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.
"Major felony" ... "massively criminal behavior" ... "death" ... "stupidifcation"
Good grief.
S/He seems to be saying that it caused her/his friends to be killed, it corrupts others, etc. Essentially, s/he believes marijuana is equivalent to heroin and cocaine in terms of addictiveness, which isn't true, and that is the reason it's illegal? But anything that causes pleasure is potentially addictive: love, food, drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, video games, the internet, religion, hobbies, exercise, power, control...the list goes on and on and includes many things that are necessary for life itself or even the afterlife, if you have that belief.
I think it is evil to cause someone unnecessary pain and suffering. In the bell curve of humanity, marijuana (which has been used for all sorts of things, including medicinal purposes, for thousands of years) is most certainly going to help certain people. It is far more benign than the pharmaceuticals derived from it, far less dangerous for recreational use than alcohol (a poison) and can be grown by anyone in their own backyard...thereby eliminating the need for dangerous drug cartels. You could buy and sell it at the local farmer's markets just like tomatoes and sweet corn (I bet the FDA would like to ban those as well, once they finish with the vitamin and health food companies).
When we try to legislate against human nature, we only create forms of anarchy in a society that is compelled to violate its own laws. The nationwide 55 mph speed limit created speeders out of otherwise safe drivers. The prohibition against alcohol created criminals out of ordinary citizens and a business opportunity for organized crime (what's that about history repeating itself?). This strikes me as a government being evil, especially when otherwise good and decent people buy into the propaganda and turn on their fellow citizens, including those who simply want pain relief. This is evil. Why? Becuase the government says so. Why?
In other words, you don't think you're lying if you're deluded. Well, I'll certainly agree on the deluded part.
You fail to address all the other points in my post. Especially how can pot be malum in se, if alcohol isn't and drunk driving negligent homicides nevertheless occur? (In far greater number than pot-related negligent homicides?)
How, specifically, are your friends and family "injured parties" from another person choosing to smoke cannabis? >>>
I'm glad nobody in your life has ever died unnecessarily, otherwise you wouldn't ask such a foolish question. If you think pot is a victimless crime, think again. Or, more specifically, begin to think initially.
What car wreak?
The car wreck that killed both my friend and the other driver.
S/He seems to be saying that it caused her/his friends to be killed, it corrupts others, etc. Essentially, s/he believes marijuana is equivalent to heroin and cocaine in terms of addictiveness, which isn't true, and that is the reason it's illegal?>>>
No, it's illegal because it poisons the mind and makes the user stupid. Not as deadly or stupifying as heroin and cocaine, but it's still deadly. (It does not matter that it is not equivalent to cocaine. Dynamite is deadlier than a .22 bullet to the head, but that doesn't make the .22 bullet to the head less deadly than it is.)
But anything that causes pleasure is potentially addictive: love, food, drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, video games, the internet, religion, hobbies, exercise, power, control...the list goes on and on and includes many things that are necessary for life itself or even the afterlife, if you have that belief.>>
Blah blah blah. "First they ban pot, then they'll ban sex! WE gotta stop those Evil Right Wing Nazis....duuuuuude!" (inhales)
I think it is evil to cause someone unnecessary pain and suffering.>>>
Which pot use does.
In the bell curve of humanity, marijuana (which has been used for all sorts of things, including medicinal purposes, for thousands of years) is most certainly going to help certain people. >>>
Where did you get that figure of "thousands of years"? Pot has only been smoked by Westerners for about 80 years or so.
It is far more benign than the pharmaceuticals derived from it, far less dangerous for recreational use than alcohol (a poison) and can be grown by anyone in their own backyard...thereby eliminating the need for dangerous drug cartels.>>>
Again the camel's nose. If it is legal for me to grow it in my garden, it's legal for the Medellin Cartel to import it and sell it to my kid.
When we try to legislate against human nature>>
Since when is smoking a bhong or a joint human nature? It's an acquired taste and habit and the government is exactly right to enforce a ban on its use.
One more time, dead stuff lacks the capacity for evil.>>>
It's not the dead stuff that is evil, it is the act of inhaling it that is evil--putting selfish desire above the need of the society in which you live, not to mention your spouse, parents, and family, who are in many ways left to clean up the mess left behind by one's drug use.
There are six possible adverse effects of regular marijuana use, though the evidence for them isn't conclusive:
1. Lowering of plasma testosterone levels in males
2. Possible adverse influence on the immune system
3. Tachycardia (rapid heart rate)
4. Amotivational syndrome
5. Short term memory problems
6. Respiratory damage due to smoking.
As is often the case, the studies that seemed to support these claims are not conclusive nor are the results easily replicated. In other words, one case supports the theory, another refutes it. If you're basing all your arguments on any of these, stick to #6.
Here's some ammo for you with regards to your "makes the user stupid" argument: it is thought that THC binds to the receptors that are particularly dense in the hippocampus, basil ganglia, cerebellum and neo-cortex. (the hippocampus being the memory center of the brain) However, the evidence for it being addictive isn't at all conclusive. Even with heavy users, physical withdrawl symptoms are rare. In light of the research, marijuana is neither dynamite nor a .22 to the brain.
