PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Decision-Medical Marijuana


BIG_DADDY
05-14-2001, 05:48 PM
I said that this was going to happen. One more step twords completely ignoring the citizenry. You don't need to look any further to see what they think of your vote.

BIG DADDY

Big government just keeps getting bigger.
<IMG SRC="http://www.marijuana.org/GraphixFolder/graphix3/leaf_ani.gif";
<IMG SRC="http://www.marijuana.org/GraphixFolder/graphix3/bud10.gif";

oleman47
05-14-2001, 06:06 PM
Haven't seen the news. Whot appen?

keg in kc
05-14-2001, 06:08 PM
What the heck is that?

There's a post right after oleman's that is listed as another post #2, has no name but does say "guest". It's solid dark blue, was green originally.

Anyone else seeing this?

hmm, now it's after my post.

Weird...

AustinChief
05-14-2001, 06:11 PM
Maybe it's the medical MJ? ;)

No... it's me... I'm testing a few things.. sorry.

--Kyle

oleman47
05-14-2001, 06:12 PM
Bush says God is directing his administration, must be after me. Didn't know he/she was Green, like others, I saw white.

BIG_DADDY
05-14-2001, 06:15 PM
Sorry Oleman had to take off for a second. They just denied anybody's ability to receive medical marijuana. http://news.iwon.com/home/news/news_article/0,11746,54612|top|05-14-2001::16:15|reuters,00.html

oleman47
05-14-2001, 06:24 PM
Yeah. Just saw it as I posted. My daughter had a friend, a very old friend dying of cancer and this was the only thing in her life. Her son got busted, a pretty old guy himself, didn't know the ropes, I guess. I do not use it, I get sick just smelling it. 50 billion and growing, one of our major industries is putting weed people in jail. Teach those hippies a thing or two. Don't see many hippies any more, must be a success.

Frazod
05-14-2001, 06:29 PM
In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court shot down medical marijuana.

I guess they want to take the war on drugs to terminally ill cancer patients. What a crock of sh!t.

One of the biggest problems this country has is illegal drugs and the crime that results because of them, or I should say the crime that results because the morons who run this country continue to be blind to the fact that they cannot legislate the basic needs and desires (perceived or otherwise) of the masses. Prohibition should have given them a clue, but it didn't.

We should cut our losses and legalize all drugs, NOW. Talk about taking a bite out of crime - legalization would kick crime's a$$. The "war on drugs" is a pathetic, doomed, abject failure.

Of course, I guess your average Supreme Court justice is well-off enough to be able to afford all the "legal" alternatives to pot to ease their pain. Why should we expect any of them to relate or care about what happens to the rest of us?

philfree
05-14-2001, 06:42 PM
Could it be that the same Petroleum Industry that I mentioned in the other thread about "Slick Willy" is the same one that supplies the petroleum that is used to make most pharmecuticals?

PhilFree

kcfanintitanhell
05-14-2001, 09:01 PM
Reprehensible, disgusting, and sickening, are the only adjectives I can come up with at the moment. If anyone cares to check out a website by people that are fighting the war on drugs agenda 24/7, go to www.warondrugs.com-lots of info and links. I have a question for anyone who happens to know anything about this-there are several states that have the medical mj issue coming up for a vote this fall-if the referendum passes, does that invalidate the supreme court(subcaps intentional) ruling in that state?
By the way, Tennessee has this new thing going on, having to do (supposedly) with enforcing the seat belt law on highways. Starting Memorial weekend and running through the summer, local and state police will have roadblocks where they will be checking for compliance with the selt belt law. Nothing wrong with that in itself except that I have heard from several people that drug dogs will be present.
Wasn't it this kind of behavior, in part at least, that so many millions of people fought and died in WWI and WWII to ensure that our citizens would be free from?

kcfanintitanhell
05-14-2001, 09:06 PM
If anyone tries the link I posted below, delete -lots. That shouldn't have been included in thee URL.

