Posted on 02/16/2007 3:23:59 PM PST by cryptical
The cannabis plant has been used as a medicine for thousands of years. In the United States, doctors could prescribe marijuana cigarettes to patients for a variety of conditions until the 1940s, when it was banned. Marijuana's status as an illegal drug has removed it from the official medical arsenal, but its therapeutic power is still attracting attention, especially its pain-killing properties.
About 30 percent of HIV patients develop painful nerves during the course of their illness, and this neuropathy is extremely difficult to treat with standard pain medications. Dr. Donald Abrams, of the University of California at San Francisco, studied the use of marijuana for relief of their discomfort. "We've known for along time that cannabinoids, the active ingredients in marijuana, can be involved in modulation of pain and the response to pain," he explains, adding that the body has its own cannabinoid system. "We make natural substances called endo-cannabinoids and it's felt that one of the main roles of these endo-cannabinoids is in our processing of painful stimuli." Abrams studied 50 patients who had suffered nerve pain for an average of 7 years. He gave half actual marijuana cigarettes to smoke three times a day, the other half smoked placebo cigarettes. He found the patients smoking the marijuana had significantly greater pain relief, and it was almost immediate. "After smoking the first cigarette on the first day," he recalls, "we asked patients what had happened to their pain. Those smoking the actual marijuana cigarette, their pain reduced 75 percent; where those smoking the placebo, their pain reduced less than 20 percent." These results were consistent throughout the study.
Abrams says there is a pill on the market containing the most active ingredient of marijuana, called tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. But he says smoking the actual plant works better than taking the pill, because THC is only one of the components present in the plant. "The plant has over 400 chemical compounds, many of which also have medicinal value. Many of those compounds in the plant also offer a balance to the side effects of the THC alone. So when you take a pill that's just THC, some people have more adverse effects than actually smoking THC as part of marijuana."
The research appears in the February 13th issue of Neurology, the scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others."
Do you disagree?
It's axiomatic that the police powers of a state include moral laws.
Do you agree?
That quote is right up there with "separation of church and state" as to the abuse of its meaning. Putting your quote in context, you'd see that Jefferson was battling with church leaders who wanted a larger role in the new federal government.
Absolutely. I am assuming you'll allow me to define "injurious to others".
Why do you endorse limits on "the will of the people", and where do you get that authority?
What makes you say it's axiomatic that legislatures are limited in their law making ability to those laws governing behavior which harms others?
What is your definition of harm?
You've got some catching up to do.
Please proceed.
I'll wait my turn.
And noted on the same page:
"But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them."
The lex majoris partis.
By the way, Jefferson himself drafted a law against sodomy, so his idea of harm encompassed societal values and wasn't limited to simplistic "initiation of force" rationalizations.
(1) Because sometimes the majority gets it wrong. (2) Sheer eloquence, I guess.
What makes you say it's axiomatic that legislatures are limited in their law making ability to those laws governing behavior which harms others?
Axiomatic to me, and to some others. Obviously not axiomatic to most legislators.
What is your definition of harm?
For legislative purposes: Physical injury, a credible threat of same, and theft of property.
And how does the legislature pay for the protection of those?
Constitutional laws, reflecting the will of the people, passed by the legislative process, which also encompass immoral behavior deemed harmful to the functioning and continuance of a society in which to raise the next generation of citizens.
Interesting. I don't expect moral perfection from Jefferson, especially since he held slaves.
Do you have a link, or Google keywords? I tried without success.
Re rationalizations, "societal values" can also serve.
I assume you mean ideally. Right?
Thanks.
His behavior was moral in that regard. He had his own personal wolf by the ears. Let me give you some clues for your own study of the matter, if you want to pursue it.
Father-in-Law
Estate
Creditors
Chattels
Sister-in-Law
Paris
Anti-emancipation laws
As for the sodomy matter, see: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html
Unless you're ready to make that accusation of "advocating opium smoking" official or retract it, I don't want to hear from your pie-hole.
"Constitutional", and "reflecting the will of the people" by what measure? How do you determine when the legislature passes laws that are not constitutional, or do not reflect the will of the people?
If they're not constitutional, they'll be challenged and ruled thusly. If they do not reflect the will of the people, the people will let their legislators know.
Furthermore, if the people wish to limit their laws to those that prohibit behavior which harms others, they may do so. But I'm not going to be the one who limits their choices -- I would not be so arrogant as to say I know what's best.
IOW, if the legislature passed it, and it hasn't been overturned by the USSC we're supposed to take it's constitutionality and it's objectives as being the legitimate "will of the people" as self evident truth, only to be challenged in the ballot box or before the court and above reproach until that happens.
Furthermore, if the people wish to limit their laws to those that prohibit behavior which harms others, they may do so. But I'm not going to be the one who limits their choices -- I would not be so arrogant as to say I know what's best.
You'd be so arrogant as to say that "the people " saying so directly via ballot initiatives is "mob rule".
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.