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

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

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

  • Yes! Marijuana is too dangerous to allow even for medicial use.

    Votes: 4 10.0%
  • No! Let the states decide.

    Votes: 14 35.0%
  • Hey, let's just legalize marijuana alltogether and call it a day.

    Votes: 20 50.0%
  • Who cares?

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • Total voters
    40

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/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.
 

gezando

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
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:

Grgranny

Da' Spellin' Homegirl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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.
 

gezando

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Grgranny said:
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. :laugh: Personally I don't care, if the people who want to smoke it are paying the cost themselves.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
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
 

childfreegirl

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 6, 2004
Joesitz said:
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:
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
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.
 

Aloft04

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
It's easy to see how this happened:
The Conservatives wouldn't want anything to cut into big pharmaceutical company profits...after all, these are very big providers of moo-law for electing the yahoos who make these high court appointments.

So let's send SWAT teams out to raid cancer victims' homes. Round 'em up and prosecute 'em. It might take the attention off the deplorable state of the USA right now, and that illegal war and general lack of any concern at all for the suffering. Unless, of course, they're rich and suffering. Then we give them a tax break.
 

PrincessLeppard

~ Evgeni's Sex Bomb ~
Final Flight
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I don't have any specific medical evidence, but a friend of mine got very aggressive cancer of the uterus when she was 17, and the ONLY thing that would dull the pain was pot. She survived, thankfully, and now helps other cancer victims by supplying them with marijuana.

I find it appalling that this is now a federal crime.
 

JOHIO2

Medalist
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Notice that two out of the three dissenters have or have had cancer. Who knows what got into Thomas.........
 

Ladskater

~ Figure Skating Is My Passion ~
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
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.
 

gezando

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Ptichka said:
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.

I am not sure whether it is a conservative principle or sound medical practice principle. The link you provided was published in 1999, and just from a cursory read, the evidence supporting the medical use of cannabis is not robust. The national medical and pharmacy associations are not supporting it because of the lack of solid hard science.
 

katherine2001

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Joesitz said:
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.
 

gezando

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Aloft04 said:
It's easy to see how this happened:
The Conservatives wouldn't want anything to cut into big pharmaceutical company profits...after all, these are very big providers of moo-law for electing the yahoos who make these high court appointments.

If cannabis has solid science and evidence supporting it as an effective medication, then the pharmaceutical companies will be lining up to extract then make big $$$$ dont you think? Afterall the pharm companies are manufacturing synthetic amphetamine like stimulant medications e.g. methylphenidate for ADHD, and narcolepsy. They are manufacturing synthetic opioids for pain, opiates detoxification etc. .

I actually want to see more research on this, since THC is legal in other countries, e.g. Canada, it shouldn't be too difficult to get some double blind, placebo controlled randomized studies going. Preferably there should be some studies head to head comparing THC and the golden standard medications already on the market. .
 
Last edited:

gezando

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
katherine2001 said:
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
 

Antilles

Medalist
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Legalize it and tax it. It's no worse for you than alcohol or cigarettes. There is a lot of hypocrisy surrounding this issue.

In terms of medical evidence, if people who are suffering say it helps, then that is enough for me. It's not fair for others who don't understand the pain of these illnesses to make the moral choice for people suffering.

People using it for medical reasons are hurting no one. They aren't trafficking in the drugs. Money could be much better spent by leaving these people alone.
 

gezando

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Antilles said:
In terms of medical evidence, if people who are suffering say it helps, then that is enough for me.
Although I do not necessarily disagree with you on this, just anedoctal case reports are not good enough for me. I don't oppose people who have cancer e.g. want THC have access to it if they pay for it, and if they pay for the cost of treating any adverse effects from it. THC is not exactly benign, cannabinoids can have a lot of potential adverse side effects.

It's not fair for others who don't understand the pain of these illnesses to make the moral choice for people suffering.
Where do you get the impression that people who want more data and more hard science are not understanding the issues?? AMA is not endorsing THC, most pharmacists are not endorsing it, I won't call most doctors and pharmacists "don't understand pain"
 
Last edited:

Jhar55

Medalist
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
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. :rock:
 

Skatehappy

Rinkside
Joined
May 31, 2005
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.
 

Aloft04

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
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.
 
Top