GOP Leaders Press Ehrlich To Veto Medical Marijuana

Baltimore Sun ^ | April 4, 2003 | Tim Craig

[Wolfie]

GOP Leaders Press Ehrlich To Veto Medical Marijuana

The Bush administration and other top national Republicans are heavily pressuring Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. to veto a proposal that would drastically reduce penalties for terminally ill patients who smoke marijuana to ease pain.

In recent days, several Republican officials have urged Ehrlich to reconsider his longtime support of medical marijuana, which has become one of the few issues that divide the state GOP.

Rest of article here.

[Lysander]

You are, IMO. You and pro-pot organizations shield yourselves by feigning sympathy on the suffering of innocents while your true symapthy lies with your wider and ultimate agenda.

Same to ya, only in reverse. you want sick people to be denied treatment to protect the wider prohibition agenda. Think about it.

[Dane]

Read much? It's not feigned

If that were true then, IMHO, you and pro-pot organizations would stop at medical issues and not push on for total drug validation.

[Hacksaw]

It is only slightly more addictive than nicotine or caffein.

Except heroin addiction is a hell of a lot more devestating than addiction to nicotine or caffeine.

[meema]

You know, sometimes I think our Republican lawmakers will never grow up. Maybe their loved ones will get cancer, arthritis, etc., and smoked pot is the least harmful painkiller for them! {I have a very painful arthritism among other things, and don't like the drugs that are prescribed for me...}
Sorry, I get so mad at these politicians! I would cheerfully take away their alcoholic drinks that they use just for fun!

[Dane]

Same to ya, only in reverse. you want sick people to be denied treatment to protect the wider prohibition agenda. Think about it

Uh check out my reply #27, where I actually state that I am for the concept of medical marijuana.

[dcwusmc]

Thanks for your concern. Actually you are QUITE useful to me (and others, I am sure...). Your posts are so inane and full of roscoe that I automatically have to take the opposite position from you, as I KNOW mine will then be the correct one. Your average, from what I can see, is ZERO. Wrong 100 percent of the time. I guess, in a perverted way, you can take pride in that. I know that if ever I see you say anything I can actually agree with (hasn't happened yet), I will have to IMMEDIATELY see a p-shrink and find out what's wrong with me.

[Dane]

After your reply #126, I am exiting this thread you are trying to turn into your own personal loony bin.

Sad actually, the conversations were actually kinda civil for a drug thread.

[jmc813]

from a pottie

Pottie. I like that. Can we be potties instead of liberdopians from now on?

[MrLeRoy]

It's not feigned

If that were true then, IMHO, you and pro-pot organizations would stop at medical issues and not push on for total drug validation.

That in no way follows. Why should the belief that Z has medical uses preclude the belief that Z should be legal to adults for recreational use?

[MrLeRoy]

total drug validation

I don't want to "validate" drugs but to relegalize them for adults---just as I don't want to "validate" tobacco use but I do want it kept legal for adults.

[dcwusmc]

bye!

[dcwusmc]

They WERE almost civil until your post 120 to me. So I responded the way it deserved. I'll try real hard to miss you.

[headsonpikes]

"Marijuana isn't the enemy - socialism is."

I agree completely. My earlier point about legalizing opiates was in reference to the absolute amount of harm done. It seems to me there's a moral priority, here. Too often, the cause of ending the WOD appears hi-jacked by spoiled yuppie-puppie stoners.

This does no service to the principled campaign to end the clearly unconstitutional and utopian War on Drugs.

I think the government should simply IGNORE marijuana; the opiates cannot be ignored. THEY should be regulated, like any other potentially lethal commodity.

Marijuana?...feh, what's that got to do with the Helm of State?

[Roscoe]

"Though cannabis was widely cultivated in America for three hundred years, both as a fiber resource and for its medicinal properties, its use as an intoxicant was rare until the beginning of the twentieth century."

So its use as an intoxicant today should be illegal because it was historically rare

No, there was just less percieved need for legislation when such use was rare. Today legal restrictions exist at the federal level and in all fifty states.

but its use as a medicine today should be illegal although it was historically widespread.

A lot of snake oil remedies have been rejected over the years. The AMA's position is that the sale and possession of marijuana should not be legalized.

Got it.

Not even close.

[MrLeRoy]

The AMA's position is that the sale and possession of marijuana should not be legalized.

And the Institute of Medicine's position is that marijuana has medical value.

[Roscoe]

2nd Amendment defender

Exactly. It demeans our RKBA to equate it with drug use.

[Roscoe]

The IOM believes it should be a schedule II drug, not that it should be legalized.

[Roscoe]

Drugs and paranoia go together.

[William Terrell]

Bookmarked. Thanks.

[jmc813]

The AMA's position is that the sale and possession of marijuana should not be legalized.

The AMA is also one of the biggest gun-grabbing groups in the country.