KCWolfman
05-14-2001, 10:23 PM
Even the defending lawyers of the use of illegal substances admitted to the Supreme Court that marijuana has no proven medicinal purposes and that other legal medications are much more effective at controlling pain.

I don't mind people fighting for what they believe is right (even though I heartily disagree), but to mask it as a medicinal property is a crime in itself.

That said, the law only affects those who produce the product as a co-op. Most California laws are still legal regarding 'medicinal (cough cough)' use of marijuana.

Tomahawk 11
05-14-2001, 10:26 PM
They did not strike down medicinal marijuana, they struke down the smoking of marijuana under the guise of medicinal purposes. There is a "medicinal marijuana" pill called marinol. It has the THC derivitives in it. They wouldn't get to smoke it, just swollow it. Guess that isn't good enough.

To me, the pill is a win-win situation. They get to be high and feel "better" and I don't have to smell it, or smell like it. Keep in mind that marijuana doesn't cure anything. It gets them high so they can forget about it for awhile. So... why can't they just take the marinol pill?

I listened to a member of the board of directors of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) speak. His name is Dan Veets and he is/was (not sure anymore) a defense attorney in Columbia, MO. He said that the whole thing with getting it legalized for medicinal purposes was a "bullet" or a step towards getting it legalized completely. NORML and people who want mj legalized sincerely care for those who "need" it for medicinal purposes about as much as a shark sincerely cares for it's Pilot fish. It's an extra push for them, nothing more.

Jay-N-AZ
05-14-2001, 11:09 PM
I just thought I would leave a rant from my favorite comedian the late great bill hicks it kind of fits the subject.

Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit... paranoid? You know what I mean? It's nature. How do you make nature against the law? It grows everywhere. Serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying God made a mistake. You know what I mean, it's like God on the seventh day looked down on his creation:
"There it is, my creation, perfect and holy in all ways. Now, I can rest."
[Mimes God looking around - spotting pot]
"Oh my me."
"I left pot everywhere."
"I should never have smoked that joint on the third day ..
"That was the day I created possums. Haha. Still gives me a chuckle."
"If I leave pot everywhere that's gonna to give humans the impression they're supposed to... 'use' it."
"(sigh) Now I have to create Republicans."

KCWolfman
05-15-2001, 12:01 AM
God also created arsenic, hemlock, bladders of poisonous blowfish, and the AIDS virus. Enjoy them all as they occur naturally as well.

oleman47
05-15-2001, 06:01 AM
Judge Thomas in his majority opinion used a 1970 opinion by CONGRESS as his proof that medical use was not valid. Listened to a Doc saying it will be ten years before the ingredients which are beneficial to these patients will be available in a suffiicient manner to be delivered by pill. It is amazing to me that anything scientific that conflicts with ideology is so easily dismissed.
With tort reform limiting the liability of medical delivery to deliver, having the Supremes bail out is just how far you must "follow the money" to understand anything that is going on.

redhed
05-15-2001, 09:19 AM
Just not in this country.

In Holland, Greece, and Turkey, cannabinoids are all good. If you've got to have a smoke, why not just go where it's legal? The last time I checked, they still have daily flights to all of those countries.

Jay: Love the Bill Hicks stuff. He left us too early, as all of the good ones do.

BIG_DADDY
05-15-2001, 09:24 AM
Wolfman,

Your missing the point. The voters have spoken and the court told us to go screw ourselves. If we continue to allow this behavior one day they will take some freedom even you enjoy in your ideal repressive society. BTW, why should these ailing persons pay some drug company a bunch of money when they can just plant a seed to receive their medicine. How many Pharmaceuticals do you own in your 401k?

BIG DADDY

MJ is a natural herb not a natural poison. Pretty ruff metaphore.

htismaqe
05-15-2001, 09:37 AM
This is just the 2001 version of the 1937 Stamp Tax Act all over again.

First, it was the mills, not wanting to compete against hemp paper. Then it was the oil companies, not wanting to compete against hemp fuels.

