Posted on 06/06/2005 7:16:18 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
Per Fox News:
The Supreme Court has ruled Medical Marijuana as illegal.
Not out of context if you would actully read what Brown says.
Appeals Court Just Holding Spot For Brown: Article on Brown:
Though most Americans support Social Security and the other workers' protections that grew out of the New Deal, Brown holds to a peculiar constitutional view that dismisses the New Deal as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution."
Speaking to the Chicago chapter of the Federalist Society five years ago, she said, "The New Deal . . . inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document."
Knock it off.
Clearly the response of someone who just likes to make statements for the sake of making them. All of your Google research and your argument is based on the the damage cannabis causes when smoked, because of a fungi :) Grasshopper, MJ can also be eaten or compounded into a liquid. The USDA has spent decades studying it (imagine all out tax dollars at work) and to the day they refuse to publish their findings. UK legally sells MJ under a sublingual spray form as an anti-emetic and they have no findings of being abused. If you fear abuse, fine, change the delivery system but please, don't argue fungi as a reason when there is a serious drug abuse of opioid analgesics which have a much more serious side effect than fungi: respiratory depression. So before you go insane googling again, think of an argument and don't list your search results.
That is one of the worst things ive ever read here. I would ban you forever if I could.
No, you're wishing a deadly disease on an established forum member because you don't care for her opinion. Take some time off, and if you behave in this way again your account will be disabled.
The Commerce Clause probably emanates some penumbras that regulate this...
Assuming you're advising your susceptible cancer chemo patients to use their marijuana in this manner, I see no problem.
But I think we both know you aren't. So my statement stands.
I with you on this one.
And I am really surprised to see supposed freedom lovers happily jumping on the bandwagon of goverment interference into the issue of individual freedom. You Americans have gone through prohibition period in your history so you should also know what benefits it brought (forbidden fruit thing, mafia etc). All in all it seems that there always be a government's nanny who knows better what's good for us. And that there'll be hypocrites who'll love it in the name of freedom.
I'd wager 99% of FReepers would disagree with you and your constricted view of the logical process.
Given: The guy has "bad enough" pain. Choice: What to do about it? Among his potential choices we find a finite number of options, including "nothing."
By his own statements, he has eliminated pot as a potential choice; likewise, he has not eliminated suicide. Surely you cannot argue with any of this. It's really quite simple.
As you've put it, when I'm thirsty, I can choose a non-carbonated beverage over thirst or a carbonated beverage over thirst. But, I cannot choose a non-carbonated beverage over a carbonated beverage; it's "irreducible." LOL. This is absolutely ridiculous. "Choosy mothers choose Jif" ... over what, letting their kids go hungry?! (Hey, that's a tough choice!) No, over Skippy and all the other peanut butters. Granted, Madison Avenue isn't Athens but, c'mon. This ain't rocket science. Quit trying to make a pointless point.
That's the way the universe was created. If you don't like it, complain to the Creator.
LOL. That's ridiculous.
Why you are helping lead anyone down the path of justifying suicide is beyond me.
ROTFL! That's the clincher! You put on an air of having superior knowledge of logic, ... and then, you came up with that?! How on earth do you figure I've done anything to help anyone justify suicide? Like it or not, suicide is a potential choice (as are pot, Jack Daniels, even cotton candy). I didn't say any of them was a good or effective choice; it's not even clear that he did. What he did was state his opinion that suicide is a better choice than pot.
Nevermind. This is already way too silly. I don't think I could survive another volley without splitting a gut.
Our government is of "We, the People". We chartered a government that says by charter that if G-d would act, let him act through Us. *We*, as individuals, have and retain by that charter THE sovereign sphere of property and action called our "Inalienable Rights." That charter requires that any government action -- Federal and States (States via the fourteenth at least, but many, including me, say by the the original ratification) -- be in accord and deferential to those rights, and *limited* to the enumerated powers that WE have authorized by the State and Federal Constitutions.
First of all, I'm not late to the party I am very familiar with the states right debate, the abuse of the commerce clause etc. And I've made the same arguments about the speed limit arm twisting and drinking age extortion etc.
My point is that in general both the left and the right are either pro or con states rights depending on what the particular issue is, and not that many take a consistenet stand on the issue.
Ignore her.
So that may well be -- Souter's foot, that is. Yet the worse if so for Liberty.
Sorry but, try as I might, I cannot see how this is analogous to the discussion at hand.
Wow. That's persuasive. /sarcasm
It should persuade you that, no matter how strongly you feel that you're right, your argument is ultimately pointless.
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.