Do you ever drink? Because alcohol use is potentially damaging. It is a poison and does do damage to the long-term user, though it is thought to be beneficial in moderation.
We, as a society, allow its use because we learned the folly of regulating against the very strong tendancy (human nature) of humans to seek certain pleasures. That is human nature. Have you never heard the idea of avoiding pain and seeking pleasure? Unfortunately, anything that causes us to experience pleasure is potentially addictive.
I'm of the opinion that regulating against human nature is more damaging to society because rational law abiding human beings will become law breakers. Teens who try drugs that were billed as "killer drugs" that turn people into violent, drug-crazed criminals who rapidly becom addicted to heroin, find out they were lied to. If the government lied about marijuana, then why should they believe what they were told about cocaine or heroin or worse, ecstasy. Those three truly are dangerous! Lying about marijuana isn't helping win the fight against dangerous drugs any more than handing the kids ritalin and prozac and while at the same time telling them not to take drugs.
Where did I get that figure of "thousands of years"? From my Biopyschology text. Written records of marijuana use goes back 6,000 years in China, including medicinal uses. As far as Westerners go? Blame it on the Mexican immigrants in the early 1900s. They seemed to be the first US smokers and its use then spread to subgroups like city ghetto poor. If you're using the 80 year figure, then you're probably thinking of the article that appeared in the NOLA newspaper in 1926 about the "menace of marijuana". Alcohol was getting bad press then too.
My point in all of this is to tell you that the camel's already in the tent, but so what? If you can grow it in your back yard, then who is going to buy it from a drug cartel? They aren't going to make enough on it to bother with it or they would be importing tomatoes and melons along with cocaine. Economics 101.
This is the history repeating itself part that I don't understand. Prohibition against alcohol taught us nothing. The drug war is history repeating itself with the same relults. And now if they tax cigarettes high enough perhaps the North Carolina and Kentucky cartels will start bootlegging tobacco. THAT is the folly about regulating against human nature.
The numbers tell you you've already lost the war on marijuana. We now have random search and seizures with no probably cause, eroding our constitution. The facts make me wonder why we bothered to fight it at all, especially considering what drugs are available and truly are dangerous. If you're basing all of your objections to marijuana on lies, then you're lost, no matter how emotionally attached you are to your point of view. (By the way? I'm not a pot smoker. I just think the war on it is worse for us than the drug itself.)
Here's some ammo for you with regards to your "makes the user stupid" argument: it is thought that THC binds to the receptors that are particularly dense in the hippocampus, basil ganglia, cerebellum and neo-cortex. (the hippocampus being the memory center of the brain) However, the evidence for it being addictive isn't at all conclusive. Even with heavy users, physical withdrawl symptoms are rare.>>
PHYSICAL withdrawal. That's the key. We're not talking physical dependency in terms of addiction; we're talking the psychological bliss of being stoned all the time and not having to confront reality. Marijuana is a wonderful cushion from the real world.
In light of the research, marijuana is neither dynamite nor a .22 to the brain.>>
Maybe not. But it's still unnecessary and dangerous.
Do you ever drink? Because alcohol use is potentially damaging. It is a poison and does do damage to the long-term user, though it is thought to be beneficial in moderation.>>>
Drinking alcohol is and has been a part of universal human history and probably prehistory for 5000+ years. Pot is not.
We, as a society, allow its use because we learned the folly of regulating against the very strong tendancy (human nature) of humans to seek certain pleasures. That is human nature. Have you never heard the idea of avoiding pain and seeking pleasure? Unfortunately, anything that causes us to experience pleasure is potentially addictive.>>
True, but some pleasures have such a high cost in terms of social externalities that we prohibit it.
As for alcohol, we found the negative side effects of alcohol prohibition was higher than the negative side effects of legal alcohol use. We would not find the same if we legalized marijuana.
I'm of the opinion that regulating against human nature is more damaging to society because rational law abiding human beings will become law breakers. >>>
Well, that's your opinion, but it is wrong. Regulating against human nature is EXACTLY WHAT CIVILIZATION DOES. It is human nature to want pleasure. It is the job of civilization to moderate, direct or as necessary prohibit that pleasure to maintain civilization.
Example: sexual intercourse is a universal pleasure. HOWEVER, unlimited sexual intercourse with whoever and whenever you want without limit or consequence causes disease, pregnancy, fatherless children, and physical combat between competitive members of the same sex (usually but not always men).
It may well be "futile" to legally prohibit, say, 40 year old men chasing 16 year old girls, but we damn well need to do it anyway in order to protect ourselves from the external costs of that pleasure. Pot is the same.
Teens who try drugs that were billed as "killer drugs" that turn people into violent, drug-crazed criminals who rapidly becom addicted to heroin, find out they were lied to.>>>
Oh, they don't find out the government was right right away. I don't know any 14 year old heroin addicts. But one advances in drug abuse, very often, much in the way another advances ones' career, through time and reptition. There may not be very many 14 year old heroin addicts but I'm willing to bet you'll find 100% former 14 year old pot users among your pool of 20-30 year old heroin addicts.
