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.
They discussed the power to regulate trade among the several states. They did not discuss a congressional power to "foster trade among the several states". I assume they knew what they were doing.
"The federal government is not a sovereign State, genius."
The United States is a sovereign state, numbnuts.
They also discussed the intended purpose of granting the power. If all that matters is that "they discussed the power", and that argument is carried over to the Constitution itself then all that matters is that "they wrote the power", and any consideration of intent falls by the wayside.
The United States is a sovereign state, numbnuts.
The Unites States is a republic of sovereign States.
I must have missed that. They discussed THE intended purpose of granting the power? Or were they simply discussing the pressing need at the time?
Again, if that was THE purpose, they would have written it differently.
What kind of nonsense is that? They discussed the objectives they wished to accomplish by granting the power.
They also discussed the possibilities that the powers initially granted to the national government might require modification to meet future needs. They included the provisions for amendment to allow for that contingency. If they had granted the national government open ended power to assume as it deemed necessary to enable whatever the current political will of the people was, there would have been no need to make any provisions to amend the Constitution.
Again, if that was THE purpose, they would have written it differently.
That your personal opinion, and nothing more than idle speculation. There is absolutely nothing of any substance in the assertion to base a decision on.
In that same case he also said: "It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary."
By your account the commerce power that was granted the national government has no such limitation. It reconizes no commerce "between a man and a man in a State, or between different parts of the same state" that cannot be found to "extend to or affect other States". The commerce power you describe cannot be the same commerce power that John Marshall writes about.
One and the same. Oh, and thank you for pointing out that Marshall does extend congressional power to regulate intrastate commerce which "affects other States". I often use that very same phrase to make that point.
As early as 1824, therefore, in John Marshall's court, we see that a) commerce between the states may be prohibited and b) commerce within a state that affects other states may be regulated. And here you said you looked and couldn't find anything. You kidder, you.
The commerce power you describe recognizes no such limits. Under your interpretation commerce "which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States" does not exist. Your idea of "the power to regulate commerce" is not the same as Marshall's, because clearly your idea of commerce is not the same as his.
Where does this establish that commerce between the states may be prohibited? What commerce was prohibited in this case?
And the greeat RobertPaulsen, who's "not here to play gotcha games" plays his last lame "gotcha" as he runs away.
Inventive liar. Always.
Thank you.
No problem. You earned it.
Politicians make such glowing promises about all the good things that we can have with just a few more taxes for another federal program or regulation, and a few more bureaucrats to run it that I occasionally forget just how screwed up that idea is. You invariably remind me just how screwed up that idea is, and why.
Inventive.
I can always count on you to remind me what's wrong with bureaucracies and bureaucrats.
No quotes, naturally. Incessant liar.
You can go pound sand, Roscoe.
Bluff called, liar folds. So predictable.
Pfft. Schoolyard taunts. The most irritating thing about you is the idea that they actually wasted my tax dollars on you salary.
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.