New medical marijuana policy issued

[Pens1566]

Those that claim there ISN'T a medicinal value should see how much it helps cancer patients cope with side effects ...

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Tab
I just read this as well, I wonder if if the DEA/FDA will chance their stance on Medical Marijuana. Right now their site states it has no medicinal value.

Can you link?

 

[shira]

Forget medicinal use. Forget ANY justification other than that a person wants to feel good, and MJ helps them achieve that state.

If we can punish people - including firing them from their jobs (or failing to hire them in the first place when they fail a drug-screening) - for personal use of marijuana in the privacy of their homes, why can't we punish people for eating French fries?

I really need someone out there who is anti-MJ to explain to me what is so God-damned different about MJ that we can severely screw over someone's life for MJ use - presumably in the name of "protecting" them - yet we blithely allow without penalty orders-of-magnitude more self-abuse with French fries.

Please. SOMEONE make the case.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Drug laws will change if the Republican party dies as it should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6fXpwp1bwQ

Only one person up there wanted to "decriminalize" marijuana. On the Republican stage, there was only one, and he would even go further than the one Democrat, wanting to end all Federal drug laws. And going further back, Clinton was a strong supporter of the drug war as well.

My point? This isn't a Rep vs Dem fight. This is a gov't vs people fight.

Clinton was a supporter? He may have not changed laws but he certainly wasn't as supporter.

How was he not a strong supporter of the drug war?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: shira
Forget medicinal use. Forget ANY justification other than that a person wants to feel good, and MJ helps them achieve that state.

If we can punish people - including firing them from their jobs (or failing to hire them in the first place when they fail a drug-screening) - for personal use of marijuana in the privacy of their homes, why can't we punish people for eating French fries?

I totally agree with you about the rights of the people. I would definitely support ending federal drug laws, and legalizing marijuana locally.

But as for your second statement, I also believe that companies have the right to hire or fire whoever they wish. I think, in most situations at minimum, companies would make a mistake to not hire or terminate the employment of someone solely due to marijuana use, but that's a decision companies must make, not government.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: shira
Forget medicinal use. Forget ANY justification other than that a person wants to feel good, and MJ helps them achieve that state.

If we can punish people - including firing them from their jobs (or failing to hire them in the first place when they fail a drug-screening) - for personal use of marijuana in the privacy of their homes, why can't we punish people for eating French fries?

I really need someone out there who is anti-MJ to explain to me what is so God-damned different about MJ that we can severely screw over someone's life for MJ use - presumably in the name of "protecting" them - yet we blithely allow without penalty orders-of-magnitude more self-abuse with French fries.

Please. SOMEONE make the case.

Well, here's an excerpt of an email exchange I had with my congressman Cliff Stearns a few months back when I asked him to carefully consider the merits of decriminalization:

"You raise some important points about limited resources and appropriate
reach of federal government. Our nation has been battling drug dealers for
the futures of our children for over thirty years now. The many hazards
related to illegal drug use have been documented and shown to have a severe
negative impact on society, from crime to decreased productivity. It is
imperative that we act decisively now to save future generations. Recently,
the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) released the results of its
study entitled, "Monitoring the Future." The study found that teenagers
begin using marijuana between grades 7 to 9, and by the time they enter
their senior year, 76% of these students are still using marijuana. NIDA
estimates the numbers may actually be higher than this, due to the exclusion
of high school dropouts from the sample, and the chance that teenagers may
not have been willing to disclose their drug use. Additionally, studies by
Drug Watch International and the Journal of the American Medical Association
have found that the benefits of smoking marijuana are severely outweighed by
the numerous medical risks associated with the psychoactive ingredient, or
simply the tar in the cigarettes. These are some of the reasons I find
efforts to legalize drugs counterproductive."

 

[piasabird]

Just send in the feds and repossess every house where they find Marijuana growing and give the maximum federal fine for every plant found.

Sound Scary? This could happen at any moment. All it takes is a change in policy.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just send in the feds and repossess every house where they find Marijuana growing and give the maximum federal fine for every plant found.

Sound Scary? This could happen at any moment. All it takes is a change in policy.

Exactly, that's why policy is not enough, and why laws need to be changed. Just choosing to not enforce the laws is not enough, and dangerous.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: shira
I agree. But dealing with resistance to constructive change is what good leadership should be about. Not that anything will change in our lifetimes.

You think so? I'd disagreed. There are many young people whom have used the drug and while they may not be consist users, they know the existing laws need to go. In a couple decades there are going to be quite a few old rich men whom probably want to donate their wealth in to causes they support.

weed has been common for 40 years now, there should be these people now.