If the government lied about marijuana, then why should they believe what they were told about cocaine or heroin or worse, ecstasy. Those three truly are dangerous! Lying about marijuana isn't helping win the fight against dangerous drugs any more than handing the kids ritalin and prozac and while at the same time telling them not to take drugs.
Where did I get that figure of "thousands of years"? From my Biopyschology text. Written records of marijuana use goes back 6,000 years in China, including medicinal uses.>>
We aren't China, are we?
As far as Westerners go? Blame it on the Mexican immigrants in the early 1900s. They seemed to be the first US smokers and its use then spread to subgroups like city ghetto poor. If you're using the 80 year figure, then you're probably thinking of the article that appeared in the NOLA newspaper in 1926 about the "menace of marijuana". Alcohol was getting bad press then too.>>>
Maybe but irrelevant. Alcohol is universally human; pot isn't.
I've buried several "externalities." This is proof enough for me.
My point in all of this is to tell you that the camel's already in the tent, but so what? If you can grow it in your back yard, then who is going to buy it from a drug cartel? They aren't going to make enough on it to bother with it or they would be importing tomatoes and melons along with cocaine. Economics 101.
>>>
If it's freely grown in the back yard for "medicinal use," then commercially bred 100% pure stuff will be available commercially because there's a zillion dollars to be made from it, once the drug dealers come out of the closet and pay enough lobbyists and run enough ads in the newspaper. That's Politics 101.
This is the history repeating itself part that I don't understand. Prohibition against alcohol taught us nothing. The drug war is history repeating itself with the same relults. And now if they tax cigarettes high enough perhaps the North Carolina and Kentucky cartels will start bootlegging tobacco. THAT is the folly about regulating against human nature. >>>
Once again: regulating against human nature is PRECISELY WHAT CIVILIZATION IS ALL ABOUT. It is human nature to kill. It is human nature to steal. It is human nature to rape. It is human nature to lie. Civilization is the bulwark against all these tendencies of human nature.
Besides, as I said, sucking on a bhong or roach is not human nature. It's a habit, nothing more.
The numbers tell you you've already lost the war on marijuana. ... I just think the war on it is worse for us than the drug itself.)>>>
Oh really? Pot is not nearly as freely available as it was in 1980, the year of peak use. IIRC a "dime bag" costs about $250 now. That proves that somebody is doing their job at the USG. And if drug dealers are rotting behind bars as a result? So much the better.
Pot. A bad idea, and making it legal is a hideous idea. And thanks be to Christ most Americans agree; given the coming continued rightward swing of the national government this is not likely to change.
re #258/260
>>>You fail to address all the other points in my post.
As I basically agree with them, I saw no reason to.
Simply saying that Appalling may really be that clueless - makes ignorant paleocon reactionaries look bad.
I thought Canada liked druggies.
How old are you? I don't think I've ever read anything of yours that wasn't snide, insulting, or a put down. Certainly nothing jovial.
I do agree that people take refuge from reality in drug use, among other things. And I do agree that civilization should and does regulate against the darker sides of human nature. I just disagree that this is the drug battle we should fight, but I see why you feel the way that you do.
I don't know about availability, but just from what I've read here at Free Republic, it sounds like it's fairly easy to find. Easier than in 1980? I don't know, but if it is, then the war on marijuana isn't working. I don't think Bush lied about the war in Iraq, but the government certainly did about the reasons for fighting the war on marijuana.
God defines "unnecessarily", not you.
My condolences on the lose of your two friends, but notice that emotional reaction has affected your objective evaluation of conditions affecting the foundations upon which this nation was founded.
You must be on guard against being easily led. Your opinions have been conditioned rather than arrived at as a inevitable conclusion from serious consideration and analysis of objective evidence.
And I don't recall reading anything of yours that wasn't insipid, semi-coherent, or laughable, so I guess that makes us even.
I agree with you!
This is disgusting! Why don't they arrest some border jumpers?
God takes those whose time has come, >>>
I trust then that when someone kills a close relative of yours through malice or stupidity you'll shrug it off as the end result of an unforseen chain of random events, easily forgiven.
If not, then you'll wake up and see truth as it is, not as you wish it to be. Things happen for a reason, and evil has consequences for which the doer of evil has responsibility, to a greater or less extent.
Determining that extent is why we have courts. And cops. They don't work perfectly, but we need them nonetheless.
You must be on guard against being easily led. Your opinions have been conditioned rather than arrived at as a inevitable conclusion from serious consideration and analysis of objective evidence.>>>
Forgive me, my Lord and my God, I didn't recognize You had a FreeRepublic account. / s a r c a s m
Your smarmy nick fits you to a T.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529584/posts
Be sure to revisit that thread yourself, Appalled. I've posted to it, and I am looking forward to your response, although given what usually happens when I post these facts, I'm not expecting one.
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.