| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
tericee
Alien Abductee
USA
2579 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2005 : 12:52:11 PM
|
Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, one of the women involved in the case.
Stevens said the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana, and he noted "the troubling facts" in the case. Monson's backyard crop of six marijuana plants was seized by federal agents in 2002, although the California law was on Monson's side.
In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.
Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
"Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion. To date, science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy, said Monday.
Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these (California women) may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."
California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.
In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.
"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined in her dissent by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.
The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.
O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."
Alan Hopper, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, said that local and state officers handle 99 percent of marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients. "This is probably not going to change a lot for individual medical marijuana patients," he said.
The case concerned two Californians, Monson and Angel Raich. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.
Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.
In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
On the Net: The ruling in Gonzales v. Raich is available at http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050606raich.pdf
|
teri 
Twittering about the DC adventure since Dec '09...
(Micro)Blog * Photo Album
|
|
|
therippa
Fluffy-Esque
Kazakhstan
1099 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 1:04:22 PM
|
...and sad. |
Aspiring to Be Fluffy-Esque an Alien Abductee! |
 |
|
|
Zachmozach
Fluffy-Esque
USA
1534 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 1:20:58 PM
|
If that picture had better lighting I think the most fascinating thing is we could see those two girls making out.
You know my thoughts on this already. Legalize it! Or just continue flushing tax dollars down the toliet. |
 |
|
|
|
HotKoreanGirl
Chatterbox
130 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 1:33:48 PM
|
i don't know why it's illegal.
Just be sure to listen to Radiohead while you smoke... |
|
|
|
tericee
Alien Abductee
USA
2579 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 05:25:33 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
If that picture had better lighting I think the most fascinating thing is we could see those two girls making out.
You know my thoughts on this already. Legalize it! Or just continue flushing tax dollars down the toliet.
I agree. |
teri
Twittering about the DC adventure since Dec '09...
(Micro)Blog * Photo Album
|
|
|
|
Zachmozach
Fluffy-Esque
USA
1534 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 3:09:29 PM
|
| Tericee, you're a libertarian right? If I remember right they are for legalization right? Or at least decriminalization. I just wonedered where they stand on things. |
|
|
|
|
Erich
Fluffy-Esque
USA
1427 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 04:27:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
Tericee, you're a libertarian right? If I remember right they are for legalization right? Or at least decriminalization. I just wonedered where they stand on things.
Im a libertarian, so is my girlfriend.
first things first, the federal government shouldnt be allowed to intrude on state law. thats a huge violation of the constitution. fucked up and disgusting bush intervention. i wont cry once he's dead, i'll tell you that much.
secondly, legalize pot. in fact, legalize all drugs. the government should have nothing to do with your right to treat your body how you wish. they already have nothing to do with you smoking and drinking, so its not like two of the most DEADLY SUBSTANCES KNOWN TO MANKIND are being prevented by the gov't from entering your body.
benefits:
* Tax. Overtax them if you wish, lord knows America does that with alchohol and cigs already. A lot of that money can go towards helping already addicted indeviduals with rehabilitation. Sounds crazy, but tax dollars going towards clinics isnt too far out there.
* Less crime. all illegal drugs, and many legal drugs for that matter, are gotten through crime and violence. You want to make illegal drug dealers obsolete? Sell them to 18+ adults over the counter.
* Less non violent "criminals" in jail, which equals less tax money on overcrowding.
* POT BARS. Tell me the coolest place on earth wouldnt be a bar where you buy different types of pot, smoke up, listen to some tunes on bar speakers, and eat munchies to your hearts delight. Like nachos. Imagine a pot bar durring Three's Company marathon selling Nachos... but thats not a political reason.  |
~pw'oikr
~( "> |
|
|
|
Robin
Yak Addict
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 12:35:54 PM
|
| Pot bars...wow that would be so kewl. Actually here in Santa Cruz, we have two medical Marijuana houses and it's really nice actually. The folks who live nearby were not too thrilled at first, but it hasn't been what they assumed it would be.I'm all for legalization and we all know why it's not happening. Peace, Robin |
|
|
|
Zachmozach
Fluffy-Esque
USA
1534 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 12:54:00 PM
|
| Amsterdam has pot cafes. Plenty of good pot and hash. |
|
|
|
|
rubylith
Fluffy-Esque
1916 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 1:24:42 PM
|
yea keep dreaming...
im all for it but it just wont happen
just like we wont get out of this war
just like we wont stop another "terrorist" attack
these things are all good for the government.
think if they were to imprison everyone in america that smokes...like 50 million...our entire economy would collapse.
so obviously their plan isn't to stop the evil pot smokers, but gradually rotate citizens who smoke to jail. If you notice thats a felony, meaning you cant vote.
