Posted on 04/16/2015 8:54:18 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Medical marijuana is an oxymoron if ever there was one.
Only to those who have no clue what they're talking about.
Lot’s more folks in pain today in GA.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Medical marijuana has many uses from relieving the effects of chemo therapy in cancer patients and increasing their appetite, to eliminating epileptic seizures in some children.
You’re talking far too much common sense for the moronic anti-MJ crowd, who still think “Reefer Madness” is a documentary.
Medical marijuana is an oil. It’s not the smoking, or edible stuff (recreational) that’s used to get high. It’s available by prescription. Folks like to use the term medical marijuana to confuse folks into thinking it’s the smoking dope . That’s how they get the sympathetic vote, putting the term medical in front of it. We already have medical marijuana legal in Florida called charlottes web. The voters turned down recreational stuff last time they voted. It’s easy to get confused.
Do you know if the oil is rubbed into the skin or is it consumed?
...Medical marijuana is an oxymoron if ever there was one.
The American Academy of Neurology is about as conservative a medical organization as you can get, but is maintains a strong position on the use of THC and Central Pain Syndromes, such as seen, for example, in Multiple Sclerosis.
https://www.aan.com/Guidelines/home/GetGuidelineContent/650
There may be some truth to all of that. I will concede.
But I happen to live in CA. I see all of the TOTAL BS associated with “medical marijuana”. AND IT IS TOTAL BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS in my state.
Just go to Venice Beach or Melrose Ave. to see what I mean. You smell the crap all over the place.
Forgive me if I sound contemptuous of MM. But I see how it is totally flouted here in CA.
The Florida initiative required 60% to pass but got 58%. That is hardly “turning it down” but your confusion is noted.
Uh, no. Why head to a med mj state when there are 2 recreational mj states they can go to?
So do you defend CA’s 10th Amendment power to decide this matter, even if you think it’s a bad policy?
Good.
No. It isn’t. It’s medicinal properties are well documented and clear.
MM was approved here in CA by a ballot initiative. Here in CA voters can pass laws themselves. Our state constitution allows the voters to do this by way of our many ballot initiatives.
Unfortunately, some ballot initiatives that I voted for and that were passed by the voters are no longer in effect.
In 2008 the voters passed an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. No longer in effect.
In 1994 the voters passed an amendment to the state constitution denying state public services to illegal aliens. That is also no longer in effect.
In 1996 I believe was the year the voters passed an amendment to the state constitution allowing for “medical marijuana” in the state. And I say “medical marijuana” using parentheses in much the same way Mike Meyers does as Austin Powers.
So do you defend CAs 10th Amendment power to decide this matter, yes or no?
No, medical marijuana is whole-bud marijuana used for medical purposes; cannabis oil is an extract, also used for medical purposes.
Yes of course. Number one: I fully support the 10th Amendment.
Number two: It doesn’t matter if I like a particular law or dislike a particular law. The law is the law.
Number three: I find it very frustrating to say the least that ballot measures which passed that I supported were overturned in the courts such as the ones dealing with marriage and illegal immigration. That’s what galls me to no end.
Number four: Lastly MM is a total joke in CA and everyone knows it.
Other states have implemented medical marijuana with stricter controls than CA.
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.