How, specifically, are your friends and family "injured parties" from another person choosing to smoke cannabis? What car wreak? 
Posted on 11/26/2005 5:10:56 AM PST by JTN
The federal war on medi-pot patients hit a new low last month when Royal Canadian Mounted Police nabbed 38-year-old Steven W. Tuck from his Vancouver, B.C., hospital bed, whisked him to the border, and relinquished him to the custody of U.S. officials, who wanted him on charges related to a 2001 marijuana bust in California. Tuck, an Army vet, uses marijuana to help treat chronic pain associated with injuries he received in a parachuting accident back in the 1980s (reportedly his parachute failed to open during a jump). In 2001, after his marijuana-growing operation in California was busted, Tuck fled to Canada in an effort to avoid prosecution, reports The Washington Post. For four years, he had been navigating the Canadian system, seeking asylum, but was abruptly, and surprisingly, denied that safe harbor last month, says Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML.
Police arrested Tuck on Oct. 7 after he checked himself into a Vancouver hospital seeking treatment for prostate problems. According to friend Richard Cowan, Tuck was on a gurney, fitted with a catheter, when RCMP nabbed him, cuffed him, and put him in an SUV bound for the border. "I would not believe it unless I had seen it," Cowan told the Post.
Tuck was turned over to authorities and thrown in jail, where he remained for five days with the catheter in place and with only ibuprofen for his pain – pain for which he'd been prescribed morphine and Oxycontin, among other narcotic drugs, says St. Pierre. He was finally taken to court on Oct. 12. "This is totally inhumane," Tuck's lawyer Douglas Hiatt told the Post. "He's been tortured for days for no reason." U.S. Magistrate James P. Donohue re-leased Tuck, at least temporarily, so that he could be taken to a hospital. Tuck's trip to the hospital was waylaid, however, by law enforcement officials who immediately picked him up on a detainer issued by Humboldt Co., Calif., officials in connection with state drug charges related to his growing medi-pot for him-self and others. (Although Tuck is a California state-registered medi-pot patient – meaning he's authorized under state law to possess and grow marijuana for medical purposes – he was also growing for others. At the time, California law enforcers were working under a patchwork of local regulations that defined who could grow for dispensary purposes and exactly how much each person could grow. Tuck had been busted in two different California jurisdictions for growing more than the local law allowed.)
After a flurry of phone calls, Tuck was taken to the hospital, and since then his attorneys have negotiated his release from jail – with the promise that he'll make his various California state court appearances. Sources tell "Weed Watch" that given Tuck's medical condition and the current state of California's medi-pot laws, his supporters are cautiously optimistic that the state charges against him will be dropped. If that happens, whether Tuck will face any prosecution will be left solely up to the feds, who want him on one count of unlawful flight to Canada to avoid the California charges. Whether the federal narcos will exercise their right to bully the sick remains to be seen.
Very well put. I agree totally!
You must be getting tired. Your arguments and come back make much less sense than they did this morning.
Thanks. Good articulate and clear post! I hope you are feeling ok and not in too much pain. Good luck.
signed up in September? Trying to rile things up or are you just stupid?
They are included but only the ones approved of by your caring and benevolent government (and supplied by the pharmaceutical companies).
Excellant post!!! I am so relieved that not all Freeprs are irrational.
I would rather a 14 y.o. smoked something that was grown in the back yard and then ate a couple of loaves of bread and a large pizza than drink a few shots of whatever from the parents' liquor cabinet or worse, take some pharmacological drug with unknown side effects and commit suicide, as many have, or possibly blow away half the school as has also happened.
Yeah, agreed. When freedom is restricted, people lose responsibility for themselves and thus their virtue. Virtue has then becomes the province of government instead of the individual. NOLA this summer was a good example of that.
On the contrary, he was talking about himself and his accomplishments. Normal, healthy people are happy for the fortunes of others, but you see them as an implied put-down of you. Like a liberal, you seek to build yourself up, by tearing others down. But, that only creates rubble. Very un-Christian.
You, however, talked about him and his dogs "I'm sure they will miss you when you're gone," as if no other soul cared one whit about him. That's a also very un-Christian thing to say to another, since you say you are a Christian.
I'm sure the fact he does what he does while getting stoned all the time wounds you deeply, it certainly causes you cognitive dissonance about your "drugs are bad" axioms, but that doesn't excuse your childish insults.
