Posted on 05/12/2005 5:11:33 PM PDT by Know your rights
Albany – New York's law and order Republicans said yesterday it's high time marijuana be made available for patients in pain.
The new support from Senate Republican leaders gives legalizing medical marijuana its best chance ever in New York, but Gov. George Pataki, whose sights are set on a 2008 presidential bid, won't commit to the plan. If passed, New York would be the 13th state in the country allowing doctors to prescribe pot.
"I support it personally, yes I do, but with the proper constraints," Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, R-Brunswick, said.
Sen. Vincent Leibell, a Westchester Republican and former prosecutor, said he plans to submit a bill by next week to allow the use of marijuana for medical reasons. It would be the first Senate introduction of such a bill by a member of the majority party.
The bill would allow New York doctors to prescribe pot for patients suffering life-threatening, degenerative or disabling diseases, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis or AIDS.
Federal law prohibits the possession of marijuana, but the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on whether states have the right to allow doctors to prescribe it as medication.
"I know it helped my son so much. It made such a difference," said Monticello's Mildred Kaitz, who gained notoriety for growing marijuana for her multiple sclerosis-stricken son. Kaitz, now 91, was arrested in 1993 for growing pot.
Assemblyman Tom Kirwan, R-C-Newburgh, a former state police investigator, became an outspoken proponent of medical marijuana last year. Sen. John Bonacic, R-C-Mount Hope, supports the plan as long as there are strict controls.
The Democrat-controlled Assembly has passed a medical marijuana bill in committee each year since 1997 but never sent it to the floor for a vote.
"If the Senate is willing to go, I think a very narrow bill is something we could do," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said. "If we can do it, we might help some people."
It oughta be legalized. It's a waste of time and money trying to enforce those pot laws.
Finally, some sanity on this issue. I hate pain, if licking frogs relieves the pain, let's prescribe frogs and a glass of water. What is the difference between prescribing pot for pain, or heroin? Both are potentially addictive drugs and both of them work. Heroin, Barbituates and Amphetimines are addictive, yet we use them.
I have no problem with this either.
My brother just died of cancer, and if smoking pot would have made him feel better before he died then I would have been okay with it.
I agree too!
Quite correct; in fact, they are all considerably more addictive than marijuana (as is alcohol, which we allow for recreational use).
Can't they put it in a pill or cough syrup or something? Smoking causes all kinds of other health problems, like lung cancer.
A cancer-causing agent ostensibly 'prescribable', and with insufficent science behind it ALL because 'popular outcry' calls for it.
"Just say no."
It doesn't have to be; but smoking acts quicker, which means patients are better able to stop when they've had enough, and nauseous patients have a hard time keeping pills down.
As for the bad effects of smoking: many medicines have harmful side effects. It should be up to doctors and patients, not government, to decide whether the benefits outweigh the harms.
These issues should be decided by doctors and patients, not government.
What we have here is the worst situation: Legal to use it, illegal to produce or distribute. That is what leads to the wars on the streets, which leads to the intrustions on the 4th and 2nd amendments. Personally, I think it should be legal and Phillip Morris can grow it. But, if not, then we need to fight the war as hard as we can.
"It doesn't have to be; but smoking acts quicker, which means patients are better able to stop when they've had enough, and nauseous patients have a hard time keeping pills down."
I would imagine that a transdermal skin patch could be quite effective and one could avoid the cancer risks associated with smoking.
"I would imagine that a transdermal skin patch could be quite effective and one could avoid the cancer risks associated with smoking."
However, in spite of the possibility that a transdermal patch (with some standardized levels of THC) might have many benefits over smoking pot, I guess it would get significantly less support since I suspect a large amount of the support for the medicinal use of pot is from otherwise healthy people who just like to smoke fatties and get stoned of their gourds.
Or, just say, "Yes."
Ever heard of liberty?
Ever heard of 'natural rights'?
Ever heard of 'mind your own business'?
Hmmm?
Or, just say, "Yes." Ever heard of liberty? Ever heard of 'natural rights'? Ever heard of 'mind your own business'? Hmmm?
LOL! Well, me too. Having taken two friends through terminal cancer I'm not going to worry about whether it makes them lazy or not. It's sort of beside the point.
You give great Koolaid!
Wow! Smear with child porn, then hike up your skirts to show off your blue stockings!
Remember, Koolaid is a gateway drug.
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.