Posted on 04/14/2005 6:52:15 AM PDT by shrinkermd
As long as we can also give them New York City, Los Angeles, Detroit - - oh, heck.... just give them ALL of our big Democrat parasite litters (cities).
No. What is immoral is the scam being played on the American people by those who wish to legalize "medical" marijuana. What's medical about it? No major medical organization supports smoked marijuana. Studies are incomplete, at best. Its analgesic properties are anecdotal.
Does that even matter? Listen if folks want to smoke marijuana, who are we to butt into their own business? Doesn't bother me. Especially when folks have terminal cancer, we should allow thm to use what they want from the garden for treatment.
What bothers me are folks who think people are too dim to handle personal responsibility or the consequences.
Those who wish to legalize marijuana are using the sick and dying as pawns. They hope that "medical" marijuana will be the camel's nose under the tent. They couldn't care less if marijuana helped a patient or not.
Marijuana dulls pain and increases appitite. Thats good enough for me.
I seriously think marijuana is overrated, but the social conservatives can't handle intoxicants in society well and have a need to control personal morality and I understand that.
"We" are society. Democratically, we decide the rules under which we will all live together.
"Especially when folks have terminal cancer ..."
Because they have terminal cancer they should be allowed to smoke marijuana in a hospital? Ah, you'd say no. You'd make an exception for that. You can make an exception, but I can't.
Oh, if they have terminal cancer and they're going to die anyways, can we harvest their corneas and other body parts before they die? I mean, c'mon, they're going to die and we can really use the parts.
Can we experiment on them to find cures for other diseases? Remember, they are going to die.
"I seriously think marijuana is overrated"
I'm guessing that you find other soft drugs similarly overrated. Perhaps, to avoid being hypocritical, we should also legalize peyote, shrooms, nitrous, Ecstasy, Ketamine, GHB, maybe LSD?
"... but the social conservatives can't handle intoxicants in society well and have a need to control personal morality and I understand that."
Alcohol is legal. Given the current societal problems associated with alcohol, maybe you can understand how it is that "social conservatives" are not in a hurry to legalize other recreational drugs.
>"Listen if folks want to smoke marijuana, who are we to >butt into their own business?"
>"We" are society. Democratically, we decide the rules under >which we will all live together.
You don't sound too conservative with that remark. Democrats use the same excuse to pick your pocket to give money for welfare programs. You are not a true conservative. A true conservative stands for less government, less intrusion by government, and especially for staying out of peoples personal behind closed doors business.
>"Especially when folks have terminal cancer ..."
>Because they have terminal cancer they should be allowed to >smoke marijuana in a hospital? Ah, you'd say no.
Wrong. Of course I'd allow then to smoke marijuana (marijuana can be eaten or vaporized also), but it wouldn't be my decision to make. Thats the beauty of small government. They don't bother themselves with decisions that only affect yourself, marijuana inclulded.
>You'd make an exception for that. You can make an >exception, but I can't.
Because you love getting into other peoples business like a good theocratic conservative.
>Oh, if they have terminal cancer and they're going to die >anyways, can we harvest their corneas and other body parts >before they die? I mean, c'mon, they're going to die and we >can really use the parts.
Red Herring. Marijuana has NOTHING to do with organ donation. BTW I do support assisted suicide, so what comes from that is non of my concern.
>Can we experiment on them to find cures for other diseases? >Remember, they are going to die.
With their consent, of course. Ever hear of research studies? Experimental Drugs endorsed by the FDA? Heck, I know folks who paid for most of college by doing sleep studies.
>"I seriously think marijuana is overrated"
>I'm guessing that you find other soft drugs similarly >overrated. Perhaps, to avoid being hypocritical, we should >also legalize peyote, shrooms, nitrous, Ecstasy, Ketamine, >GHB, maybe LSD?
Peyote is legal in Native American religious ceremonies. Nitrous is legal. Shrooms are practically legal since they grow wild. Ecstacy will mess you up, but it should be legal as long as you know what you are doing. Ketamine is legal. GHB, I don't know enough about. LSD will mess you up, and probably should be illegal, but just to be consistent I say it should be legal. Legal doesn't mean it should be sold at WalMart though, just that you shouldn't go to prison for possession.
>"... but the social conservatives can't handle intoxicants >in society well and have a need to control personal >morality and I understand that."
>Alcohol is legal. Given the current societal problems >associated with alcohol, maybe you can understand how it is >that "social conservatives" are not in a hurry to legalize >other recreational drugs.
More people die in car accidents than by alcohol, should cars be illegal also? How about Cheeseburgers? Twinkies? Massive health problems there.
You know, you're a nanny state liberal. Only reason you are on FreeRepublic is because the Liberals wouldn't have you.
Spoken like a true anarchist.
The soft drugs I listed are illegal recreational drugs. Don't equivocate. That fact that you wish them to be legal tells me that your agenda goes far beyond legalizing "medical" marijuana.
Typical.
>"Democratically, we decide the rules under >which we will >all live together."
>"You don't sound too conservative with that remark."
>Spoken like a true anarchist.
If I'm an anarchist then you're a fascist. By the way, look up anarchist at www.dictionary.com . I'm not an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. Yup, the same group of people who founded America.