And usually who do poeople who smoke pot vote for?? hmmmmm?
no more voting, even though that doesn't work...
god damn i sound hopeless...well sure i hope i can smoke legally but really it doesnt bother me, i smoke everyday anyway
hah
COME AND GET ME!>!>!>!>!!!R#UIOY#Q*()#&!@YUORI# |
|
|
|
guitarisPIMP
Yak Addict
Niue
587 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 2:52:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erich
first things first, the federal government shouldnt be allowed to intrude on state law. thats a huge violation of the constitution.
I agreed with everything you said, except for this. The Constitution states that Federal law overrides State law. That's the whole idea behind the ruling that was made, that people can still be prosecuted because regardless of state law, they are committing a federal felony and the state laws have no protection on Federal drug scheduling. There's a difference between that and the things that only the states have control of, such as drinking ages, which the Federal government may coax states into changing by withholding federal aid on things such as highways.
Oh yeah, and the two most deadly substances known to mankind are arsenic and cyanide in my eyes. The fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal and much more harmful than marijuana is outrageous, but please don't exaggerate the facts, that's how you get accused of being an extremist. I haven't looked this up to be 100% sure, but I'm just judging by the fact that those kill you within seconds... |
my favorite color is go fuck yourself. :D |
|
|
|
PJK
Alien Abductee
USA
4159 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 5:32:03 PM
|
Teri I am glad you put this up on the board. I hate the f*n Supreme Court. I hope those in the court that voted for this legislation end up with cancer or some disease where they suffer and are told that pot would help relieve their pain but they can't have any!
How sad! I don't get it, I thought Republicans were supposed to be for less government? They feel more and more like a dictatorship.
BTW Did you all hear about the phone company that is telling people not to go with ATT, MCI, Sprint, etc because they make God mad? They "promote tolerance of homosexuals?" I smell whitch trials! |
"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!"Friedrich Nietzsche |
|
|
|
Erich
Fluffy-Esque
USA
1427 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 5:54:50 PM
|
quote:
Oh yeah, and the two most deadly substances known to mankind are arsenic and cyanide in my eyes. The fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal and much more harmful than marijuana is outrageous, but please don't exaggerate the facts, that's how you get accused of being an extremist. I haven't looked this up to be 100% sure, but I'm just judging by the fact that those kill you within seconds...
guess what? Arsenic and Hydrogen Cyanide are two of the many chemical components of a cigarette . Its interesting to look up, considering most people dont actualy know what theyre smoking.
I'll comment on your other point later, im busy with something at the moment |
~pw'oikr
~( "> |
|
|
|
guitarisPIMP
Yak Addict
Niue
587 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 6:00:16 PM
|
I actually know they'rein cigarettes, as I'm still in high school and fresh out of health class...
But tobacco is the drug in question here, not cigarettes. You made no mention of cigarettes, only an implication of alcohol and tobacco being the two deadliest substances known to mankind. |
my favorite color is go fuck yourself. :D |
|
|
|
Erich
Fluffy-Esque
USA
1427 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 6:13:49 PM
|
| my mistake! |
~pw'oikr
~( "> |
|
|
|
guitarisPIMP
Yak Addict
Niue
587 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 6:21:23 PM
|
shit happens
At Hammond high, a high school about 5 or ten miles away from mine, an English teacher was busted for selling pot to one of his students. He's in his mid-20's has been working at that school for five years, and has been very involved with the students (hanging out with some of them off the job). A couple kids from my high school got interviewed, and everyone in the news reported that they went to Hammond. It's been all over the local news it's great... |
my favorite color is go fuck yourself. :D |
|
|
|
Robin
Yak Addict
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 8:13:32 PM
|
I could be wrong, but I think the constitution is written on hemp paper. A couple years ago it became illegal to sell anything with hemp in it. So stupid, since it's not like you can smoke your t-shirt or rug made of hemp. It amazes me the lengths the "war on drugs" is going to. And it's sooo effective isn't it.
Pam I'm with you, taking this medicine from those in need, (with no side affects either)is ridiculous and cruel. We should all have a big smoke in at the Capitol in protest. HA! Peace,Robin |
|
|
|
Zachmozach
Fluffy-Esque
USA
1534 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 8:26:52 PM
|
~ Reasons to Legalize ~
1920 - 1940: Economic power in the United States begins to consolidate in the hands of a small number of steel, oil and munitions companies, laying the foundation of the national security state. DuPont becomes the U.S. government's primary manufacturer of munitions. DuPont later creates Rayon, the world's first synthetic fiber, from stabilized guncotton.
1925: Concerned by the high number of goof butts being smoked by off-duty servicemen in Panama, the U.S. government sponsors the Panama Canal Zone Report. The report concludes that Marijuana does not pose a problem, and recommends that no criminal penalties be applied to its use or sale.
1931: Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (head of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh, one of the two banks with which DuPont did business) appoints future nephew-in-law Harry J. Anslinger to head the newly-formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
June 1934: Congress passes the National Firearms Act, the first prohibitive tax in U.S. history. The National Firearms Act was a futile attempt to reduce machine gun-related violence by gangsters -- a direct result of the prohibition of alcohol, and an eerie echo of the current state of affairs in the United States.
1936 - 1938: William Randolph Hearst's newspaper empire fuels a tabloid journalism propaganda campaign against Marijuana. Articles with headlines such as Marijuana Makes Fiends of Boys in 30 Days; Hasheesh Goads Users to Blood-Lust create terror of the killer weed from Mexico.
Through his relentless misinformation campaign, Hearst is credited with bringing the word "Marijuana" into the English language. In addition to fueling racist attitudes toward Hispanics, Hearst papers run articles about marijuana-crazed negroes raping white women and playing voodoo-satanic jazz music.
1936: DuPont obtains a patent license to manufacture synthetic plastic fibers from German industrial giant I.G. Farben Corporation. The patent license is obtained as part Germany's reparation payments to the United States after World War I.
A few years later, I.G. Farben manufactures deadly Zyklon-B gas, used in Nazi death camps to murder millions of Jews (along with many homosexuals and drug users). DuPont owned and financed approximately 30% of Hitler's I.G. Corps.
1937: The year the federal government outlawed cannabis.
-- DuPont patents petrochemical manufacturing processes for making plastics, as well as pollution-heavy sulfate/sulfite processes for producing wood pulp. For the next 50 years, these processes are responsible for 80% of DuPont's industrial output.
April 14, 1937: The Treasury Department secretly introduces its Marijuana tax bill through the House Ways and Means Committee, bypassing more appropriate venues. Committee chairman Robert L. Doughton, a key Congressional ally of DuPont, rubber-stamps the bill.
Spring 1937: Congress holds hearings on the Marijuana Tax Act. Dr. James Woodward, representing the American Medical Association, testifies that the law could deny the world a potential medicine.
Cannabis was already prescribed for dozens of common ailments, and medical researchers were just beginning to explore the therapeutic benefits of the numerous active ingredients in Marijuana. Woodward said that AMA doctors were wholly unaware that the killer weed from Mexico was actually cannabis. "We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even to the profession, that it was being prepared," Woodward testifies.
December 1937: The Marijuana Tax Act is signed into law, initiating 60 years of cannabis prohibition and annihilating a multi-billion dollar industry.
The Truth about Marijuana
The debate over the legalization of Cannabis Sativa, more commonly known as marijuana, has been one of the most heated controversies ever to occur in the Inited States. Its use as a medicine has existed for thousands of years in many countries world wide and "can be documented as far back as 2700 BC in ancient Chinese writings." When someone says bhanga, ganja, kinnub, cannabis, bung, chu ts-ao, asa, dope, grass, rasta, or weed, they are talking about the same subject: marijuana. Marijuana should be legalized because the government could earn money from taxes on its sale, its value to the medical world outweighs its abuse potential, and because of its importance to the paper and clothing industries. This action should be taken despite efforts made by groups which say marijuana is a harmful drug which will increase crime rates and lead users to other more dangerous substances.
The actual story behind the legislature passed against marijuana is quite surprising. According to Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes and an expert on the "hemp conspiracy," the acts bringing about the demise of hemp were part of a large conspiracy involving DuPont, Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and many other influential industrial leaders such as William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Mellon. Herer notes that the Marijuana Tax Act, which passed in 1937, coincidentally occurred just as the decoricator machine was invented. With this invention, hemp would have been able to take over competing industries almost instantaneously. According to Popular Mechanics, "10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average [forest] pulp land." William Hearst owned enormous timber acreage, land best suited for conventional pulp, so his interest in preventing the growth of hemp can be easily explained. Competition from hemp would have easily driven the Hearst paper-manufacturing company out of business and significantly lowered the value of his land. Herer even suggests popularizing the term "marijuana" was a strategy Hearst used in order to create fear in the American public. "The first step in creating hysteria was to introduce the element of fear of the unknown by using a word that no one had ever heard of before... 'marijuana'" (ibid).
DuPont's involvment in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. "According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the next 50 years" (ibid). Indeed it should be noted that "two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed a new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was an ideal substitute for hemp rope" (Hartsell). The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber or its economical process of manufacturing. "DuPont's point man was none other than Harry Anslinger...who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew MEllon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank, DuPont's chief financial backer. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece" (Hartsell). It doesn't take much to draw a connection between DuPont, Anslinger, and Mellon, and it's obvious that all of these groups, including Hearst, had strong motivation to prevent the growth of the hemp industry.
The reasoning behind DuPont, Anslinger, and Hearst was not for any moral or health related issues. They fought to prevent the growth of this new industry so they wouldn't go bankrupt. In fact, the American Medical Association tried to argue for the medical benefits of hemp. Marijuana is actually less dangerous than alcohol, cigarettes, and even most over-the-counter medicines or prescriptions. According to Francis J. Young, the DEA's administrative judge, "nearly all medicines have toxicm, potentially letal affects, but marijuana is not such a substance...Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care" (DEA Docket No. 86-22, 57). It is illogical then, for marijuana to be illegal in the United States when "alcohol poisoning is a significant cause of death in this country" and "approximately 400,000 premature deaths are attributed to cigarettes annually." Dr. Roger Pertwee, SEcretary of the International Cannabis Research Society states that as a recreational drug, "Marijuana compares favourably to nicotine, alcohol, and even caffeine." Under extreme amounts of alcohol a person will experience an "inability to stand or walk without help, stupor and near unconsciousness, lack of comprehension of what is seen or heard, shock, and breathing and heartbeat may stop." Even though these effects occur only under insane amounts of alcohol consumption, (.2-.5 BAL) the fact is smoking extreme amounts of marijuana will do nothing more than put you to sleep, whereas drinking excessive amounts of alcohol will kill you.
The most profound activist for marijuana's use as a medicine is Dr. Lester Grinspoon, author of Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine. According to Grinspoon, "The only well-confirmed negative effect of marijuana is caused by the smoke, which contains three times more tars and five times more carbon monoxide than tobacco. But even the heaviest marijuana smokers rarely use as much as an average tobacco smoker. And, of course, many prefer to eat it." His book includes personal accounts of how prescribed marijuana alleviated epilepsy, weight loss of aids, nausea of chemotherapy, menstrual pains, and the severe effects of multiple sclerosis. The illness with the most documentation and harmony among doctors which marijuana has successfully treated is MS. Grinspoon believes for MS sufferers, "Cannabis is the drug of necessity." One patient of his, 51 year old Elizabeth MacRory, says "It has completely changed my life...It has helped with muscle spasms, allowed me to sleep properly, and helped control my bladder." Marijuana also proved to be effective in the treatment of glaucoma because its use lwoers pressure on the eye.
