Bush escalates marijuana war Supreme Court asked to sanction doctors who recommend pot

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 07-10-03

[lugsoul]

Will they be required to tell patients about those potential bat side effects?

[MrLeRoy]

Tobacco kills about 390,000 (lung cancer 160,000; lung deseases-emphesyma, bronchitis, pneumonia, flu - 85,000, related heart disease 30,000).
[...]
Marijuana kills 0
There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.

Apples and oranges: you're comparing ALL tobacco-related deaths to ONLY marijuana OVERDOSE deaths. This sloppy (at best) use of statistics gets nailed every time it's posted and does the anti-WOD cause no good whatsoever. Please cease and desist.

[MrLeRoy]

Hah!

[robertpaulsen]

Do you really believe that marijuana is banned because it kills people?

Then why are you trotting out these irrelevent statistics?

[MrLeRoy]

Do you really believe that marijuana is banned because it kills people?

It was banned because it made Mexicans crazy and made white women have sex with black jazz musicians.

[robertpaulsen]

"Simple solution - do away with the need for a prescription."

If the feds are successful, that's what'll happen.

In your opinion (and I won't hold you to the number), what percentage of medical marijuana patients have never (or close to never) smoked marijuana before? Would you say less than 5%? That would be my guess.

Now, what does this mean?

[Wolfie]

I have no idea. My only experience with marijuana has been, and continues to be, non-medical in nature.

[robertpaulsen]

"Doctors have freedom of speech"

And they will continue to have it.

It's just that when they write their speech down on a piece of paper, and that paper is then used to violate federal law, a line is crossed.

[MrLeRoy]

Would you say less than 5%? That would be my guess.

Now, what does this mean?

What does it mean that you repeatedly post your guesses as if they had any significance? An overinflated ego is the first meaning that springs to my mind.

[robertpaulsen]

"It was banned because it made Mexicans crazy and made white women have sex with black jazz musicians."

See? There two good reasons right there!

[exmarine]

Oh yeah, why not ask the Supreme Court to make more laws. In fact, why don't we just abolish Congress and let the courts run the country! It's headed that way anyway.

[robertpaulsen]

In your opinion (and I won't hold you to the number), what percentage of medical marijuana patients have never (or close to never) smoked marijuana before?

Consider it a robertpaulsen survey and humor me (for once). Wolfie won't answer (and I doubt you will) because is shows medical marijuana for what it really is: a fraud and a scam.

[MrLeRoy]

In your opinion (and I won't hold you to the number), what percentage of medical marijuana patients have never (or close to never) smoked marijuana before?

50%.

Consider it a robertpaulsen survey and humor me (for once). Wolfie won't answer (and I doubt you will) because is shows medical marijuana for what it really is: a fraud and a scam.

My guess shows nothing---nor does yours.

[TheFrog]

Re: "This is one thing the founders didn't envision when they wrote the Constitution." Ahh, one of my favorite subjects.

Lets look at what the framers had in mind for government power: Were the plan of the convention adverse to public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with public happiness, it would be Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter.
...
A respect for truth, however, obliges us to remark, that they seem never for a moment to have turned their eyes from the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate; supported and fortified by an hereditary branch of the legislative authority. They seem never to have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations, which by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations.

So sir, you are correct there the founders never intended giving the federal government the power to enact laws that did not affect "interstate commerce". Some forget that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not written to tell the people what they could or could not do. They were written to expressly limit the power of the government to a few select items. As I lack the eloquent writing ability of men such as Hamilton and Jefferson let me phrase this in my own words: Government stay the hell out of my life.

[The Louiswu]

No doubt! - Can't they just die in terrific pain and suffering and get it over with.

Enough of this idea that a person should have the right to decided what kinds of "medications" might be right for them.

Don't they understand the Uncle Sam (Bush) knows what is right for them and they are just silly, stupid people who don't know any better.

[The Louiswu]

It seems to be a sloppy statistic just because you don't like it. It's a set of facts that continue to stare us all in the face.

[Wolfie]

Maybe the "founding fathers" knew exactly what the were doing.

"The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."
-- Lysander Spooner; No Treason (1870)

[The Louiswu]

Many drugs used by folks are no more than..."a fraud and a scam."

But if I were a suffering cancer patient I might well be tempted to reach for a big phatty for some temporary relief and a good case of the munchies.

In that case I don't think I would give a rats behind what Uncle Sam thought of my choice of medications.

[CDHart]

I'm getting a little tired of this administration acting like they know what all of us should do. Between Bush and Ashcroft, we've got a Napoleon complex on our hands.

Carolyn

[MrLeRoy]

Apples and oranges: you're comparing ALL tobacco-related deaths to ONLY marijuana OVERDOSE deaths. This sloppy (at best) use of statistics gets nailed every time it's posted and does the anti-WOD cause no good whatsoever. Please cease and desist.

It seems to be a sloppy statistic just because you don't like it.

On the contrary, as an opponent of the War On Some Drugs I only wish it were true. But the fact remains that the comparison is bogus and only harms the anti-WOSD cause.