 posted on 06/16/2006 3:26:59 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Wolfie
So you're stating as a fact that marijuana doesn't cause cancer? Or that this particular study didn't find a link?

This particular study didn't find a link ... are there any that did (and controlled for other carcinogenic activities like smoking tobacco)?

55 posted on 06/16/2006 3:30:27 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"This particular study didn't find a link ... are there any that did"

Probably some government studies. So I won't waste my time looking them up for you.

But, let's have some fun and guess.

On the one side we have tobacco, linked to cancer. Then we have homegrown marijuana with 50% more carcinogens than tobacco, 4X the tar, unfiltered smoke drawn deep into the lungs and held there, smoked allllll the way down to the last crud-filled molecule ... I don't know. Whaddya think? Think maybe there might also be a link to cancer?

It took decades of cigarette smoking by millions of Americans before the links between tobacco and lung cancer and other lung diseases were shown.

56 posted on 06/16/2006 3:46:15 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo
What is this, This is Your Life? I'm guessing the reason I have to be made aware of your life history is that you want me to think you're typical of marijuana smokers?

Well, I don't.

57 posted on 06/16/2006 3:54:12 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MrCruncher
SOROS bankrolls the drug legalization movement.

Where does that put YOU ?

The RWJF is bankrolling the prohibition movement. Where does that put you?

58 posted on 06/16/2006 3:56:29 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

They proved a link between saccharin and bladder cancer, too.


59 posted on 06/16/2006 3:59:30 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights; MrCruncher
"And he wears pants. Does that make pants unconservative?"

Articles of clothing now have a political leaning? Like right-wing-tip shoes?

"Conservatism also does not equal banning non-rights-violating acts."

Oh, you bet it does equal that and it always has. Libertarianism does not equal banning non-rights-violating acts. Let's get that straight.

60 posted on 06/16/2006 4:01:05 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 481-497 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson