Posted on 02/16/2007 3:23:59 PM PST by cryptical
Since when have our laws been limited to activities that harm others? Nice strawman.
"As far as I can tell your argument rests on letting the bureaucracy decide what is good for us."
Nope. The people. And until your side gets enough people who want to legalize it, that's where it stays.
I've seen people on opiates far more 'with it' than on pot. So, I'd go with that route. It's medically accepted too.
Probably never, entirely. More or less, in other times and places. It seems like a useful dividing line for proper vs improper laws.
And until your side gets enough people who want to legalize it, that's where it stays.
An "argument from authority" (majority rule)?
Might makes right?
I'll raise my straw man with your silly appeal to the masses.
No one ever VOTED to ban marijuana--it was a simple bureaucratic trick of classification, making it a "controlled substance." These same bureaucrats suck up billions in resources better spent elsewhere (like on the WOT or border control), aided and abetted by the tens of thousands of their lackeys who make their living at the public trough by prosecuting and jailing smokers.
If "The people" were allowed a vote on such a matter your point would make some sense; of course, to press for a vote on such a matter would perhaps expose someone to scrutiny that they don't want or need.
That you argue the DEA, FDA, BATF should have any say in the matter, further reveals your intellectual dishonesty.
But enough of arguing with you--I have a date.
Abuse of drugs for pain relief should not be tolerated, even if those drugs have legitimate medical uses.
Sincerely,
Rush Limbaugh
They're not? They allowed this one, did they not? Aren't we discussing a marijuana study allowed (and funded, by the way) by the federal government?
Geez Louise.
"They warned him that despite the California law, if he prescribed marijuana for any of his MS patients, he'd be arrested."
I doubt that. First of all, medical marijuana is not prescribed by physicians -- it is a written recommendation placed in the patient's file. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a physician may not be arrested by anyone for making a recommendation for medical marijuana, nor will he lose his license. Third, marijuana is ineffective at treating symptoms of MS. More than likely, it was the patient's idea to use marijuana not the doctor's. Fourth, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society does not recognize smoked marijuana as medicine.
"I find it very wrong to deny effective treatment to patients"
I understand. But find for me one study or one organization that says that smoked marijuana is an effective treatment for anything that other drugs don't do better or with less side effects than smoking.
What in the hell is the urgency to get this drug approved as medicine? It cures nothing. Every single possible application for this drug is already being addressed by at least 10 other tried and true, FDA approved drugs. Glaucoma? Nausea? MS? AIDS? Cancer? What, we have nothing for these diseases?
Medical marijuana is a scam. The sick and dying are being used a pawns in an effort to get marijuana made legal for recreational use.
"British Medical Association, Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. 1997. P.48...."cannabinoids have been shown to have immuno suppressive effect ..... potentially damaging in individuals whose immune system is already compromised by HIV or chemotherapy."
"Cabral GA et al. Adv Exp Med Bio 288: 93-105, 1991. (THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, causes immunosuppression.)"
"Cusher et al. Cellular Immunology Vol 154:99-108, 1994. (Low levels of THC inhibited tumor necrosis factor thereby weakening the killing activity of lymphocytes against tumor cells. Marijuana's implication in a number of chronic diseases reflects its harmful impact on the immune system.)"
"Djeu et al. Drugs of Abuse Immunity and Immunodeficiency, 1991. (THC is able to interfere with the function of white blood cells taken from humans. Both neutrophils, which fight bacterial infection, and mononuclear cells of the immune system, which fight viruses, were suppressed by various concentrations of THC.)"
The only way this would be valid would be if the test subjects had never smoked real pot, or didn't have any idea of the effects of real pot. I suppose somewhere such people exist...
Never in the history of the world, by any society or government (including our own), have laws been limited to controlling behavior which harms others. I see no reason to suddenly apply this standard to recreational drug use.
"It seems like a useful dividing line for proper vs improper laws."
Not really. Define harm. If a man exposes himself to your wife and daughter, has he harmed them? Certainly he shocked them. Insulted them. Disgusted them. Offended them.
But if you include those definitions as "harm", well, we've really opened things up, haven't we?
"An "argument from authority" (majority rule)?"
No, not at all. Through the legislative process. People expressing their will through their elected representatives who vote in various chambers, then signed by the executive, and approved as constitutional by the judicial.
You don't believe in majority rule, do you -- what some have called "mob rule"? Of course not.
Then certainly you're against the medical marijuana laws passed in 9 out of 11 states by public referendum rather than through the legislature? Glad I can count on your support to overturn those laws passed by those "mobs".
Well, no. That would be "majority rule", "mob rule", "might makes right". You'd certainly be against that!
