Posted on 09/15/2002 8:38:29 AM PDT by JediGirl
Early in the morning of Sept. 5, dozens of armed men stormed a respected medical facility where nearly 300 people desperately ill from cancer, AIDS and other illnesses got their medicine. Brandishing semiautomatic weapons in the faces of terrified patients, including a woman paralyzed from childhood polio, they destroyed all of the medicine and took prisoner the facility's operators.
The work of Osama bin Laden? Hamas? Some other international terrorists?
No. This particular terrorist raid was carried out by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
The facility they attacked was the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana ( WAMM ) in Santa Cruz, Calif. A co-op run entirely by and for seriously ill people - 80 percent of whom have terminal diagnoses - WAMM sold nothing. All of the medical marijuana grown was given to members without charge.
The facility was supported by the community and worked closely with local officials. According to County Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt, WAMM operated in an "exemplary" fashion. After the raid - which had been planned and executed with no warning to the local government - Wormhoudt told reporters she was "appalled" by the DEA's action.
The patients WAMM served are desperately ill. For many with AIDS or cancer, marijuana is the only thing that allows them to tolerate the horrendous side effects of the harsh treatments that keep them alive. Others endure excruciating pain that conventional medicines have failed to relieve, but which marijuana helps.
Because of this raid, many of these people will die prematurely - agonizing, horrible deaths - because the only medicine that helped them has been taken away.
What could possibly motivate such cruelty?
Desperation.
All around the world, governments and scientific experts are coming to believe that marijuana shouldn't be illegal - that it is simply not dangerous enough to warrant arresting and jailing even social or recreational users, much less people using it to relieve symptoms of cancer or AIDS. The British government has already moved to make marijuana possession a nonarrestable offense.
On Sept. 4, Canada's Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs released the most exhaustive investigation of marijuana data and policy options ever conducted by any government. The 650-page report declared that criminalizing marijuana amounted to "throwing taxpayers' money down the drain in a crusade that is not warranted by the danger posed by the substance."
But marijuana - which accounts for the vast majority of illegal drug use and arrests - is the engine that drives the war on drugs and keeps massive drug-control budgets pumped up.
So even as DEA agents were shoving machine guns in the faces of sick people, White House drug czar John Walters and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson stood in front of a Washington, D.C., press conference, spouting long-discredited myths as if they were proven facts.
Marijuana, said Thompson, is "a clear and present danger to the health and well-being of all its users" - a statement contradicted by reams of scientific research.
Indeed, in 1995, the prestigious medical journal The Lancet stated flatly, "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health." This year, the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Canadian Senate committee came to similar conclusions after extensive study.
But our government's drug war ideologues don't care about science. And they don't care how many sick people they literally torture to death in their desperate effort to pump up a collapsing policy.
IF marijuana is common in our kids schools....
THEREFOR legalizing marijuana for adults would create an adult community of Docker's baggy pants and middle-aged skateboarders!
Time to close this office!
Buy a Beamish for a local, and tell 'em Guinness in Arizona is garbage!
Best, kj
Now do you understand? It's not about the damn pot (well, it is, but that's a SEPARATE issue). Its about the constitutional principle. And yes, some of us can focus on more than one thing at once, like, its about both. Well, you can disagree with one (you think pot is bad and dopers are stupid) and agree with the other (that the feds are violating the constitution by ignoring the 10th amendment.)
I thought about it. But I did get a small glimpse of it from a few sites. I don't see how they can get 1000 radio shows into a few cd's though (unless it was in mp3 format which is fine for me). The only quotes I get of that dirrection are from his son, not Reagan. If you have a direct quote, use it please, we would love to hear it. Please post a URL to back it up so I can make sure it is not Micheal Reagan's opinion instead of a Reagan quote.
I wouldn't, either. But the logic of your argument is equally applicable to any OTC medication, or any medication not personally administered by a medical professional, for that matter.
Do you mean the one's where I generally defend government's right to exercise "eminent domain" to establish public rights-of-way for transportation? I have no problem with that at all so long as "just compensation" is provided. It helps minimize the cost to the taxpayer for such projects. Although the system is subject to abuse, it requires vigilance to assure "fairness", not abolition.
What is the ping list called?
What, LOL, look at my profile and you will see I feel the same way. No journal, but they did use my profile against me more than once. It is a two way street now I guess. It was the LPers that did it to me though.
No side effects, immediate relief. None of the awful throw-ups that most people associate with chemo. The biggest drawback to this wonder pill is that it costs about $74 a pill. Some insurance companies will only allow about 5 a month, due to the extreme cost. AND some Doctors know that the patient's insurance will not cover this expensive drug, BUT if there is a nice Oncologist (or his Nurse) out there, he can pass out "samples".
Saltines are good..too!
sw
You are VERY correct.
Too bad it's illegal to possess, distribute and traffic heroine - eh?
Actually, I was thinking more of the ones where we complain about the government telling people they can't build homes on their own property because some endangered species might want to live there some day, or making businesses pay for testing their discharge water for the presence of chemicals they don't even use.
I don't have any that I know of. I could point you to many that argue against drunkenness and urge sobriety, and I could tell you I believe these apply to all intoxicating substances. Does that help?
Your references didn't indicate that God has decided marijuana=good, either. I think you know better, but are currently on the chronic and need to rationalize it.
Actually, you can't get high off of industrial hemp. It's a different plant than marijuana, and while the pot-heads pushing legalization of their habbit tend to exagerate industrial hemp's utility, it is indeed useful for a lot of things. I don't see any reason why growing industrial hemp should be banned. It's grown in Canada, New Zealand, and a lot of other countries, and certain hemp products are already legal here. Again, you can't get high off industrial hemp products.
Can't wait until they isolate the agent in marijuana that is therapeutic so it can be administered without the high.
Actually, they can, but you don't see anyone pushing for FDA approval for such medicines. Gee, I wonder why?
Sure! We've got the African-American ping list, the conservative ping list and the Global Crossing ping list among others.
What is the medical pot ping list called?
Sorry, but since society will have to pay for your living expenses if you become a public charge as a result of a heroine habbit, it has a right to prevent you from doing heroine.
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.