Incidentally, you never responded to my post that drugged-driving negligent homicide doesn't make pot malum in se any more than drunk driving negligent homicide makes alcohol malum in se. Probably because you can't respond.
already posted mea culpa..
Sorry missed it. No big. I thought it was Bishop Berkley until I checked and I majored in Philosophy. So if anyone should be embarrassed it should be me. LOL
On the contrary, he was talking about himself and his accomplishments. >>>
On the contrary, he was bragging of his wealth, his intelligence, and his drug use, which deserved a slap down.
The only cognitive dissonance here is that generated by your refusal to recognize that this s--t is EVIL. Spit at me if you want. I'm just the messenger. Even if I thought you were all wonderful and asked to hit off of your collective (and collectivist) bhong, it would still be evil.
Goodbye.
Pharmaceutical companies can't make any money on pot. It's too easy to grow.
This guy was treating his own pain without big brother's help. We can't have that now.
I lower my guard to give you a chance to take a swing, and you land it on yourself.
--------------
1. It dosen't matter who said it. It's still funny.
2. Ad Hominem: bad argument
3. It wasn't Kinsey
Actually, ALL the libertarians I know think man was born bad--but they think it's far worse to let a huge, authoritarian government run by bad men be in control of everyone, bad or not, than have a few "bad" potheads running around loose. You folks are the romantics--you pretend big government doesn't work, unless it's the big government you favor, and then, government is doing some flag-waving-Lord's-work.
But you keep living in that fantasy world where the war on some drugs is a success. La-la-la, no huge, ineffective federal law enforcement apparatus here, nothing to see, move along now...
How, specifically, are your friends and family "injured parties" from another person choosing to smoke cannabis? What car wreak?
Addiction = a psychological state where one feels a need for a compulsive repetitive behavior. That behavior may be related to achieving a mental or emotional state induced by a chemical (drugs, alcohol), or it may be related to the behavior itself, as with a sex addiction.
But you didn't slap him down on that, you slapped him down on his not having kids. But don't you worry, your own head lice will miss you when you're gone - they depend on you for their sustenence.
In any case, he wasn't bragging, he was contradicting your position (stated again below) that pot is evil and will ruin your life. He is living proof that you are wrong. He merely presented evidence to the contrary, but instead of accepting it and admitting you were wrong, you took indignation, called him a braggart, and then insulted him and the value of his life. If pot really did screw people up as you dogmatically believe, there would be zero cases of people like him. But when they show up and announce themselves, you "slap them down" instead of modifying your own beliefs. So apparently there is no evidence you would accept that you are mistaken, which is why I call your belief dogmatic. Now, you are welcome to have any dogmatic beliefs you wish (even if you don't follow their teachings, e.g. Christianity) but you aren't welcome to inflict those beliefs on others at government gunpoint (e.g. the War On Pot).
The only cognitive dissonance here is that generated by your refusal to recognize that this s--t is EVIL.
First, you are wrong, inanimate objects are incapable of evil. Second, you don't know what cognitive dissonance even is; It takes two things to generate it, that directly contradict one another. I admit that smoking pot isn't the best thing for everybody, and that it will lead some people, but not everybody, to make poor choices, and that some others will be able to lead entirely effective lives even under its constant influence. What fact can you present me that contradicts that? You, on the other hand, believe that it is simply evil and will destroy people, yet here is someone who makes six figures, is an expert at a number of things, etc... sorry, the cognitive dissonance is all yours.
Spit at me if you want. I'm just the messenger.
No you're not. You are either a soldier in the Drug War yourself, or at least a cheerleader for it. Cheerleaders aren't messengers, they are advocates. So, once again, you lie. You lied about Marx's quote, you lie about the effects of pot, and you lie about your role in the War. Typical, unfortunately, of your side.
Even if I thought you were all wonderful and asked to hit off of your collective (and collectivist) bhong, it would still be evil.
One more time, dead stuff lacks the capacity for evil. Furthermore, if people could grow their own, it would be private property, which is as far from collectivism as you can get. Please keep your cliches straight.
As a sponsor of the WoD, I do not approve of the way the Feds are spending my money.
It's not lying if you believe it to be true
Some people don't need to use drugs to have their perception of reality distorted.
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.