Oh please Weed as you call it has been in use for thousands of years its hemp and it consider until recent times to be an herb . You should really find out about the old west and what was sold over the counter. You might be in for a surprise, snuff boxes my ass.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
weed has been common for 40 years now, there should be these people now.

I agree with this.

I mean the baby boomers have complete control of the system from top to bottom and they smoked more pot than anyone.

Yep LSD also . US government issue no less read about the people stepping infront of trains jumping from windows thinking they could fly . The government issued it in the hopes of changeing public opinion on the war in nam. It backfired big time . Timothy Leary LSD 25 BAD shit . Really bad shit for some.

 

[piasabird]

Arsnic has been around a long time also, but I am not stupid enough to consume it.

Maybe a lot of people are just stupid.

I am not stupid enough to smoke a cigarrette!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just send in the feds and repossess every house where they find Marijuana growing and give the maximum federal fine for every plant found.

Sound Scary? This could happen at any moment. All it takes is a change in policy.

Exactly

Exactly? sounds like you've both had too much bad weed, paranoid much?

 

[Patranus]

Don't really care.
I am glad to see the federal government back off and let states what they want to do.
I however don't think that much will change. The federal law clearly states that marijuana is illegal and law enforcement will still enforce the law. When the next president comes into office everything might change so an investment in infrastructure would be stupid.

Not really sure what this does for the separation of powers.....if a president can just decide what laws can be enforced after those laws are passed by congress, what is the point of congress?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Have you read any of the laws that were forced threw without members reading them . I would advise ya to find out Obama is officially a dictator now No need for congress.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Drug laws will change if the Republican party dies as it should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6fXpwp1bwQ

Only one person up there wanted to "decriminalize" marijuana. On the Republican stage, there was only one, and he would even go further than the one Democrat, wanting to end all Federal drug laws. And going further back, Clinton was a strong supporter of the drug war as well.

My point? This isn't a Rep vs Dem fight. This is a gov't vs people fight.

Clinton was a supporter? He may have not changed laws but he certainly wasn't as supporter.

How was he not a strong supporter of the drug war?

Well, he didn't extend the drug war. After all, he's rather liberal.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: shira
Forget medicinal use. Forget ANY justification other than that a person wants to feel good, and MJ helps them achieve that state.

If we can punish people - including firing them from their jobs (or failing to hire them in the first place when they fail a drug-screening) - for personal use of marijuana in the privacy of their homes, why can't we punish people for eating French fries?

I really need someone out there who is anti-MJ to explain to me what is so God-damned different about MJ that we can severely screw over someone's life for MJ use - presumably in the name of "protecting" them - yet we blithely allow without penalty orders-of-magnitude more self-abuse with French fries.

Please. SOMEONE make the case.

Well, here's an excerpt of an email exchange I had with my congressman Cliff Stearns a few months back when I asked him to carefully consider the merits of decriminalization:

"You raise some important points about limited resources and appropriate
reach of federal government. Our nation has been battling drug dealers for
the futures of our children for over thirty years now. The many hazards
related to illegal drug use have been documented and shown to have a severe
negative impact on society, from crime to decreased productivity. It is
imperative that we act decisively now to save future generations. Recently,
the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) released the results of its
study entitled, "Monitoring the Future." The study found that teenagers
begin using marijuana between grades 7 to 9, and by the time they enter
their senior year, 76% of these students are still using marijuana. NIDA
estimates the numbers may actually be higher than this, due to the exclusion
of high school dropouts from the sample, and the chance that teenagers may
not have been willing to disclose their drug use. Additionally, studies by
Drug Watch International and the Journal of the American Medical Association
have found that the benefits of smoking marijuana are severely outweighed by
the numerous medical risks associated with the psychoactive ingredient, or
simply the tar in the cigarettes. These are some of the reasons I find
efforts to legalize drugs counterproductive."

What Stearns is communicating in the bolded part, above, is BS. Virtually all crime associated with dealing illicit drugs exists BECAUSE drugs are illegal. The best way to eliminate drug dealers and the associated crime is to eliminate the black market - Prohibition and repeal offer clear proof of that. Thus, Stearns's bolded point is absurd. He's pretending that we've outlawed certain drugs BECAUSE they are associated with criminal activity, when in fact it's just the opposite: We've created crime by outlawing drugs.

As to Stearns's point about medical risks: No doubt MJ is bad for you. But that's not a justification for banning it. Pre-marital sex has all sorts of potential negative consequences, but it's not illegal. Same with eating French fries, smoking, drinking, driving a car, and living in an earthquake zone. Stearns blithely says that "benefits are severely outweighed" by the risks, but he fails to show us his balance sheet.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just send in the feds and repossess every house where they find Marijuana growing and give the maximum federal fine for every plant found.

Sound Scary? This could happen at any moment. All it takes is a change in policy.

Exactly

Exactly? sounds like you've both had too much bad weed, paranoid much?

It has nothing to do with paranoia. What he saying is very possible, because Obama's policy is just that, Obama's policy. He can't be president for more than 8 years. What happens to all the people and small businesses in those states when another president is elected and has a different policy? A policy that doesn't need to be changed legislatively?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Drug laws will change if the Republican party dies as it should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6fXpwp1bwQ

Only one person up there wanted to "decriminalize" marijuana. On the Republican stage, there was only one, and he would even go further than the one Democrat, wanting to end all Federal drug laws. And going further back, Clinton was a strong supporter of the drug war as well.

My point? This isn't a Rep vs Dem fight. This is a gov't vs people fight.

Clinton was a supporter? He may have not changed laws but he certainly wasn't as supporter.

How was he not a strong supporter of the drug war?

Well, he didn't extend the drug war. After all, he's rather liberal.

I disagree. Compared to someone like myself, Clinton was quite socially conservative.

 

[Patranus]

So Obama is in favor of states rights?
Guess he throws the gays under the bus again.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Drug laws will change if the Republican party dies as it should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6fXpwp1bwQ

Only one person up there wanted to "decriminalize" marijuana. On the Republican stage, there was only one, and he would even go further than the one Democrat, wanting to end all Federal drug laws. And going further back, Clinton was a strong supporter of the drug war as well.

My point? This isn't a Rep vs Dem fight. This is a gov't vs people fight.

Clinton was a supporter? He may have not changed laws but he certainly wasn't as supporter.

How was he not a strong supporter of the drug war?

Well, he didn't extend the drug war. After all, he's rather liberal.

I disagree. Compared to someone like myself, Clinton was quite socially conservative.

Are you going to back up any of your claims? As him being socially conservative, uh so?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Tab
Are you going to back up any of your claims? As him being socially conservative, uh so?

His stance on the drug war. That's enough. I didn't say he was a social conservative, I said compared to someone like me, he's socially conservative. Obviously compared to many Republicans, he's less socially conservative.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Drug laws will change if the Republican party dies as it should. Drug laws are designed to create a criminal community the right can point their God finger at and feel holy as they tremble in terror, on the advise of party leaders, that drug users are out to destroy their fundy religion and pervert their children.

By creating this terror they also create the desire to take drugs just so they can feel a bit of novelty and thrill in being evil.

Repression creates desire to engage in what is repressed. Objectivity allows for a rational assessment of any real dangers that drugs of various kinds impose. Without some hidden itching to rebel against a sick repressive upbringing, there will be little need for healthy minds to use drugs. For the healthy minded, life is the trip, generally speaking, I think.

lol that's good because you're a troll account.


oh and obviously they should get rid of Marijuana prohibition, it's stupid.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Drug laws will change if the Republican party dies as it should. Drug laws are designed to create a criminal community the right can point their God finger at and feel holy as they tremble in terror, on the advise of party leaders, that drug users are out to destroy their fundy religion and pervert their children.

By creating this terror they also create the desire to take drugs just so they can feel a bit of novelty and thrill in being evil.

Repression creates desire to engage in what is repressed. Objectivity allows for a rational assessment of any real dangers that drugs of various kinds impose. Without some hidden itching to rebel against a sick repressive upbringing, there will be little need for healthy minds to use drugs. For the healthy minded, life is the trip, generally speaking, I think.

lol that's good because you're a troll account.


oh and obviously they should get rid of Marijuana prohibition, it's stupid.

You must be an idiot account, right?

 

[LunarRay]

In a case where an individual experiences extreme pain and their meds are OxyCodone and or Oxymorphone but they could use MJ and reduce the amount of the other 'dope' is that a viable consideration?

How about folks who take meds that have side effects like constant nausea but they have to take those meds anyhow... some like Dexamethasone, a steroid used to deal with the auto immune system in RA and other disease but using those pills from MJ or smoking it allows them to eat?

I don't know about you folks but I'm all for using a better substance to increase quality of life IF it does!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab
Are you going to back up any of your claims? As him being socially conservative, uh so?

His stance on the drug war. That's enough. I didn't say he was a social conservative, I said compared to someone like me, he's socially conservative. Obviously compared to many Republicans, he's less socially conservative.

Yes, when it came to drugs Clinton was a dunce just like Edwards, both of whom agree that having sex with girls or other women than their wives does send the right message. How do those two swine look anybody in the face.