You scientific method denying fundamentalist christians conservatives have been around also for a long time also but America was founded on life, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS so you lose the moral arguement.
You've gained political power because Bush and Rove are just exploiting the Christian "Turn Back the Clock" Conservative voting block like cheap whores because then can. The general public is turning away from you after the Terry Schiavo fiasco and the public sees you guys now for what you are, raving illogical theocrats.
Don't forget, many people moved to America to get away from people like you....
>The soft drugs I listed are illegal recreational drugs. >Don't equivocate.
Thats why if anyone who's reading this lives in Nevada, they should vote for Marijuana Legalization in 2006. Our side got 39% of the vote in 2004, but with a "sprucing up" of the law (hard crackdown on consequences end) most political experts see this as a "too close to call" 50/50 issue.
That fact that you wish them to be legal >tells me that your agenda goes far beyond legalizing >"medical" marijuana.
You think? Marijuana Legalization is a symbolic struggle to get the overbearing government, and the overbearing theocrats who write the laws and enforce them, out of our private business when it doesn't concern them. Its Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. As for what written in law books currently, that is just the opinion of man, and that can be changed.
As far as marijuana and I are concerned, can any of gods creations be considered bad?
Even libertarians believe in the rule of law. I described a democratic process which you rejected. That makes you an anarchist by anyone's definition.
"they should vote for Marijuana Legalization in 2006."
If it passed and was then written into law, you do realize that would be unconstitutional, don't you? But you still insist you're a libertarian, huh? Yeah, right.
"As for what written in law books currently, that is just the opinion of man, and that can be changed."
You bet. And there's a process for that.
"can any of gods creations be considered bad?"
Puh-leeze.
>"they should vote for Marijuana Legalization in 2006."
>If it passed and was then written into law, you do realize >that would be unconstitutional, don't you? But you still >insist you're a libertarian, huh? Yeah, right.
How so? If you kept the whole business within the state and even made it illegal for any cannabis to cross the state line, in or out, the inter-state commerce clause wouldn't apply. That means the feds wouldn't have any power to stand on.
Nope the federal executive and their puppetmasters the social conservatives would be snookered out and the libertarian minded Nevadans would be laughing at them, kinda like Oregonians are defiant to the feds with success in regards to legal euthanesia.
The 9th Circuit Court (the most liberal in the nation, btw) has already ruled on such a case. In U.S. v. Visman, 919 F.2d 1390, 1392-93 (9th Cir. 1990), the court upheld the application of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the intrastate criminal cultivation of marijuana plants found rooted in soil but intended for sale, “where the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power”.
Raich v Ashcroft, an intrastate medical marijuana case was recently heard by the USSC. Their decision is expected this summer. But don't hold your breath.
The USSC has already provided some indication of how it would rule on the issue in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Co-op, 532 U.S. 483 (2001). In that case, Justice Thomas noted that the CSA “reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of a medical necessity exception.”
"and the libertarian minded Nevadans would be laughing at them"
Yep, the whole purpose of state's rights is to allow the states to "pull one over" on the feds and laugh about how clever they are.
"kinda like Oregonians are defiant to the feds with success in regards to legal euthanasia."
"Defiant to the feds"? Euthanasia is, and always has been, a state issue.
The only issue was the use of federally regulated drugs in a manner contrary to the way they were designed to be used (ie., to kill, rather than to heal the patient). The 9th Circuit Court ruled that Oregon may use the drugs for such a purpose. The issue will be heard before the USSC this Fall.
> The 9th Circuit Court (the most liberal in the nation, >btw) has already ruled on such a case. In U.S. v. Visman, >919 F.2d 1390, 1392-93 (9th Cir. 1990), the court upheld >the application of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to >the intrastate criminal cultivation of marijuana plants >found rooted in soil but intended for sale, “where the >class of activities is regulated and that class is within >the reach of federal power”.
What about marijuana grown for free as in compassion clubs? No commerce at all? BTW thats how I would set it up, you could grow your own, you could sell grow kits, but the sale of marijuana would attract many problems. After all it is a weed....
Even you have to agree that this goes against the spirit of the Constitution. This is a good example of "reading in" rulings. Its been done before, see Roe vs. Wade.
Like I said previously, marijuana represents more than just an overrated drug thats never killed anyone directly, it represents a backlash against the whole 1960's liberal movement. It is a symbol of everything conservatives are against. As for alcohol, I think a majority or social conservatives would revisit prohibition if they found a way to pull it off and not alienate the Catholic vote.
As for Euthanesia in Oregon, Ashcroft so far hasn't been successful at all, even though the Christian bloc is demanding action on it. After all a plastic bag can do the job as well....
No. It is a fungible product that could be sold and is normally sold.
"Like I said previously, marijuana represents more than just an overrated drug ..."
Marijuana is not harmless. Second only to alcohol, it is used by more people than all the other illegal drugs combined.
"After all a plastic bag can do the job as well...."
As I said before, the sole reason for federal government intervention was that federally regulated controlled substances were being used in a manner in which they were not approved.
Plastic bags or a baseball bat upside the head is fine with the feds (assuming, of course, it's fine with the State of Oregon).
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.