View Poll Results: Supreme Court makes Medicinal Marijuana a federal crime. Do you agree?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes! Marijuana is too dangerous to allow even for medicial use.

    4 10.00%
  • No! Let the states decide.

    14 35.00%
  • Hey, let's just legalize marijuana alltogether and call it a day.

    20 50.00%
  • Who cares?

    2 5.00%
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36

Thread: Supreme Court makes Medicinal Marijuana a federal crime. Do you agree?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430

    Supreme Court makes Medicinal Marijuana a federal crime. Do you agree?

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/sc...ana/index.html.

    Personally, I'm outraged at the hypocrisy. They keep saying the states have a right to, say, regulate fire arms, yet apparently growing a patch of marijuana and smoking it to relieve pain caused by extreme form of cancer is a threat to the country! I honestly don't get it - there are many prescription drugs out there that are rutinely stolen and used for evil purposes; we don't outlaw use of them for the ill, even the damage caused by many of them is far greater than the harm caused by pot.

    I find it very interesting to see which 3 judges descented - O'Connor, Reinquest, Thomas. O'Connor is always unpredictable (interestingly enough, she made it very clear in the descenting opinion that she was dead set against medicinal marijuana). Reinquest, admirable, really voted his conscience here - he's always believed in states' rights, and wasn't going to compromise just because of the White House pressure. Thomas, frankly, I find surprising, as he has repeatedly touted conservative principles over anything else.

    Anyway, I'd like to har what others have to say on this issue.

  2. #2
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    908
    Medincal use means medicine for treatment. Can you cite any significant medical evidence that cannabis works? After weighing the benefits, and risk of THC, are people better off using cannabis, are there alternatives out there that can treat pain, and nausea, or appeptite stimulation better than THC with less risk. IMHO this is an issue of medicne, has nothing to do with supreme court hypocrisy. There are people who steal FDA apporved medications for evil purposes, but that is a separate issue. For a medication to get FDA approval, companies have to provide evidence that the med work, so why should those meds be outlawed? However if there is post market evidence that these med is too dangerous e.g. cisapride, or terfenedine, then the meds are yanked out ot the market by the FDA.
    There are case reports here or there that THC is drug of choice for some, there are some studies here and there, but are there any significant research and studies?
    Last edited by gezando; 06-06-2005 at 06:10 PM.

  3. #3
    Da' Spellin' Homegirl Grgranny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,144
    I suppose they do need to test them for market but there are so many that say it really works I would allow it medically. I am so tired of that bunch of gun mongers that won't allow them to use it. It's just plain disgusting.

  4. #4
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Grgranny
    I suppose they do need to test them for market but there are so many that say it really works I would allow it medically.
    Case reports of people who claim that THC works does not equate to THC is an effective medicine with benefits > risks. So far none of the medicial or pharmacist national organizations are endorsing THC.

    In reality people who wants to use cannabis will continue to use it. The medicinal MJ co op will continue to dispense it. Personally I don't care, if the people who want to smoke it are paying the cost themselves.
    Last edited by gezando; 06-06-2005 at 06:21 PM.

  5. #5
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Of course, it's dumb but there is more to come from this conservative government. Onward Christian soldiers! and let the meek lose its inheritancy.

    Joe

  6. #6
    Sexy, smart and sterilized! childfreegirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz
    Of course, it's dumb but there is more to come from this conservative government. Onward Christian soldiers! and let the meek lose its inheritancy.

    Joe
    :banging:

  7. #7
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    This website has some information.

    I guess this particular example just struck a cord because of the hypocrisy - let's consider states' rights as more important than the federal ones except for when it goes against "conservative" principles.

  8. #8
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Helena, MT
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz
    Of course, it's dumb but there is more to come from this conservative government. Onward Christian soldiers! and let the meek lose its inheritancy.

    Joe
    I happen to be a Christian, but I voted to make it legal in my state for people who had medical reasons (for glaucoma, cancer, and other medical conditions it helps with) to be able to use it. It passed in Montana.

