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??
Yeah, Rush would be an expert on that subject.
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.
Oral delivery has slow onset and is thus more difficult to titrate than a breathed medicine; and patients with nausea often can't keep pills down.
Of course there are other medicines that are more effective.
More effective for EVERY patient? Can you suppor that claim?
Rush Limbaugh made a good point. Libertarians want to pretend that everything they want to affects nobody else.
If Rush is claiming that "affecting someone else" is the test for justifying government force, he's no longer a conservative. The true test, of course, is whether rights are violated ... which they are not by drug sale and use.
A person using drugs affects wives, kids, loved ones and society in ways to numerous to mention.
Also true of the drug alcohol. Shall we re-ban that drug?
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 not the argument.
Kids, drugs are for idiots.
Misrepresenting one's opponent's argument is 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.
Another cowardly misrepresentation. Imagine my surprise.