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.
Fake quotation, inventive liar.
You posted it at 170. Back it up, retract it, or STFU.
That's the current system.
"and it's objectives as being the legitimate "will of the people"
If it gets that far -- do you think HR 1022 will ever come to a vote? Even then, the law can be rewritten or the legislators thrown out at the next election.
"You'd be so arrogant as to say that "the people " saying so directly via ballot initiatives is "mob rule".
The phrase "mob rule" was not mine. I threw it back in the posters face when pointing out that 9 out of the 11 states that approved medical marijuana did so by referendum.
Liar.
That's "the system" in the beltway. I don't work for the government, and don't abdicate my responsibility as a citizen to weigh the legislation passed in Congress against the plain language and original intent of the Constitution.
If it gets that far -- do you think HR 1022 will ever come to a vote? Even then, the law can be rewritten or the legislators thrown out at the next election.
Then what you're calling "the will of the people" is actually "the will of the legislators".
The phrase "mob rule" was not mine. I threw it back in the posters face when pointing out that 9 out of the 11 states that approved medical marijuana did so by referendum.
It was yours.
What you call "the will of the people" is really "the will of the legislators". What is really "the will of the people", you call "mob rule".
Emty. Prove it, or STFU.
Fake quote. Inventive liar.
Bitter, old, probably drunk, not particularly inventive, lying ex-petty bureaucrat.
I never said you couldn't have an opinion. I was simply commenting on the law.
"Then what you're calling "the will of the people" is actually "the will of the legislators".
Not at all. Strange as it may seem to you, there are people out there who support this legislation. Are they not entitled to have their voices heard, even though we disagree with what they're saying?
"What is really "the will of the people", you call "mob rule".
Let's be careful here. You know how I feel about people who mischaracterize my position.
Others on this board have characterized a pure democracy as "mob rule". That was not my phrase. That's twice now I've told you that. Cool it.
They are, and I don't have a problem with them doing so. Most people don't try to hide behind platitudes about "how the system works", or re-cycle quotes from others that agree with their opinion in order to argue in support of the legislation while avoiding being directly resposible for the arguments they present.
Let's be careful here. You know how I feel about people who mischaracterize my position.
Others on this board have characterized a pure democracy as "mob rule". That was not my phrase. That's twice now I've told you that. Cool it.
You've previously stated that your position is that you really don't have any interest in pot other than making sure your kids never smoke it, and you don't have any particular scruples about what you'll do to make that happen. That seems to include carefully hiding your own opinions behind the words of others, and then claiming "mischaracterization".
Oh, I think you do. You have your own personal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of communist.
"while avoiding being directly resposible for the arguments they present."
Coming from you, that's a stitch. My arguments are supported by cites, quotes, and court opinion. Yours are unsupported feelings.
"and then claiming "mischaracterization".
For the third and final time, "mob rule" was not my phrase. The next time you attribute that phrase to me you'd better have a link to it. Be forewarned, I will hit abuse.
I do not assume to have my "own personal interpretation" of the US Constitution. I try to interpret it as closely as possible to what it meant to the Framers. In order to do that, I consciously disregard the currently accepted meanings of words like "commerce" and "regulate" and first try to discern what those words meant to them and then apply those meanings to the Constitution. This is something you will not do.
Coming from you, that's a stitch. My arguments are supported by cites, quotes, and court opinion. Yours are unsupported feelings.
Your arguments are "cites, quotes, and court opinion". They are no less opinion than mine. All you're doing is using them as proxy for your own opinion and insulating yourself from answering questions about the basis for that opinion. You find a quote from someone who agrees with you, submit that as your argument, and then tell anyone who questions any of it they'll have to take it up with the original author who conveniently isn't going to be available to ask.
For the third and final time, "mob rule" was not my phrase. The next time you attribute that phrase to me you'd better have a link to it. Be forewarned, I will hit abuse.
You seem to remember posting it, so I think it's pretty safe to say we'll be able to find it. I'm willing to bet that when we do, your use of that phrase is neither quoted nor attributed as being from someone else.