Take a look at the Fortune 500 over the 90's and who do you see? Squib, Bristol Meyers, Eli Lilly...yeah, that's right. Medicinal marijuana puts a serious squeeze on a VERY profitable market. Why? Because marijuana makes you FEEL GOOD. Look at the top selling drugs and you'll see Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Luvox -- yep, drugs that make you FEEL GOOD.

Using marijuana's classification as a narcotic (which it is NOT) to discourage free enterprise and business competition is downright facist.

You can look at this as moralistically as you want, but this has nothing to do with morals. It has everything to do with money. Morals are the disguise, the one everyone hides behind. "Marijuana is illegal because using it is wrong." Bull****...

htismaqe
05-15-2001, 09:39 AM
By the way, there's strong evidence to suggest that God DID NOT create HIV, the US government did...

Brock
05-15-2001, 10:52 AM
Make beer illegal too. Makes as much sense.

Brock
05-15-2001, 10:55 AM
I thought conservatives on the Supreme Court was a good thing, you know, supporting people's individual liberties and such. LIE.

Baby Lee
05-15-2001, 11:08 AM
The voters have spoken and the court told us to go screw ourselves.

Not quite accurate. the voters of one state spoke, and the S.C. reminded them that Congress had told them to go screw themselves before they even spoke. And this case, Congress put out a preemptive 'screw yourself' so clear that the S.C was powerless to disregard it.

Congress set up the controlled substance schedule. Congress placed marijuana on schedule 1. Congress mandated that government research be the ONLY exception for schedule 1 substances.

The petitioners come to battle strong statutory language with common defense of necessity [questionable origin, questionable application herein] and equity. It makes a sympathic cause, but one ill-suited for victory before the S.C.

Once again, stop blaming the S.C for enforcing rules Congress or state legislatures enact. If the rules meet constitutional muster, then that is their job.

Its kinda like the SC is a babysitter and the parents say, under absolutely, positively no circumstances is little Johnny to get sweets after 8:00. 8:15 comes around and Johnny asks for sweets and the babysitter says no. Now is the babysitter a beeotch or a conscientious employee?




Unless someone wishes to lay out a REASONED case for a Constitutional right to blaze a fatty.

BIG_DADDY
05-15-2001, 11:21 AM
It's not 1 state. There have been 7 states that have passed their own initiatives with many more scheduled in the next year. That is why they had to shoot it down. The trend showed that most states would have their own legislation soon. So yes, they did tell the 7 states to go screw themselves as well as telling everyone else that their vote would not matter, so don't even bother.

BIG DADDY

Feeling his vote is worthless.

svuba
05-15-2001, 11:33 AM
Alcohol is far more dangerous to the user, and innocent victoms than Marijuana ever will be.

There is no reason why Alcohol should be legal, and pot should not.

Contrary to Nancy reagan scare tactics Nobody has ever died from a marijuana Overdose. The same cannot be said for Alcohol.

Drunk drivers Kill thousands of people every year because People who use too much alcohol Loose control of All of their bodily functions - then drive. The same cannot be said of Marijuana.

It makes no difference any way the government will never be able to make people stop using marijuana - just like they could not make people stop using alcohol.

As far as medical use goes if someone is suffering it is wrong to deny them treatment. Hell - we give people morphine, and Codeine if they are suffering why not pot? it is mild and non-addictive. The Government is way too paranoid. I think they should make marijuana a prescription drug. Then the people who need it can get it legally. - And those insufferable potheads will have to continue growing their own.

Baby Lee
05-15-2001, 11:38 AM
Big Daddy - I use 'you' in the following in the general sense, not ascribing all the positions to you personally.

But this blows my mind. If a particular state has a law you don't like, you expect the SC to strike it down because of some general sense of 'that's not what America is about.' D@mn the 10th Amendment. D@mn the limitations on the power of the SC.
Then, if Congress enacts a law you don't like and a state makes a law seeking to circumvent it, you expect the SC to recognize the state law over Congress'. D@mn the Supremacy Clause. D@mn the limitations on the power of the SC.