  9. #9
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by katherine2001
    I happen to be a Christian, but I voted to make it legal in my state for people who had medical reasons (for glaucoma, cancer, and other medical conditions it helps with) to be able to use it. It passed in Montana.
    Interesting, what kind of medical data did they give you to convince your vote? Just curious

  10. #10
    ~ Figure Skating Is My Passion ~ Ladskater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,697
    Here in Canada, at least in BC, marijauna is allowed for medicinal reasons; however, tbe "healthy" general public who also use the stuff are pushing for its being leagalized period. Personally, I don't agree. My husband and I don't see eye-to-eye on this issue. He thinks if the stuff is made legal it will clear the courts and they can get on with more important cases. I am not so sure. I figure, where do you draw the line? What about people who use it and drive? Is that not as bad as drinking and driving? What about minors? We have so called "safe houses" here for drug addicts to do their thing, but I don't see that helping the issues either. What we need are programs to help people kick their drug habbits, programs to help them get educated and back on their feet and there is a desperate need for housing. I don't think making it easier for them to get their drugs very helpful at all.

  11. #11
    Custom Title Jhar55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Paducah, KY
    Posts
    1,285
    I really don't care one way or the other, BUT the main reason the Feds don't want it legal is that it's a wild plant and they have a had time controlling it as it is and there is NO MONEY in it for them.

  12. #12
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    This side of Heaven
    Posts
    44
    I don't think that this is a Conservative versus Liberal issue. It is a states' rights issue. Once again the Federal gov't has usurped states' rights.

    As for little to no evidence showing that MM works--studies are done based on funding. If there is no funding, then the study won't get done. Who provides most of the funding? It's the government or the pharmaceutical companies. Follow the money.

    If you can't function due to chronic pain, you will grab at anything. Physicians often prescribe off-label, that is, Med "A" hasn't been approved to treat Condition "X", but anectdotal evidence shows that Med "A" works on Condition "X", so it is legally used for that. On the other hand, many physicians are untrained in the use of pain meds. They undertreat pain, or are afraid that patients will become addicted. No wonder ppl try to self-medicate.

  13. #13
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    an island in Washington State
    Posts
    455
    It's a control issue. The Christian Taliban, currently in control of this country, will continue to stack the benches with people who can make these types of "moral judgements" without a basis in fact in the Constitution, which clearly states that any issues that aren't specifically identified in the Constitution are under the jurisdiction of the states or the people.

    And as for State's rights....I personally find it funny that when it comes to automatic weapon control, Ten Commandment monuments on public land, counting Presidential election votes in Florida, or forcing a 13 year old rape victim to get parental permission for her abortion, the Supreme Court is totally 'hands-off'....... but God forbid people might treat their own illness.

  14. #14
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    This side of Heaven
    Posts
    44
    I don't understand blaming this on Christians. There haven't been any new Supreme Court justices in a long time.

    But ITA, the Court is selectively for states' rights. There doesn't seem to be a pattern. And as for the Constitution, that is selectively ignored at will by the Court. But the drift away from the Constitution, such as when the Court quotes international law to support its decisions, seems like it will be more frequent.

    As for "forcing a 13 year old rape victim to get parental permission for her abortion"...let's see...crimes committed (child abuse, rape), to be followed by surgery (abortion)... getting parental permission is not unreasonable. After all, the same girl would need parental permission to have a tooth pulled, ears pierced, or get a tattoo, depending on the state. But the topic was medical marijuana.
    Last edited by Skatehappy; 06-08-2005 at 05:19 AM.

  15. #15
    Rogue Leader
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB
    Posts
    1,522
    Skatehappy, I think the issue of the 13 year old needing a parent's consent for abortion is this-what if the parent is the one who raped the child? That's where the issue gets sticky. Also, when forced to tell parents, some girls are too afraid and go for "back alley" abortions, which are unneccesarily dangerous.

    gezando, it is one thing for doctors etc to understand pain from a theoretical point of view. It's another thing entirely to actually experience the pain.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •