Support States' Rights - OK Medical Pot

Real Clear Politics ^ | 6/25/2006 | Debra Saunders

[donh]

Sounds just like Jane Fonda and every other leftist during the 60's.

Well now,let's just do a reality check here. Did or did not Nixon resign and get pardoned for the whitewater breakins? Was that or was it not criminal behavior by the executive branch? Can you caugh up, just off the top of your head, what we won in return for sacrificing about 60,000 of our kids? Cause we won that war, with our clever strategems, right? And you think you can blithly dismiss the effect of all this on the social fabric with an irrelevant, blithely tossed insult? It highly amusing that you think marijuana tore the fabric of civil life up more than this.

I was doing forward intel in that war, I lost friends, and I don't much appreciate being irrelevantly compared to Jane Fonda because you have a itch to scratch about marijuana. I suggest you might possibly mind your manners, and stick to the point you are arguing a little better than this.

[DouglasKC]

Well now,let's just do a reality check here. Did or did not Nixon resign and get pardoned for the whitewater breakins? Was that or was it not criminal behavior by the executive branch? Can you caugh up, just off the top of your head, what we won in return for sacrificing about 60,000 of our kids? Cause we won that war, with our clever strategems, right? And you think you can blithly dismiss the effect of all this on the social fabric with an irrelevant, blithely tossed insult? It highly amusing that you think marijuana tore the fabric of civil life up more than this.

Your honor, I rest my case.

[donh]

Marijuana Dangers: Get Help Now!!

Oh gosh golly. A clinic that makes its money off mandated marijuana committments wants to teach us about marijuana science. I'm so impressed by the dis-interested, objective credentials this web site has.

[donh]

Your honor, I rest my case.

Fat chance.

[donh]

They also sold tapeworms as a weight loss devices, put cocaine in patent medicine, and at one time doctors claimed that cigarettes were healthy too. Medicine has come a long way since those days. Except for potheads. They're making the same claims as tobacco companies did in order to push their product.

Lest we forget. The argument was over whether or not marijuana was legal and available between the civil war and the first world war. A point which I brought up in response to your unfounded and unlikely opinion that legal marijuana would destroy the fabric of civilization, and strike at the marrow of our manhood. May I take it that you now recognize this to be the case--that marijuana did not bring down the republic while we rose to economic pre-emminence in the world? And you are now trying to pile as much irrelevant balony on top of the original argument as you can, not that you've lost it.

[donh]

Well now,let's just do a reality check here. Did or did not Nixon resign and get pardoned for the whitewater breakins? Was that or was it not criminal behavior by the executive branch? Can you caugh up, just off the top of your head, what we won in return for sacrificing about 60,000 of our kids? Cause we won that war, with our clever strategems, right? And you think you can blithly dismiss the effect of all this on the social fabric with an irrelevant, blithely tossed insult? It highly amusing that you think marijuana tore the fabric of civil life up more than this.

Your honor, I rest my case.

Which of my statements of fact here are incorrect? Was the whitewater breakin a crime, or not? Do you think having a president commit felonies might have an effect on the "fabric of civilization" or not? Did we lose the war in Viet Nam, in full retreat, or not? Go on--which of these is an incorrect statement? And you think hippies toking weed in their backyards matches up with this for rending the fabric of civilization? On what planet?

[Diego1618]

Which of my statements of fact here are incorrect? Was the whitewater breakin a crime, or not?

Excuse me for butting in.....but are you guys talking about "Whitewater" or "Watergate"?

[donh]

Again, you're living in the past. AMA Decides Against Endorsing Medical Marijuana

1991 eh? yea, right.

American Medical Association (AMA)
* REFERENCE: Council on Scientific Affairs Report #10: Medical Marijuana
DATE: December 1997
* POSITION: endorsement of a physicians' right to discuss marijuana therapy with a patient
* SUPPORTING STATEMENT: "The AMA believes that effective patient care requires the free and unfettered exchange of information on treatment alternatives and that discussion of these alternatives between physicians and patients should not subje ct either party to criminal sanctions."
* POSITION: research
* SUPPORTING STATEMENT: "The AMA recommend that adequate and well-controlled studies of smoked marijuana be conducted in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy in cluding AIDS wasting syndrome, sever acute or delayed emesis induced by chemotherapy, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, dystonia, and neuropathic pain."

And on 6/22/01, the AMA voted in Chicago to withdraw it's opposition to compassionate access.

The AMA is only partly a science organization. It is also a keenly tuned political body with it's ear to the ground. It withdrew it's opposition to the predecessor of the DEA when they started jailing doctors right and left. They are not the science horse, they are a cart with a sticky wheel that blows however it finds most favor with the administration, to whom they are beholden for their virtual monopoly on medicine, far too easily.

[DouglasKC]

Which of my statements of fact here are incorrect? Was the whitewater breakin a crime, or not? Do you think having a president commit felonies might have an effect on the "fabric of civilization" or not? Did we lose the war in Viet Nam, in full retreat, or not? Go on--which of these is an incorrect statement? And you think hippies toking weed in their backyards matches up with this for rending the fabric of civilization? On what planet?

If I wanted to argue these points with a liberal, I'd call up my sister. Look, you gotta admit that your viewpoint is traditionally the leftist/Democrat viewpoint of the 60's. Don't you recognize that?

[robertpaulsen]

"What qualifies you to speak on this topic?"

To speak? I'm probably as qualified to speak on the subject as anyone else on this forum.

As far as what qualifies me to be taken seriously -- I post the facts. I can back up those facts with links to sources which can then be examined and debated. If my source is biased or wrong, I welcome a correction.

I came to this thread invited. Other times I just show up. I don't bother posting unless I see something that's misleading, dishonst, or an out-and-out lie. For example, the article mentions that this amendment failed last year. True, but not the whole truth. It also failed in 2004 and in 2003. I think that's relevant. I mentioned it.

[Beckwith]

"What qualifies you to speak on this topic?" To speak? I'm probably as qualified to speak on the subject as anyone else on this forum.

As far as what qualifies me to be taken seriously -- I post the facts.

OK, what are those qualifications of which you speak?

Otherwise, just say it's none of my business and I'll write you off as an overly-impassioned crusader.

I posted a response to you that contained my bona fides, where's yours.

By the way, one of the facts you posted was that the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 made Marijuana illegal. It didn't.

Saying something is a fact and linking to some like-minded hysteric doesn't make it a fact and the impression that I get from your posts is someone in a dark cellar surfing the net on a Cannabis Jihad.

[Beckwith]

And about your "About Page?"

I wish I had taken more psych courses.

[robertpaulsen]

"... and I'll write you off as an overly-impassioned crusader."

Please do that. It's easier.

"By the way, one of the facts you posted was that the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 made Marijuana illegal. It didn't."

Technically, no it didn't. But it had that effect, and everyone uses it as the starting point of when marijuana became "illegal". Maybe if I saw my post in context I could be more specific.

Boy, if that's your definition of my "hysterical rantings", maybe you should have taken more psych courses.

[donh]

If I wanted to argue these points with a liberal, I'd call up my sister. Look, you gotta admit that your viewpoint is traditionally the leftist/Democrat viewpoint of the 60's. Don't you recognize that?

Maybe you think it's a clever tact on the part of conservatives to defend conservative values by pretending certain inconvenient facts of history don't exist. There is a large streak of conservative thought that does not support the arrogation of powers to the federal government that accelerated with the New Deal's trashing of the limits on government power explicit in the 9th and 10th amendments. If Friedman and William F. Buckely think I'm a conservative, maybe your conviction on this subject doesn't rest on such a secure foundation after all.

[Beckwith]

Thank you for admitting your fact wasn't.

Now, I've gone back and read all of the posts you made presenting "your facts" in this thread.

Every single one of "your facts" you present, are, in fact, someone's opinion.

For a guy who is so emotionally invested in a subject, you blow a lot of smoke (pun intended.)

And I, for one, would rather smoke a bone than drink Glen Livid, which is, I assume, your drug of choice or is it tobacco?

You still refuse to provide your bona fides. Why should anyone pay attention to your posts?

[donh]

I didn't say it doesn't affect your health--I said the effect was statistically insignificant, for the reason, obvious to anyone whose brain hasn't been fried by uxorious anti-drug propaganda, that marijuana doesn't addict you to the extreme degree that tobacco does But I'm game, show me the stats and I'll retract. Show me the massive clinics where they treat marijuana-induced lung cancer victims. Maybe you can find them if you look next door to the clinics where they treat the 100,000 or so mortal victims of tobacco, a legal recreational drug, each year.

Marijuana Dangers: Get Help Now!!

Ok, I'm game. How many deaths from the use of marijuana did the Spencer Recovery Center report last year?

[tpaine]

As far as what qualifies me to be taken seriously -- I post the facts. I can back up those facts with links to sources which can then be examined and debated.

Here's a 'bold' fact you can't back up.

Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen

[Beckwith]

paulsen has dozens of links that he claims are facts but they are really nothing but someone's opinion.

He also incorrectly stated that the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 made Marijuana illegal. It didn't.

This guy's a nut. Have you looked at his "About Page?"

[Know your rights]

If a doctor wants to prescribe LSD because he and the patient believe it infers a medical benefit, then so be it. If a doctor wants to prescribe heroin to a patient because they both "believe" it infers a medical benefit, then go for it. Belief trumps empirical evidence and rule of law.

There is strong evidence that marijuana has medical benefits. Marijuana need not be smoked ... and whether those benefits outweigh the harms of smoking is not for government to decide.

Conservatives wouldn't define having men having sex with 16 year old boys as "freedom", "liberty" or "states rights".

Minors don't possess the full rights of adulthood, which is why I don't support legalizing marijuana for minors.

Conservatives wouldn't define letting hookers run around neighborhoods unimpeded as liberty

No, they'd call for regulation (including zoning) instead of a futile and counterproductive criminalization.

Conservatives wouldn't define killing unborn babies as liberty

Killing, unlike marijuana sale or use, violates rights.

And conservatives wouldn't define smoking pot as an issue of liberty

Sure they would.

And if we're criminalizing "potential to harm our society" where do we stop? Ban junk food? Enforce bedtimes for adults?

I didn't see your answer to this question.

Pot makes its users docile, stupid and susceptible to liberal propaganda. Since they can remain in this docile and stupid state for decades they make the perfect voting bloc for liberal propaganda.

So it's OK to ban things that make people vote liberal? Attending Harvard? Reading the NY Times?

[DouglasKC]

Marijuana need not be smoked ... and whether those benefits outweigh the harms of smoking is not for government to decide.

Well that's exactly what the left wants, the freedom to smoke marijuana. It's got nothing to do with medicine since Marinol, a pure medicine derived from the plant, is already available. Of course there are other medicines that are more effective.

Now if the left were to come out with their REAL agenda...i.e. we want the "freedom" to smoke pot and take drugs, then it would never sell to the public. So cloak it in respectable terms and confuse the issue. Right out of the Democrat playbook.

Killing, unlike marijuana sale or use, violates rights.

I know you're probably a liberal and don't listen, but Rush Limbaugh made a good point. Libertarians want to pretend that everything they want to affects nobody else. Take drug use. A person using drugs affects wives, kids, loved ones and society in ways to numerous to mention. Just because drug users are too brain fried and selfish to see the truth doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And if we're criminalizing "potential to harm our society" where do we stop? Ban junk food? Enforce bedtimes for adults? I didn't see your answer to this question.

That's because that line of argument is a leftist ploy designed to minimize drug use. It's no worse than eating junk food or not getting enough sleep. That's a load of dangerous tripe and is a completely irresponsible inference to make considering that children can and often do read this forum.

Kids, drugs are for idiots.

So it's OK to ban things that make people vote liberal? Attending Harvard? Reading the NY Times?

There you go again. Taking drugs is no worse than attending Harvard or reading the New York Times. What's wrong with you guys??