Congress has a clean, clear and iron clad set of rules covering marijuana as a controlled substance. When a rule is that clear and explicit, and is constitutional, federalism mandates that the law of the individual state defer.

this country is in serious need of an education on the principles of checks and balances. Every time someone makes a decision [be it the Prez, the AG, and administrative agency, Congress, or the SC] that recognizes and defers to powers granted another body of government, the hue and cry rises that 'they sold us out' or 'they effed us over.' If you want change, first seek out the body with the power to enact that change, THEN make your case.

Brock
05-15-2001, 11:39 AM
The alcohol and tobacco lobbies will never allow pot to be legalized.

ExtremeChief
05-15-2001, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by svuba


Drunk drivers Kill thousands of people every year because People who use too much alcohol Loose control of All of their bodily functions - then drive. The same cannot be said of Marijuana.


Marijuana impairs your driving skills too. While it might not be the same as alcohol, one shouldn't drive under the influence of MJ either.

I do agree that in theory, it should be legalized. I don't see how it's any worse than alcohol. It's just not as widely excepted, and (in the govt's eyes) wrong. If it could be regulated and taxed as easily is alcohol is, it would already be legal. But since John Q. Potsmoker can grow enough in a small area of his home to keep him happy without too much trouble, it is too hard to regulate and tax.

svuba
05-15-2001, 11:52 AM
Extreme Chief;

I agree with you - I did not say it was a good idea to drive under the influence of any drug. For some reason "Stoned Drivers" aren't killing people. It probably is because Stoners are less inclined to go driving around than drunken idiots!

Mark M
05-15-2001, 12:33 PM
This is to Thomahawk, Wolfman and all the others who think the Supreme Court did a "good" and "rightful" thing (my words, not anyone elses):

1. The reason there has been no proof of the benefits of marijuana is because the government has made it next to impossible to have it for research. What message are they sending when a researcher can get heroin easier than marijuana? They (the govt and those that oppose legalization for any reasons) say that more research needs to be done, but then don't allow the research to be done. It's a Catch-22 that is screwing people out of tangible benefits.

2. For the Supreme Court to say that Congress knows more about the medical benefits than doctors do is one of the most sad, pathetic and just plain f*cking stupid things I've ever heard in my life (and I've read many of Packfan's posts). How in the hell can a politician know more than a Dr. about what helps someone who is ill?

3. Marinol tablets, while moderately effective, are not nearly as helpful as the real thing. Why? Their mostly synthetic. It's like the difference between polyester and cotton ... which would you rather have your underwear made out of? Natural substances are always much better than the fakes.

4. Even though this is a blow to laws legalizing for medical use, it will be difficult to enforce? Why? Because most drug enforcement is done at the local level. The SC's decision is at the federal level.

The fact is folks, there are two main reasons it won't be legal:

1. Control
2. Money

Since pot is a plant that grows naturally in just about any soil, they would have no control over it, thus there is no way for anyone to profit from it. When government and big business have no way to gain from something, they will not allow it.

It truly is a sad day in America ... for anyone who enjoys the freedoms to do what they want without affecting others. I mean, whats the big deal if someone dying from AIDS or Cancer wants to smoke a joint to help with their pain? Why is that such a bad thing? And how in the f*cking hell does that affect anyone other than those who use it?

MM
~~Ceasing to be amazed at the ignorance found in this country.

Mark M
05-15-2001, 12:37 PM
BTW Big Daddy ... beautiful, very kind bud on your original post. Reminds me of my college days.
http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/net5/bongsmi.gif


MM
~~Reminiscing

phillfree
05-15-2001, 12:40 PM
I think htismaqe is right on the money. And besides all of the possible uses for hemp that we know of there are probably many more we have yet to discover because it is illegal. I bet we could make a damn fine piece of particle board out of hemp biproducts. Of course that would keep the lumber industry honest if they had some competition. It's just like the petroleum industry. Every now and then they just jack up the prcies so they can make more money. And sense we don't have any allternatives we just have to pay what they ask. I never was much for "Tree Huggers" but if they realized how many trees could be "saved" by making paper products out of hemp I bet they would raise a big stink.

