Supreme court rules on Medical Marijuana

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Doesn't matter if it SHOULD be against the law or not. Facts are that as of today it IS illegal and if you choose to smoke pot or whatever you ARE a criminal.

Actually, it does matter if it SHOULD be illegal or not. Do you base your morality on what the law is? If abortion is the law, does that make it right? If slavery is the law, does that make it right? I'd love to see you use this attitude when talking to an escaped slave in the 19th century. "You're a criminal, it doesn't matter if it's illegal or not stay in your slave quarters!"

Way to take a statement out of context and post a non-sequitir reply to start a whole new argument dude! :thumbsup: That is some fine trolling 🙂

It's an analogy. If you don't think it's apt, show why. It is the same kind of flawed argument. Of course slavery is not the same as pot smoking. That's not the point of an analogy. 😉 The point is that your justification is the same and that your principle can be used for all sorts of horrible things. Is that the sort of principle you want?

 

[Steeplerot]

You seem to be the one making your comments and brushing off people's reponses by telling them they are in denial...

 

[maluckey]

Konichiwa,

Cannabis cannot go into schedule III, II, or any other schedule other then I, until a clinical trial can sucessfully demonstrate that the properties of Cannabis make it a viable drug of choice to treat a proper medical condition. To date, there are zero double blind trials to demonstrate this. That's the real issue here. There are far far better pain relievers, far and away better glaucoma drugs, and far and away better stress relievers out there, which the dosage can be monitored, controlled and adjusted, unlike with Cannabis when inhaled.

I hope that clears this up. It has nothing to do with just addiction potential. It's based on performance, usages, abuse potential and addictive qualities all-in-one. I also REQUIRES there to be proper clinical trials to demonstrate efficacy on the level of other comparable drugs available.

 

[Steeplerot]

bs there have been studies since the 70's.... where is your proof of never being a double blind study..

they don't becasue it works so much better from studies I have seen then the synthisized crap they feed people that just make them sicker but makes them $$$.


After looking aroudn a bit here is the guidelines for Dr. Abrams 1995 Marinol studies submitted to the fda...they are stalling becasue of otehr intrests...not science imo


Conspiracy theory, or what the bible was talking about?

http://www.demonhunter.btinternet.co.uk/alienharvest.htm

dooo weee ooooooo!

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
all I have to say about that one is to lay down the pipe...your getting paranoid on us..

Who isn't addicted to something? we all have our kicks..even old folks..

Who does a doctor prescribed patients hurt? Or are you going to throw up some

denial trip again? No denying california voted for paitents to be legit....

What harm do you speak of?

I don't really have any problem with medically prescribed marijuana. I don't think I ever stated in any of my arguments that I fail to see how it has some medicinal value. I stated that I think reclassifying it to make it as harmless as a schedule III drug would not be fitting because while it has medicinal purposes it DOES have a high instance of abuse. But you and I both know that there are people out there who's reasons for lobbying for the decriminalization of reefer are dubious at best. Some people, not all of them, are trying to create a loophole so that they can find some quack doctor to prescribe them pot for some dreamt up malady. I don't have a problem with keeping it as a controlled substance so that those who can benefit from it can access it, but I would shudder to think about being able to buy it over the counter at the 7-11. They call it a gateway drug. Decriminalizing pot would be a gateway to decriminalizing a lot more harmful drugs as well is what I'm afraid of. When I start to suspect people have a denial problem is when they claim drugs or alcohol have no bearing on their life, claim not to be addicted, yet staunchly argue for legalization of drugs. They throw up terms like "inalienable personal rights" as a veil just like Bush throws up the term "freedom" to justify what he's doing to Iraq. The only people who can't see through the shield are the ones who erected it and are hiding behind it. That is called denial.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Konichiwa,

Cannabis cannot go into schedule III, II, or any other schedule other then I, until a clinical trial can sucessfully demonstrate that the properties of Cannabis make it a viable drug of choice to treat a proper medical condition. To date, there are zero double blind trials to demonstrate this. That's the real issue here. There are far far better pain relievers, far and away better glaucoma drugs, and far and away better stress relievers out there, which the dosage can be monitored, controlled and adjusted, unlike with Cannabis when inhaled.

I hope that clears this up. It has nothing to do with just addiction potential. It's based on performance, usages, abuse potential and addictive qualities all-in-one. I also REQUIRES there to be proper clinical trials to demonstrate efficacy on the level of other comparable drugs available.

maluckey

That may be true, however if you look to the past you can find substantial evidence that marijuana was never intended to permanently be a Schedule I drug. Therefore the fact that you need double-blind trials to reschedule it becomes moot. Here we go...

1

In 1970, Congress placed marijuana into Schedule I on the advice of Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg. His letter to Harley O. Staggers, Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, indicates that the classification was intended to be provisional:

Dear Mr. Chairman: In a prior communication, comments requested by your committee on the scientific aspects of the drug classification scheme incorporated in H.R. 18583 were provided. This communication is concerned with the proposed classification of marihuana.

It is presently classed in schedule I(C) along with its active constituents, the tetrahydrocannibinols and other psychotropic drugs.

Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces "severe psychological or physical dependence" as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue. If those studies make it appropriate for the Attorney General to change the placement of marihuana to a different schedule, he may do so in accordance with the authority provided under section 201 of the bill. . .

Sincerely yours, (signed) Roger O. Egeberg, M.D.

The reference to "certain studies" is to the then-forthcoming National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. In 1972, the Commission released a report favoring decriminalization of marijuana. The Richard Nixon administration took no action to implement the recommendation, however. A protracted struggle ensued in which marijuana reform activists began working through all three branches of government to reschedule the drug.

(emphasis added)

 

[judasmachine]

It's just bad, that the fed government can decide which kind of relief you recieve. they want you to use a drug that is patented and cost a fortune. that way their corporate buddies make millions.

there's no money in something that someone can go buy from a buddy, or something from a government evidence room. the name brand drugs are more profitable.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
ahurtt

I have been presenting these "logical thoughts" for this entire discussion, as have some of the others in this thread, but you have not listened to any of them and have resorted to ad hominem which not only makes your arguments look foolish, it also seems to have clouded your comprehension skills as nothing that I said in that post is any different from what I've been saying all along.
I know. I just liked you you put it out in a 1,2 list. It was getting chaotic and that post kind of refocussed the discussion.

However, beyond that...I would argue that it belongs in Schedule III. The definition of the abuse and addiction properties of Schedule III drugs is that they have less potential for abuse and addiction than drugs in Schedules I and II and have recognized medical uses. Synthetic THC (discussed earlier...) is in Schedule III and I believe that marijuana should be in Schedule III as well.

You say that the "evident use of pot in society indicates that it does get abused quite a bit." I would argue that the evident use of pot in society, along with the fact that there have been no documented deaths due to marijuana and marijuana alone would be evidence enough that abuse is not very prevalent! Furthermore, there are plenty of drugs in Schedule III that are abused without question...Ketamine, anabolic steroids, hydrocodone (think OxyCodone -- hillbilly heroin), certain barbituates, etc...

Well then I guess what comes into question here is how to define the term "abuse" as it relates to substances. A quick search yielded many results of which the following was the first: The use of a drug for a purpose other than that for which it is normally prescribed or recommended. By that definition, anybody who uses pot is abusing it unless it was prescribed by a doctor for a specific purpose. Since pot has no other use besides as a recreational drug unless it is physician prescribed, if you smoke it without doctors orders, you just abused it. That is why I say abuse of pot is so rampant. Do it repeatedly, like it or not, you are a habitual abuser. Starting to sound closer to the definition of addiction now isn't it? -- The continued compulsive use of drugs in spite of adverse health or social consequences. Think about that definition for a minute. Let it sink in. I didn't make it up. It's quite simplistic in nature but so many people fail to recognize when it applies to them.

I agree that some degree of personal responsibility is needed, however I think it is clear at this point in our country that legislation is not going to force personal responsibility on anyone. The "drug war" has been going on for nearly 40 years and drugs are still around and in force. We've tried a multitude of different approaches and none of them have worked. Pot is not going away and different legislative and punitive techniques are not going to make it go away.

You are right, its not going away. Not as long as so many people are in denial.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Doesn't matter if it SHOULD be against the law or not. Facts are that as of today it IS illegal and if you choose to smoke pot or whatever you ARE a criminal.

Actually, it does matter if it SHOULD be illegal or not. Do you base your morality on what the law is? If abortion is the law, does that make it right? If slavery is the law, does that make it right? I'd love to see you use this attitude when talking to an escaped slave in the 19th century. "You're a criminal, it doesn't matter if it's illegal or not stay in your slave quarters!"

Way to take a statement out of context and post a non-sequitir reply to start a whole new argument dude! :thumbsup: That is some fine trolling 🙂

It's an analogy. If you don't think it's apt, show why. It is the same kind of flawed argument. Of course slavery is not the same as pot smoking. That's not the point of an analogy. 😉 The point is that your justification is the same and that your principle can be used for all sorts of horrible things. Is that the sort of principle you want?

Because you took one sentence out of one post out of a whole long thread of discussion and went off on a tangent with it. I know what an analogy is. You are trying to start another thread altogether.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
You seem to be the one making your comments and brushing off people's reponses by telling them they are in denial...

I just call 'em like I see 'em. Their arguments sound just like all the others I've heard in past personal experience from folks with evident substance abuse problems who are in denial. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck. . .
They took the argument beyond whether or not medical patients should have access to marijuana and whether or not it should be reclassified. They started arguing that it was peoples inalienable right to do drugs in general. That kind of talk always sends up red warning flags for me. I guess you can't see that though because YOU ARE IN DENIAL!!! :laugh:

 

[ahurtt]

THIS THREAD IS IN DENIAL!!

 

[Steeplerot]

Like I said, back off the pipe......slowly...the evil glaucoma patients are not out to get you.....

Originally posted by: ahurtt
THIS THREAD IS IN DENIAL!!

ummm ouch...You are the one who is acting high as fvck....but on what I dunno...dayuum!

sometimes I suspect people in P&N are smoking pcp......No other way I can explain it... :shocked:

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Like I said, back off the pipe......slowly...the evil glaucoma patients are not out to get you.....

Originally posted by: ahurtt
THIS THREAD IS IN DENIAL!!

ummm ouch...You are the one who is acting high as fvck....but on what I dunno...dayuum!

That was just a joke to lighten things up and show I'm not a total a-hole. Anyway, I'm going home now. Thank you all for helping me while away the hours during an otherwise slow and boring day at the office.

 

[Steeplerot]

They are going to give you a p1ss test if they saw this thread...lol

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
If people would just sober the hell up and get off the smack, there would be no drug war. No demand = no war. What's so difficult to see about that? But most people are too weak to stand up to temptation. That's why we're all such fat-asses.

There will ALWAYS be demand, it's a medical condition. Why don't people just get off the depression and get back to their lives? Because it's a MEDICAL CONDITION. Most drug addicts are self medicating other problems such as bi-polar dissorder. You can't make that problem go away and someone can't "just get over it". There is NOTHING you could do in this world to make people stop using drugs. You could make it a death sentence to use them and people will still use them. Recognition of that fact is ESSENTIAL to understanding that if we can't get rid of problem there is no point in making it's a criminal offense. Not to mention the reality that drug laws are a MASSIVE invasion of privacy. Drug abuse should be handled by doctors and therapy NOT criminal charges.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
They are going to give you a p1ss test if they saw this thread...lol

I welcome it. Bring it on. Nothing to hide here 🙂 If they are going to fire me it will be for having misused company internet bandwidth to post anti-drug messages.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: ahurtt
If people would just sober the hell up and get off the smack, there would be no drug war. No demand = no war. What's so difficult to see about that? But most people are too weak to stand up to temptation. That's why we're all such fat-asses.

There will ALWAYS be demand, it's a medical condition. Why don't people just get off the depression and get back to their lives? Because it's a MEDICAL CONDITION. Most drug addicts are self medicating other problems such as bi-polar dissorder. You can't make that problem go away and someone can't "just get over it". There is NOTHING you could do in this world to make people stop using drugs. You could make it a death sentence to use them and people will still use them. Recognition of that fact is ESSENTIAL to understanding that if we can't get rid of problem there is no point in making it's a criminal offense. Not to mention the reality that drug laws are a MASSIVE invasion of privacy. Drug abuse should be handled by doctors and therapy NOT criminal charges.

Dude the kind of drugs the drug war is about are not the medically prescribed ones. Some drugs serve a very necessary and vital role in helping people to live better and happier lives. Others are simply abused and serve no other purpose. That's the ones I'm talking about. And most of the people who are prosecuted for drug use are usually prosecuted because of some stupid thing they did while on drugs or drugs were somehow involved. The police don't go busting down peoples doors and arresting people unless there is something bigger going on. And drugs usually happen to be involved.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Because you took one sentence out of one post out of a whole long thread of discussion and went off on a tangent with it. I know what an analogy is. You are trying to start another thread altogether.

If you didn't want people to respond to your sentence, you should have kept it out. It was a poor argument. Just because you claim it wasn't central, doesn't mean it's not poor and that people don't have a right to point that out. PS. If you post about this, I will respond, so don't blame me later for continuing the discussion. Likewise, if you don't want things commented on generally, don't post them.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Dude the kind of drugs the drug war is about are not the medically prescribed ones. Some drugs serve a very necessary and vital role in helping people to live better and happier lives. Others are simply abused and serve no other purpose. That's the ones I'm talking about. And most of the people who are prosecuted for drug use are usually prosecuted because of some stupid thing they did while on drugs or drugs were somehow involved. The police don't go busting down peoples doors and arresting people unless there is something bigger going on. And drugs usually happen to be involved.

Well, some people listen to a song that changes their perspective on life... they go out and buy a gun, climb the nearest clock tower, and let loose. To the same extent music serves no other purpose, and is only "abused".

Part of life is enjoying it, and both music and recreational drugs fill a purpose, that is: entertainment. Could either of those things be an indirect cause of regretable acts? Yes. Overall it depends on the person. There are people who will go out on a killing spree because of a song they just heard, and there are people who will get into a car drunk or high. Those are irresponsible and unstable people. But we punish those people, we don't punish everybody else by taking away perfectly legitimate sources of entertainment.

We don't take away guns because some people use them irresponsibly. We don't take away music because some people are adversely affected by it. We don't take away alcohol because some people do irresponsible things while under its influence. We shouldn't take away marijuana because some people do irresponsible things under its influence.

 

[Steeplerot]

these pot related threads sure do grow fast... 😉

I wonder if the feds will carry though and shut down all the medical cannibus places in my old neighborhood....

I can't see them doing it without some serious backup from the cops....

Good luck getting SFPD to go against the laws of their own city and state....

Hopefully they stall them until people wake up. This is not the first time the feds have threatened SF's cannibus clubs..

 

[Steeplerot]

Thought so...Marijuana Clubs in San Francisco Unfazed by High Court's Ruling


Federal law enforcement officials in San Francisco said they don't intend to crack down on medical pot users, who under California state law are allowed to buy and smoke marijuana with a doctor's permission. About 40 marijuana clubs in the city, which operate without interference from local police, are likely to continue in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that federal drug laws ban use of medical pot.

``We respect the state law,'' said Javier Pena, special agency in charge at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. ``I can't tell you we are going to shut down all those clubs tomorrow. Our efforts will remain targeted at the trafficking organizations. We've never targeted the user, the sick people, the dying people.''



:thumbsup: too bad more of america can't have non kiss ass officials like this....

 

[maluckey]

I have never seen an end user busted by DEA. They have bigger things to do. They will likely just shut down the doctor prescribing the Medical Marijuana, and that ends his career for quite some time if not for good...

After the DEA removes his ability to prescribe ANY controlled drug and files an Order to Show Cause against the good doctor, then said doctor must defend his right to prescribe against his knowingly having violated FDA and DEA regulations, this will all go away.

 

[Steeplerot]

doctors have a oath to help the sick.....not moralize

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: hscorpio



Schedule I drugs are defined as those considered to have high potential for abuse, with no recognized medical use in treatment in the US. (Ex: Marijuana, Heroin, Exstacy, LSD, GHB, peyote)

Schedule II drugs are those with a high potential for abuse, but recognized medical use; and a high incidence of physical or psychological dependence. These are available only by prescription. (Ex: Cocaine, Ritalin, Opium, Methamphetamine, Demerol)

Schedule III drugs are those deemed to have less potential for abuse than Schedules I and II; recognized medical uses; and a moderate to low incidence of physical or psychological dependence, and are available only by prescription. (Ex: Codeine, Hydrocodone with aspirin, anabolic steroids, ketamine, talbutal)

To any sane person Marijuana should obviously be at least downgraded to schedule III with it's synthetic sister but the DEA has repeatedly denied petitions to reschedule it. As long as the DEA(police) are the ones making the decisions that doctors and scientists should make, marijuana will remain schedule I.

I think downgrading it to schedule III is a bit too much because marijuana does, after all, have quite a significant instance of abuse. It does however apparently have some limited medicinal value. But it also has a very high instance of abuse. These classifications were probably made before the medicinal value of pot was realized (although I suspect a lot of that value is fabricated to advance the agenda of decriminalizing it because I believe there are other ways of getting the medicinal effect without smoking it) and so it was made schedule I. But given todays climate, I would say maybe schedule II is where it belongs. It has too high an instance of abuse to be downgraded to schedule III.

You've got it backwards my man, almost ALL of the original harms associated to smoking marijuana were fabricated to advance the agenda of marijuana prohibition! Look into the history, discover when and why the first laws prohibiting pot use came about. Hint: It has a lot more to do with the end of alcohol prohibition and the type of people that were the first users of pot, than any serious scientific studies into the effects of pot.

And really there is no better method of use than smoking, except for vaporizing. Ask anyone who has ever ate to many marijuana brownies why smoking is better.

 

[Last Rezort]

I am a buyer of club pot and will continue to do so. This will not stop us. You people who go drink on the weekend and consider yourselves so much better need to stfu.
Its safer, has nothing to say its bad for you, and inexpensive to grow.
There is nothing wrong with pot, in fact i believe that they are taking away my civil rights.
Why should the gov. tell me what i cant put in my body? I am hurting no one and you people make pot smokers out to be bad human beings.
Screw all of you anti pot drug nazi's.