"In a recent survey at a leading teaching hospital, 'over 60 per cent of medical students were found to be marijuana users.' In the same survey, only 30 per cent admitted to smoking cigarettes" (Guardian). Brian Hilliard, editor of Police Review, says "Legalizing cannabis wouldn't do any harm to anybody. We should be concentrating on the serious business of heroin and amphetamines." "In the UK in 1991, 42,209 people were convicted of marijuana charges, clogging courts and overcrowding prisons...and almost 90 per cent of drug offences invlove cannabis...The British government spends 500 million pounds a year on "overall responses to drugs" but receives no tax revenue from the estimated 1.8 billion pound illicit drug market" (Guardian). Figures like this can be seen in the United States as well. The U.S. spends billions of dollars annually in its "war on drugs." If the government were to legalize marijuana, it could reasonably place high taxes on it because people are used to buying marijuana at inflated prices created by risks of selling illegally. It could be sold at a convenient store just like a pack of cigarettes for less than someone would pay now, but still yield a high profit because of easy growing requirements.
An entire industry could be created out of hemp based products. The oils extracted from seeds could be used for fuels and the hemp fiber, a fiber so valued for its strength that it is used to judge the quality of other fibers, could be manufactured into ropes, clothing, or paper. Most importantly, the money the government would make from taxes and the money which would be saved by not trying to prevent its use could be used for more important things, such as serious drugs or the national debt.
The recreational use of marijuana would not stimulate crime like some would argue. The crime rate in Amsterdam is lower than many major U.S. cities. Mario Lap, a key drug policy advisor in the Netherlands national government says "We've had a realistic drug policy for 30 years in the Netherlands, and we know what works. We distinguish between soft and hard drugs, between traffickers and users. We try not to make people into criminals" (Houston Chronicle). In 1989 the LAncet report states "The Dutch have shown that there is nothing inevitable about the drugs ladder in which soft drugs lead to heard drugs. The ladder does not exist in Holland because the dealers have been separated."
We can expect strong opposition from companies like DuPont and paper manufacturerss but the selfishness of these corporations should not prevent its use in our society like it did in the 1930's. Regardless of what these organizations will say about marijuana, the fact is it has the potential to become one of the most useful substances in the entire world. If we took action and our government legalized it today, we would immediately see benefits from this decision. People suffering from illnesses ranging from manic depression to multiple sclerosis would be able to experience relief, the government could make a fortune off of the taxes it could impose on its sale, and its implementation into the industrial world would create thousands of new jobs for the economy. Also, because of its role in paper making, the rain forests of South America could be saved from their current fate. No recorded deaths have ever occurred as a result of marijuana use, it is not physically addictive like alcohol or tobacco, and most doctors will agree it is safer to use.
|
|
|
|
|
Arthen
Alien Abductee
USA
4845 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 1:09:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erich
Im a libertarian, so is my girlfriend.
first things first, the federal government shouldnt be allowed to intrude on state law. thats a huge violation of the constitution. fucked up and disgusting bush intervention. i wont cry once he's dead, i'll tell you that much.
secondly, legalize pot. in fact, legalize all drugs. the government should have nothing to do with your right to treat your body how you wish. they already have nothing to do with you smoking and drinking, so its not like two of the most DEADLY SUBSTANCES KNOWN TO MANKIND are being prevented by the gov't from entering your body.
But there are regulations on alcohol and tobacco products. And honestly, other than the 21 age limit on alcohol, I don't find too much wrong with how they are regulated. I don't think kids should be able to walk into an AmPm and buy a carton of Cigarettes and a 12 pack of Coors. But that's just me.
What about drugs other than marijuana, I'm thinking of acid/pcp/etc, where the effects of the drugs could cause someone to harm another person?
As for pot, I don't give a shit if it's legalized or not.
And as for the federal government encroaching on the rights of states, to a certain extent states should be left alone, but they should not be considered completely soverign. |
Steve Hackett: "I'm my own opening act, you see."
Tim (before "Faceoff"): "Peace, love....and SEX!"
cbenc41@hotmail.com |
|
|
|
rdj218
Try A Little Harder
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 2:02:47 PM
|
| I wonder what is more harmfull over time-- Smoking pot or inhaling gas fumes? lack of abuse shelters for women and kids or smoking pot? |
reesa j |
|
|
|
Erich
Fluffy-Esque
USA
1427 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 4:20:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arthen
But there are regulations on alcohol and tobacco products. And honestly, other than the 21 age limit on alcohol, I don't find too much wrong with how they are regulated. I don't think kids should be able to walk into an AmPm and buy a carton of Cigarettes and a 12 pack of Coors. But that's just me.