PhilFree

alanm
05-15-2001, 12:48 PM
Leave it to 8 old farts from both parties to do the wrong thing.

Baby Lee
05-15-2001, 01:04 PM
For the Supreme Court to say that Congress knows more about the medical benefits than doctors do is one of the most sad.

To say that the SC has the power to overturn Congressional legislation on the basis of medical evidence offered at a trial is truly sad. I don't mean to sound snarky, but WTF is up with blaming this on the SC? Congress could not have been more clear and when Congress acts within its powers, that's the ballgame.

So if I could assemble a lineup of socialogical experts to testify that the Civil Rights Act is ineffective, I could get that repealed through the SC?

So if I could assemble a lineup of environmental experts to put into question the efficacy of envirnmental regulations, I could get those repealed too?

So if I could assemble a lineup of doctors to testify that life begins at conception, bye-bye Roe-v-Wade. . . wait, the SC put that one into law.

That's right, Congress and the lobbying process is so effed-up that we should cede all power to experts for hire and the SC.

donkhater
05-15-2001, 01:09 PM
Interesting discussion, but one I'm not really qualified to contribute to. I will, however respond to Mark M. in post #29. As a synthetic chemist I take issue with the claim that anything natural is better than its synthetic version.

For example, cocaine, when 100% purified from it's natural source, is absolutely no different than cocaine made in the lab. Polyester and cotton are two different materials, thus it is notaccurate to compare them. Cotton, if it could be synthesized, would be identical in every regard to the natural substance.

There could be many reasons why smoking an actual joint is more efective than taking a pill containing the active ingredient. Two off the top of my head are:

1. Inhaling the active ingredient is a more effective way of delivering it into the blood stream.

2. Other components of the plants, while themselves are NOT active, act in a synergistic manner with the active ingredients providing a more powerful drug.

I apoligize for getting off the subject, but the 'natural is better than synthetic' argument is a pet peeve of mine.

phillfree
05-15-2001, 01:12 PM
The legalization of Hemp should have more to do with industry and supplying the general public with goods made from it as oppossed to just smoking it. I suggested on another thread that instead of the government paying farmers subsidies to let part of their land go fallow they should let them grow Hemp to make useful products for the masses. Just think how many peices of paper hit the trash can each day in our country. How much toilet paper we use (well most of us) every day as a country? Hell, I bet they could use biproducts from hemp to make a very nice casing to house the hard-drives we are using as we speak. The list goes on and on.

PhilFree

47mack
05-15-2001, 01:13 PM
In order for medicinal marijuana to pass, the pro-madicinal marijuana people need to get rid of their embarrassing supporters. I also was at the Veet's lecture with T-11. This is the leader of Missouri's chapter of NORML. For him to publicly tell a college criminal justice class that the purposes of pushing medicinal marijuana is a "bullet" for the over all legalization is an embarrassment to your cause. You need to reduce these sandbags to advance in your fight.

Mark
I usually find myself in agreement with you on many casses, but your statement on the research of marijuana is a stretch. Marijuana IS being widely researched. Just because the research doesn't always prove what people want it to doesn't mean that it isn't taking place.

htismaqe
05-15-2001, 02:00 PM
Johnny,

There's a point here that seems to have been missed.

The Supreme Court is at fault for upholding that federal laws SUPERCEDE state laws in a case where the state clearly has jurisdiction.

This is clearly politically motivated. Why would the federal government be so interested in shutting these coops down when they aren't the body responsible for enforcing the laws?

Because California statute states that marijuana can be legally prescribed for "cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."

I take migraine medicine and it costs FOUR DOLLARS PER PILL. The manufacturer was also a key contributor to several Republican congressional candidates.

It's not illegal because it's wrong, it's illegal because it threatens the stranglehold that large corporations have over our everyday lives.

The Supreme Court is at fault because Congress NEVER MENTIONED marijuana in the law in question.

This is a quote from Clarence Thomas:

It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception. Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the cooperative’s argument.

In writing for the court, Thomas said Congress had deliberately excluded marijuana when it enacted anti-drug laws. Do they know that for sure? If that's the case why is the SC retrospectively INCLUDING it now?

It sounds to me like they ARE altering legislation, even as they hide under the guise that they are not.

Mark M
05-15-2001, 02:04 PM
Couple of things before big brother catches me ...

JC--
I am not necessarily blaming the Supreme Court. You are correct that it is not their fault that Congress makes some stupid laws. The only way that it can be changed is for Congress to do so. I just found it sad that the SC used Congress as a means to justify the status quo, rather than saying that perhaps Congress made a mistake. It has happened before.

donk--
Sorry to hit a nerve. But I was under the impression that, when it comes to medicine the natural version (i.e morphine from the poppy plant) is more effective than synthetic versions due to the other chemicals which occur in the natural version. And I was in a hurry ... it was only later that the polyester vs. cotton thing hit me as being incorrect. Thanks for the correction.

47--
According to guy on NPR, as well as a few websites I checked last night (I'll have to get on at home and copy and paste the links) who has done research with marijuana, it is very, very difficult to get permission from the government. Also, if there has been such a huge push in the last few years for medicinal marijuana, then why aren't there researchers everywhere trying to prove whether it does good or not? It just isn't happening as much as people think.

MM
~~Can admit when he is wrong, but likes being right.

donkhater
05-15-2001, 02:07 PM
Look closely, h. I would bet that the manufactuer of that $4 pill also contributed heavily to the Democratic party as well.

Baby Lee
05-15-2001, 02:21 PM
Mark M - as best they could, by illuminating the role of Congress and how the SC is constrained by that role, the SC IS hinting that Congress perhaps made a mistake. they can't be openly critical in a case like this because it doesn't tread on a Consititutional issue, but they can say "hey, its THEIR rule" which is what they did.

htis - explain to me how the state has clear jurisdiction here. That is an argument not even the respondent's made. The Controlled Substances Act places marijuana in a schedule 1. Schedule 1 has but one express expection, government approved research. by expressing/enumerating this one, sole exception, Congress made clear that other 'implied' exceptions were verboten.

ie., if no exceptions were listed at all, one could argue that Congress neglected to consider that aspect and common law principles could be applied. But since Congress made a list, one must accept the principle that that they considered all options in forming that list and any exceptions NOT listed were rejected. Statutory Construction 101.

BTW - marijuana [marihuana] IS listed in 21 USC 812(c) as a schedule 1 drug, thus constrained by the limitations placed on schedule 1 substances in 21 USC 841 [The Controlled Substances Act]. I don't get where you say that "Congress had deliberately excluded marijuana when it enacted anti-drug laws."

philfree
05-15-2001, 02:28 PM
The real question is, why was Hemp placed in a scheduale 1 to begin with? Is it really that dangerous?

PhilFree

htismaqe
05-15-2001, 02:47 PM
Schedule 1 is a farce. The federal governement assumed control under the false pretenses of "interstate transport". If I grow something at my house and sell it to my neighbor, that transaction is governed over by my local and state sales statutes -- unless it happens to be marijuana.

I don't dispute what you're saying as fact, but I'm trying to point our here that the federal government has no right to legislate in this area. It's a state issue.

As far as the contents of Schedule 1, I merely reprinted the comments of Clarence Thomas.

Mark M
05-15-2001, 03:15 PM
JC--
Looks like we were agreeing, just didn't seem that way.

Ahhh ... the limits of the English language! :D

MM
~~Practicing the art of the hit and run post.

DenverChief
05-15-2001, 03:32 PM
WOW...I actually thought we would never agree on anything...funny how after all the bickering we do have something in common

BIG_DADDY
05-15-2001, 04:26 PM
JC,

The process is exactly what I am f#cking hacked about. I would not be the first person to question Federal Law -vs- State Law and the boundaries surrounding each and what it should be. This decision was done for no other reason than to discourage the continued passing of State legislation aimed in direct contradiction to Federal law. Nobody REALLY felt that Federal law loopholes for medicinal purposes.

Baby Lee
05-15-2001, 04:56 PM
I would not be the first person to question Federal Law -vs- State Law and the boundaries surrounding each and what it should be.

Certainly not. Word is, Civil Wars have been fought over this issue. Question is, do you want legalized drugs on a state-by-state basis, and are you so convinced that Congress can not be persuaded to change its mind, that you would risk destruction of Congressional authority over issues such as civil rights and the environment to get it.

JC-Johnny
- not suggesting the answer, simply posing the question.

BIG_DADDY
05-15-2001, 06:02 PM
JC,

Civil rights would concern me a little. I guess it would have to be weighed out. Environment couldn't be much worse. Most of the concern is just a mirage anyway. They own 70% of the land and lease it to big business to do what they will with. Can't get much worse than that. Meanwhile, mainstream America fights for their little plot of land.

Tomahawk 11
05-15-2001, 08:13 PM
Mark--

I know the whole synthetic thing is over with, but when I asked Veets why marinol wasn't an acceptable alternative he said that "it gets people too stoned and out of it."

I would be more interested in putting research money towards finding a cure for the ailments rather than researching for something that makes them feel better for a while.

To the post that said that there have been no accidents (auto) as a result of mj use, I disagree. There is no way to test how much THC is in the system as in something like Breathalizers. You can do blood tests and urine tests for THC content, but there is no way in determining quantities or how long it has been in the system. I would guess (just a guess) that a lot of unexplained accidents were a result from mj use. Maybe even some of the accidents that were blamed on something else were also cases in which mj was to blame.

On that... Whose to say that mj isn't also a contributing factor or a direct cause to cancer? How many people that have lung cancer (or any other form of cancer) smoked more mj than tobacco? I would rather that these questions be answered before legalization. I know this goes against the popular belief that we should just legalize everything and see what happens. But that didn't really pan out for tobacco now did it?

Brock
05-15-2001, 08:21 PM
Actually, recent studies show that people who imbibe marijuana are LESS likely to be involved in an auto accident.

And of course marijuana contains carcinogens. Anything you can smoke would. And so does red meat when it is cooked over a fire. And so does alcohol.

Anything taken to excess is harmful. I want the government off my back about things that don't concern them.

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 08:31 PM
Hey Brock-there are drugs we can take, and the Federal Gov't smiles on it-we are now told that we can feel free to drink a questionable quantity of arsenic.

Brock
05-15-2001, 08:42 PM
LOL, that was pretty good.

Brock
05-15-2001, 08:43 PM
Hey, in some cities, you are forced to take drugs, namely flouride!

htismaqe
05-16-2001, 01:00 PM
Somebody hit on it earlier.

The reason Marinol doesn't work (and why it get's people too "out of it") is because it's primarily THC. THC is the most psychreactive cannabinoid, but it's not the only one.

THC tends to produce the most cerebral effects -- being "stoned" -- and much of the euphoria associated with being high. CBD's contribute to feeling tired and having the "munchies". Marinol is reportedly very low in CBD's, thus reducing it's effectiveness in treating the very thing it was intended for -- nausea...

BIG_DADDY
05-16-2001, 05:37 PM
The Marinol point is a very good one. BTW, one of the reasons this topic hits home with me so much is because my girlfriends mother died of cancer 3 years ago. I am convinced that we were able to extend her life a couple of months because we used marijuana. She could not keep anything down before and was almost dead when she finally tried it. She got better for a couple months as she gained some of her strength back when she could eat. For somebody to try deny her that last couple months so she could see her extended family one more time is unbelievable to me.