stevestojan Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 One of the medications I used to take for MS warned that if I was considering suicide, I should contact my doctor immediately. It required skin popping a drug that I had to mix myself, and was like taking an IV of the flu. It took almost three months to build a tolerance to the side effects. Another med I take now for anxiety and stress has made me a drug addict, and it will be a long and difficult withdrawal some day. I am not a regular pot smoker now, but back when I smoked a few hits every evening, I NEVER considered suicide, was not addicted, and the worse side effect was giggling at stupid things, understanding the words to that song from Pink Floyd's Umma Gumma (you know the one I mean), and a bad case of the munchies. Now THOSE are serious side effects. 352521[/snapback] Good post. Hope you're feeling OK now... But the funny thing is if you weren't (feeling well from MS) and wanted to ease the pain with the bud of a flower that grows out of the ground, you could get arrested. But pop a pill containing god knows how many chemicals made in a lab? You're safe. Comparing weed to ANY other illegal drug is just ridiculous.
BF_in_Indiana Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 I bet if you polled the moral majority the vast majority would legalize marijuana. 352520[/snapback] Unfortunately the ones in office are on the wrong side of the fence.
rockpile Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 I am doing great. I quit smoking pot when I started doing D.A.R.E. Walks with my kids. It seemed like the right thing. No withdrawl symptoms. Now, quitting cigarette smoking, THAT was a B word! Good post. Hope you're feeling OK now... But the funny thing is if you weren't (feeling well from MS) and wanted to ease the pain with the bud of a flower that grows out of the ground, you could get arrested. But pop a pill containing god knows how many chemicals made in a lab? You're safe. Comparing weed to ANY other illegal drug is just ridiculous. 352526[/snapback]
Chilly Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 pot is jsut as bad as alcohol, but not as deadly as cigarettes. why cant the government cahrge the doctor who perscribed the pot to begin with? but are there medical uses of pot? maybe. i know alot that would want to be in that study.. 352079[/snapback] Okay, so were you high or drunk when you typed this? Your typing sucked, it had to be one of the two. Fess up!
Chilly Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 Good post. Hope you're feeling OK now... But the funny thing is if you weren't (feeling well from MS) and wanted to ease the pain with the bud of a flower that grows out of the ground, you could get arrested. But pop a pill containing god knows how many chemicals made in a lab? You're safe. Comparing weed to ANY other illegal drug is just ridiculous. 352526[/snapback] Shrooms can be pretty dangerous if you aren't in the mindset (like, um, during a coke comedown and you stupidly decided to take shrooms). Ecstasy though, that was a drug! In one ways I miss being a nieve, funloving, drug user. But in most ways I don't.
Arkady Renko Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 Not to split hairs, but nothing in the article (other than a reference to the constitution) suggested that the argument for federal jurisdiction was based on interstate commerce. It sounds to me like that was not the rational (but I don't know anything else about the ruling). 352467[/snapback] The argument in fact did hinge on the interstate commerce clause as the question was whether the federal government had the right to supercede a state rule when the product was produced in state. So... before you "split hairs" you should look into more than just one superficial article. At issue in the case was Congress' right under the U.S. Constitution to pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" — that is, economic activity that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was home-grown marijuana, distributed to patients without charge, and it never crossed state lines. Lawyers for the women argued, therefore, that the federal government had no jurisdiction.
webtoe Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 I bet if you polled the moral majority the vast majority would legalize marijuana. 352520[/snapback] In regards to the moral majority....the dissenting members of the court were O'Connor, Thomas, and I believe Rheinquest. All the 'Liberal' leaning judges, along with Scalia and Kennedy ruled for the decision.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 In regards to the moral majority....the dissenting members of the court were O'Connor, Thomas, and I believe Rheinquest. All the 'Liberal' leaning judges, along with Scalia and Kennedy ruled for the decision. 352932[/snapback] And with that, the lover of bovines can now be seated. SCHOOLED!
BF_in_Indiana Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 And with that, the lover of bovines can now be seated. SCHOOLED! 352936[/snapback] HAHA I love seeing a guy from Pennsyltucky try to insinuate that I'm some sort of hillbilly with no education. It's laughable at best and stupidity at worst. Why don't you venture outside of Pennsyltucky once in a while and see the world J-Bone. Gain some perspective.
BF_in_Indiana Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 In regards to the moral majority....the dissenting members of the court were O'Connor, Thomas, and I believe Rheinquest. All the 'Liberal' leaning judges, along with Scalia and Kennedy ruled for the decision. 352932[/snapback] When I refer to the "moral majority" I'm referring to a general group pf people that take no interest in what the people of America want. The supreme court is not taking the best interest of sick and terminally ill people into their thought process because their tainted view of marijuana won't allow them to do so. Marijuana is not a drug and to hear them compare it to heroin tells me all I need to know.
stuckincincy Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 The Supreme Court is leaning on the legislature to enact the law that would permit medincinal use. This ruling by the court only makes it more likely that Congress will force NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse, primarily responsible for blocking medicinal marijuana research by refusing to provide its marijuana to FDA-approved scientists) to change its stance. 352395[/snapback] Yes. Justice Thomas' dissent more or less said the federal congress should either act or buzz off and respect State's rights.
Alaska Darin Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 HAHA I love seeing a guy from Pennsyltucky try to insinuate that I'm some sort of hillbilly with no education. It's laughable at best and stupidity at worst. Why don't you venture outside of Pennsyltucky once in a while and see the world J-Bone. Gain some perspective. 352940[/snapback] Yeah, a guy who served in the military has no perspective but some hayseed from Indiana who's never been with a woman does. Sure...
Alaska Darin Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 When I refer to the "moral majority" I'm referring to a general group pf people that take no interest in what the people of America want. The supreme court is not taking the best interest of sick and terminally ill people into their thought process because their tainted view of marijuana won't allow them to do so. Marijuana is not a drug and to hear them compare it to heroin tells me all I need to know. 352943[/snapback] The decision has nothing to do with marijuana - but I'm sure CNN didn't tell you that. It has to do with states making ANYTHING legal that is ILLEGAL at the federal (higher) level. States are allowed to be more restrictive, but the federal law is the minimum and that's always been. Hence the reason the Legislative branch makes the law. You want medical marijuana to be legal, take your opposition where it belongs - to your congressional representation.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 HAHA I love seeing a guy from Pennsyltucky try to insinuate that I'm some sort of hillbilly with no education. It's laughable at best and stupidity at worst. Why don't you venture outside of Pennsyltucky once in a while and see the world J-Bone. Gain some perspective. 352940[/snapback] How's that Job at the 7-11 going, Cletus? And I'm not FROM PA, I'm a WNYer. Not to mention the fact I've traveled through several states and to the middle east on my Uncle Sam's dime. Let us all know how the John Deere convention in Indianapolis goes, mmmmkay?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 My point? Well, I understand that Chemo is a potential cure and Marijuana is not. However, WHO THE HELL is the supreme court to tell people who have any or all of the side effects from cancer drugs (or just the pain from cancer(s) anyway) that they can't smoke a joint to make themselves feel better? 352470[/snapback] Actually, that's not even REMOTELY the intent of the Supremes in their ruling. All they said is that, since under federal law pot is illegal, it is outside the state's scope of powers too make any law that countermands the federal law. The Supreme Court isn't telling people they can't smoke pot for medicinal purposes, they're telling the states that they can't supercede federal law. It's the federal law that tells people they can't smoke pot without exception...and that's Congress' (and maybe the White House's; I don't know the history of the legislation) fault.
Alaska Darin Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 Actually, that's not even REMOTELY the intent of the Supremes in their ruling. All they said is that, since under federal law pot is illegal, it is outside the state's scope of powers too make any law that countermands the federal law. The Supreme Court isn't telling people they can't smoke pot for medicinal purposes, they're telling the states that they can't supercede federal law. It's the federal law that tells people they can't smoke pot without exception...and that's Congress' (and maybe the White House's; I don't know the history of the legislation) fault. 352968[/snapback] And we wonder why government runs roughshod over us when the majority of the citizenry doesn't even have the basic understanding of how things work. Bring back school house rock and run it over and over during "American Karaoeke" and "Lost." 'Tards.
buckeyemike Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 When I refer to the "moral majority" I'm referring to a general group pf people that take no interest in what the people of America want. The supreme court is not taking the best interest of sick and terminally ill people into their thought process because their tainted view of marijuana won't allow them to do so. Marijuana is not a drug and to hear them compare it to heroin tells me all I need to know. 352943[/snapback] Whew...I thought you meant Jerry Falwell's old group. The question is, what do the people of America want? Polls are no help here, because they can be easily skewered to obtain a particular result. Is there a tainted view of marijuana in this country? Absolutely. However, remember that possession of pot 35 years ago in most states was a felony. Today, at least in Ohio and Texas, having up to 99 grams of the chronic is no worse than a traffic ticket. My feeling is that marijuana IS a drug. However, it is a controlled substance that can easily be regulated by the government (and should be done, because the government can tax the hell out of it). I don't see it happening, largely because of the pharmecutical lobby and the fact that most of our leaders have had it drummed into their brains that grass is evil, satanic, and will scare little children in the dark of night. Don't forget that 50 years ago, pot was called reefer, and was seen as a drug used largely by African-Americans, that good little Caucasian kids shouldn't touch, lest they be turned into crazed drugged-out zombies. There has always been a LOT of racism in this country's drug policy, and if you don't believe that, look at the penalties for possession of crack cocaine vs. powdered cocaine. Both types of cocaine are evil and heinous. I've seen what that crap can do. And, by the way, I've never touched the stuff, and have no urge to do so. Yet, I believe that marijuana should be legalized, at least for medicinal purposes. Mike
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 And we wonder why government runs roughshod over us when the majority of the citizenry doesn't even have the basic understanding of how things work. 352972[/snapback] No, we don't. It's called "Bread and Circuses"...or, in these times, "HotPockets and American Idol".
buckeyemike Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 No, we don't. It's called "Bread and Circuses"...or, in these times, "HotPockets and American Idol". 352989[/snapback] The attitude these days seems to be "Entertain Me". Mike
pkwwjd Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 The decision has nothing to do with marijuana - but I'm sure CNN didn't tell you that. It has to do with states making ANYTHING legal that is ILLEGAL at the federal (higher) level. States are allowed to be more restrictive, but the federal law is the minimum and that's always been. Hence the reason the Legislative branch makes the law. You want medical marijuana to be legal, take your opposition where it belongs - to your congressional representation. 352959[/snapback] precisely, well put AD
Recommended Posts