"If "The people" were allowed a vote on such a matter your point would make some sense"
Again, this is not a pure democracy. We elect representatives who agree with our position. We let them know how we feel about specific issues. They write the laws.
"to press for a vote on such a matter would perhaps expose someone to scrutiny that they don't want or need."
What are you suggesting here?
"That you argue the DEA, FDA, BATF should have any say in the matter"
I have no idea what you're talking about. They have a "say" in the matter?
What? No, hi Chena, how have you been these days? LOL ;)
The questions you've posed have no doubt been answered time and time again. In my honest opinion, the truth is that if God presented Himself in your living room tonight and told you that He created the plant, that we call marijuana, and He created it for medicinal purposes and you were wrong to deny the sick from using it, you'd argue with Him until Hell froze over that He was wrong, and you are right.
How's that for a run-on sentence? :)
Limbaugh skipped doing his show today because his HIV
pain was so bad. Maybe he should take up weed again!
No, he was very clear on this - he was warned not to write a recommendation for marijuana for any of his patients. He was not discussing a particular patient, but a general warning. You can doubt that he'd really be arrested, but the threat was made.
Third, marijuana is ineffective at treating symptoms of MS.
Care to back that up? It was my impression no one knows if it's a good treatment for neuropathic pain because the studies haven't been done in MS. As for the ease of doing studies, check out the issues brought up in this freep thread.
Fourth, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society does not recognize smoked marijuana as medicine.
From the National MS Society's web site: "Conflicting results of previous research, coupled with the need for additional therapies to treat symptoms of MS, make it important that more research be done on the potential of marijuana and its derivatives. The National MS Society is funding a well-controlled study on the effectiveness of different forms of marijuana to treat spasticity in MS, and has established a task force to examine the use of Cannabis in MS to review what is currently known about its potential. This task force will make specific recommendations on the research that still needs to be done to answer pressing questions about the potential effectiveness and safety of marijuana and its derivatives in treating MS.Conflicting results of previous research, coupled with the need for additional therapies to treat symptoms of MS, make it important that more research be done on the potential of marijuana and its derivatives. The National MS Society is funding a well-controlled study on the effectiveness of different forms of marijuana to treat spasticity in MS, and has established a task force to examine the use of Cannabis in MS to review what is currently known about its potential. This task force will make specific recommendations on the research that still needs to be done to answer pressing questions about the potential effectiveness and safety of marijuana and its derivatives in treating MS."
What in the hell is the urgency to get this drug approved as medicine? It cures nothing. Every single possible application for this drug is already being addressed by at least 10 other tried and true, FDA approved drugs. Glaucoma? Nausea? MS? AIDS? Cancer? What, we have nothing for these diseases?
It may cure nothing, but it relieves symptoms. Morphine doesn't cure either - want to take that away from people in pain? Ask MS sufferers if the drugs we have are sufficient for MS. I can predict the answer from the people I know with MS - a loud resounding "NO." The drugs we have work well for some people, but not for everyone. It is very rare for ANY drug to work well and be tolerated by everyone.
I looked on Pubmed to see these 20,000 studies. There are indeed about that many results when you search on "marijuana" - 551 pages of 20 results each. Most of them have to do with substance abuse, not clinical studies.
> Glad I can count on your support to overturn those laws
> passed by those "mobs".
The same legislators who were too chicken**** to tell the feds to perform unnatural acts with livestock on behalf of their constituents were quite happy to let the people speak on the matter. If you put it to a vote in any of those legislatures, the reps would (first of all) squeal like piglets and flee from the prospect like the cowardly scum they are, and, if you put their feet to the fire and forced them to vote, they would confirm the will of the people.
[i]No, because the medical marijuana laws are so full of loopholes that it has less to do with relief of pain and suffering than it does to allow the continued illegal growing and selling of the illegal substance.[/i]
I think it's because you can't patent a plant that occurs naturally.
the original was a full employment for bureaucrats who were in danger of losing their gigs because of the repeal of prohibition.
So you're concerned about AIDS patients and chemotherapy patients? That's wonderful! And you've also made a very good point, robertpaulsen. If patients could receive marijuana through a reputable and/or legal source, they would not have to resort, in desperation, to the "home-grown or street marijuana". I take it you now believe that medical marijuana can be a valuable aid to those who are suffering but you'd prefer it if those patients could receive marijuana that doesn't possibly harbot bacteria or fungi. If so, you have become a compassionate person who cares for those who are suffering needlessly while other people try to rule over their medical care.
harbot = harbor
Hard to prove a negative.
"The earth has shifted," announced MAPS President and NORML board member Rick Doblin, whose organization donated $5,000 for the preparation of Abrams' application. "Celebration is in order."
So he got funding for his research from an organization that advocates legalization. Is that your proof that he is a legalization advocate?
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.