Really? Let's take the word "regulate". How many meanings does that word have in the Commerce Clause -- one, two, three?
I mean, it's only used once to describe Congress' power over commerce, yet you say it means Congress can prohibit foreign commerce but not domestic commerce. Or that we can prohibit domestic commerce with the Indian tribes, but not domestic commerce among the states.
How do you explain that?
"I try to interpret it as closely as possible to what it meant to the Framers."
No. You'd like to think you do but you don't. You try to adapt and twist those words to mean what you want them to mean. You ignore history, the words of our Founders and the opinion of the courts because they don't agree with your interpretaion.
I believe just one, - to "make regular" or "keep in good order".
I mean, it's only used once to describe Congress' power over commerce, yet you say it means Congress can prohibit foreign commerce but not domestic commerce. Or that we can prohibit domestic commerce with the Indian tribes, but not domestic commerce among the states.
How do you explain that?
I explain it by the fact that Congress can make commerce "regular" among the several states without having to resort to prohibitions. They have the power to make the States remove any artificial barriers to interstate commerce they may erect, and prevent them from creating new ones. They can exercise no such power over the Indian tribes, or foreign nations. Foreign nations or the Indian tribes can impose prohibitions on trade with the States, and the only way to make trade "regular" under those circumstances is to answer those prohibitions in kind.
Now let's talk about "commerce", shall we?
No. You'd like to think you do but you don't. You try to adapt and twist those words to mean what you want them to mean. You ignore history, the words of our Founders and the opinion of the courts because they don't agree with your interpretaion.
That's your opinion. Can you back it up with examples demonstrating where I have done this?
What???
Where did the Founders ever say that? That has got to be one the most ridiculous things I've ever read on FR -- and that's saying something.
"Can you back it up with examples demonstrating where I have done this?"
Refer to my previous statement.
What's ridiculous about it? It quite true, and perfectly reasonable. The national government can make trade "regular" between the states by preventing them from imposing artificial trade barriers, and in fact this is the only use of the commerce power for regulating interstate commerce I can find any reference to by any of the Founders.
Congress cannot prevent foreign nations from imposing artificial trade barriers, they can only answer whatever barriers are erected in kind.
Removing interstate barriers to trade happened to be the pressing problem at the time. Certainly if the Founders wished to limit the Commerce Clause to that function they would have worded it differently -- something like, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and with the Indian Tribes; and to foster commerce among the several states."
But they didn't.
Yet you act as though they did.
In 1824, Gibbons v Ogden, presided over by Chief Justice and Founding Father John Marshall, Justice Johnson said, ''The power of a sovereign State over commerce, . . . amounts to nothing more than a power to limit and restrain it at pleasure.''
But you couldn't find any reference. Maybe because you didn't look.
"Congress cannot prevent foreign nations from imposing artificial trade barriers, they can only answer whatever barriers are erected in kind."
Oh please. I refuse to dignify that with a response.
Perhaps, but it shouldn't be illegal.
Sorry, I've been around drunks and I've been around stoners. Stoners are considerably less dangerous then drunks. Yet alcohol is legal and pot is not. Makes no sense.
I only know what they wrote about, and apply that to the Constitution. You're the one engaging in speculation about what unspoken powers they intended to confer on the federal government. You want us to assume that they actually intended to grant powers to the federal government that they did not discuss or express, simply because they did not word the Constitution to exclude them to your satisfaction.
But they didn't.
Yet you act as though they did.
The Constitution was debated and written as an exercise in creating a government of limited, enumerated powers. Powers not enumerated are not assumed. I will act accordingly.
In 1824, Gibbons v Ogden, presided over by Chief Justice and Founding Father John Marshall, Justice Johnson said, ''The power of a sovereign State over commerce, . . . amounts to nothing more than a power to limit and restrain it at pleasure.''
But you couldn't find any reference. Maybe because you didn't look.
The federal government is not a sovereign State, genius.
Good. I can do without you notions of "dignity". It is enough that you don't have a response to give.
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.