I didnt say dont regulate it. Im all for regulation. Granted, I think a lot of the regulations we have in the US are bullshit (age of concent and alchohol are but two of them), but I dont think regulations are inherantly bad. No, I dont think a 12 year old should be able to buy some blow before sucking off a senator, but at the same time, I dont think 18 is a good "coming of age" age. My thoughts are, 16 is a good year for age of consent, driving, smoking, "R" rated movies, and things of the such. Alchohol seems decent at 18 though (if you can go to war, you can drink).
quote:
Originally posted by Arthen
What about drugs other than marijuana, I'm thinking of acid/pcp/etc, where the effects of the drugs could cause someone to harm another person?
The effect of all mind altering drugs can have harmful effects on other people. Look at alchohol. With the amount of violent and/or stupid drunks, I think dropping acid is small beans comparitive. This is where legalization and regulation come into play. Legalize it so that it can become a CONTROLED substance, and people will get stuff that isnt going to fuck them up in bad ways or make it easier for them to fuck up other people. Regulate it so that only those of the consenting age can purchase and use it. While I think "public intoxication" laws go a little overboard, those things are still good for keeping inebriated people off the streets where they can hurt or be hurt by other people. |
~pw'oikr
~( "> |
|
|
|
Zachmozach
Fluffy-Esque
USA
1534 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 7:20:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arthen
What about drugs other than marijuana, I'm thinking of acid/pcp/etc, where the effects of the drugs could cause someone to harm another person?
Well the problem is that we have no way of completely taking these drugs out. Legal or ileagal people will take them. The majority of people I know are just not about to go try any of those really more harmful drugs. Even the potheads know to leave well enough alone when it comes to most drugs like pcp etc. The problem with having them ileagal is the criminal element. The way I think we should deal with really harmful drugs is not to impose harsh penalties on users. The system should focus on treatment. However the drugs should be available to people and if someone is hooked it should be an option to get a small amount from a doctor from prescription to keep them from having to go elswhere from it. Instead of filling up prisons with just the policy of legalization and treatment I think not only would you have lower usage rates, but it kills less tax dollars.
Other countries with many drugs legalized have lower user rates than the US where the drugs are pushed on the black market by people who are really criminals. So it's a tough call, but at the least they need to back off users as they are the ones who suffer most and not jail them, but treat them. If you killed the war on drugs that doesn't work and used the money to fund treatment and try giving them a rewarding option towards a better life I think results would improve. |
|
|
|
|
dan p.
Alien Abductee
Uganda
3776 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 7:52:42 PM
|
| i don't like age of consent laws, either. if you're old enough to make a decision, you're old enough for the consequences. |
death to false metal. |
|
|
|
pants_happy
Chatterbox
412 Posts |
|
|
tericee
Alien Abductee
USA
2579 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 05:22:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
Tericee, you're a libertarian right? If I remember right they are for legalization right? Or at least decriminalization. I just wonedered where they stand on things.
Yep; see Erich's post. |
teri
Twittering about the DC adventure since Dec '09...
(Micro)Blog * Photo Album
|
|
|
|
tericee
Alien Abductee
USA
2579 Posts |
|
|
tericee
Alien Abductee
USA
2579 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 06:08:59 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
I could be wrong, but I think the constitution is written on hemp paper. A couple years ago it became illegal to sell anything with hemp in it.
I think you're right about the Constitution being drafted on hemp paper, but I hadn't heard anything about hemp textile products becoming illegal. In fact, even hemp-based foods that have no THC are legal these days. (http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4104.html) |
teri
Twittering about the DC adventure since Dec '09...
(Micro)Blog * Photo Album
|
|
|
|
Zachmozach
Fluffy-Esque
USA
1534 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 12:40:14 PM
|
You used to be able to pay your taxes in hemp too. It was at times required of you to grow. Even columbus' sails were made of hemp.
As for pot being ilegal as they continue prescribe and overprescribe chemically addictive drugs, you basically have to thank the drug companies for donating large amounts to political campaigns and keeping close ties with other industries to make sure a cheap drug that works for some people stays off the market. We wouldn't want to take a dollar out of their pocket because it's good for the economy and the money eventually will sift down to us. |
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Bad News for People In Pain
