Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDuring the 2008 campaign, one of candidate Barack Obama's best applause lines was a promise to restore respect for science when it came to federal policy making.
On Monday, President Obama kept a piece of that promise when his Department of Justice issued a directive ordering agency lawyers not to prosecute individuals who use or prescribe medical marijuana in states that have legalized the drug for that purpose.
"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal," explained Attorney General Eric Holder. "This balanced policy formalizes a sensible approach that the Department has been following since January: effectively focus our resources on serious drug traffickers while taking into account state and local laws."
In the overall scheme of the drug-policy debate, this is a relatively small -- and cautious -- step.
But for medical-marijuana advocates, the administration's formal embrace of a more responsible approach represents a major breakthrough.
"This is a huge victory for medical-marijuana patients," says Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, a medical-marijuana advocacy group. "This indicates that President Obama intends to keep his promise … and represents a significant departure from the policies of the Bush administration."
The jury is in on medical marijuana and the evidence argues for removing barriers -- federal, state and local -- to its use by patients seeking relief from pain and nausea associated with cancer, AIDS and multiple sclerosis and other debilitating illnesses and conditions.
The Obama administration's move respects that evidence. As such, it represents a clearer embrace of science with regard to drugs and drug policy by a White House than we have seen since the days when Jimmy Carter explored enlightened approaches.
As New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey said Monday, "Today, common sense won out over ideological stubbornness as our nation's law enforcement agency formally adopted a new and well-balanced policy on medical marijuana use. Across the country, individual states have enacted laws that allow individuals who are sick and suffering to use medical marijuana with a doctor's prescription only to have DOJ officials arrest and prosecute them anyway. This was a policy that was misguided and wrong from the start and I'm very pleased that the Obama administration's Justice Department, under the leadership of Attorney General Holder, has put an end to it."
Hinchey has for many years advocated for a shift in federal policies with regard to medical marijuana. Among other things, the New York Democrat has sought to amend Department of Justice appropriation bills in order to prevent the DOJ from using funds to prosecute individuals who use medical marijuana in compliance with state law.
Earlier this year, Hinchey secured House support for a requirement that the DOJ report to Congress about the administration's position on medical marijuana.
That won't be necessary now, as the DOJ order clarifies the issue -- and sets a sounder policy regarding the lawful use of marijuana for medical purposes.
"Today," says Hinchey, "those patients no longer have to worry that the medicine they've been legally using in their states will result in them being thrown in jail. Our Justice Department will now let these patients use medical marijuana in accordance with state law and federal prosecutors will instead focus their attention on more pressing legal matters that warrant their time and attention."
The next step should be to codify the DOJ directive by passing Massachusetts Congressman Barney Franks' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (HR 2835), which would formally reschedule cannabis as a Schedule II drug and eliminate federal authority to prosecute medical marijuana patients or providers in states where it is legal for medical use.
Even before that happens, however, the DOJ directive opens the way for states to enact laws permitting the use of medical marijuana. Legislative bills and referendums have already been proposed in a number of states. Americans for Safe Access tracks the progress, which should accelerate considerably now that Obama's Department of Justice has abandoned the backward and punitive policies of past administrations.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
The jury is in on medical marijuana and the evidence argues for removing barriers -- federal, state and local -- to its use by patients seeking relief from pain and nausea associated with cancer, AIDS and multiple sclerosis and other debilitating illnesses and conditions.
***********
Is that a fact? I guess I missed the FDA report on medical efficy of marijuana. Because every other drug prescribed by a physician needs to have a corporatation spend tens of millions of dollars to get the FDA to approve it by proving scientifically that the drug is more effective than a placebo.
So which company spent those tens of millions of dollars to produce the irrefutable science that the FDA relied upon?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 1:11pm
Across the country, individual states have enacted laws that allow individuals who are sick and suffering to use medical marijuana with a doctor's prescription only to have DOJ officials arrest and prosecute them anyway.
*******
Do states have the power to approve other drugs that haven't been given the FDA seal of approval?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 1:15pm
the main use of the anti-pot laws by most cops is to stick someone with something or pile it on just to be sure.
waste of time, resources, money.
a big joke...
Posted by dexter666 at 10/19/2009 @ 1:35pm
"I guess I missed the FDA report on medical efficy of marijuana."
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 1:11pm
Oh, dude...
http://tinyurl.com/yft56wx
Posted by FLaim at 10/19/2009 @ 2:14pm
This REALLY is a huge breakthrough, as the Feds under Bush would prosecute patients and their caregivers here in California regardless of whether they were following state law.
Holder is correct, there are "some" who hide behind medical marijuana laws to engage in illegal drug dealing, but this is a small minority.
Now, those who clearly want to follow the intent of Prop 215 can operate without fear of prosecution.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/19/2009 @ 2:20pm
ooh,
i bet larry's gonna open up his Healing Health Shoppe and Bibletorium.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/19/2009 @ 3:02pm
Is that a fact? I guess I missed the FDA report on medical efficy of marijuana. Because every other drug prescribed by a physician needs to have a corporatation spend tens of millions of dollars to get the FDA to approve it by proving scientifically that the drug is more effective than a placebo.
So which company spent those tens of millions of dollars to produce the irrefutable science that the FDA relied upon?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_
Maybe the government could have supplied the tens of millions it takes to prove it's more effective than a placebo as compared to the kazillions they spent on the studies that proved you could kill a monkey if you blew enough smoke into its lungs.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/19/2009 @ 3:04pm
Woo Hoo!
Smoke em if ya got em.
Won't be long before people everywhere can actually grow a plant and not commit a felony.
Imagine that. Actually having the "right" to grow something that occurs naturally. Or imagine this. The fact that a human being born free and naked on an emerald green planet floating around a medium sized star could go to jail for life for growing a plant...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 3:45pm
Posted by FLaim at 10/19/2009 @ 2:14pm
Thanks for the link. I've saved a copy as it is very interesting.
But my original point stands: marijuana is not an FDA approved medicine or treatment.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 3:46pm
Posted by FLaim at 10/19/2009 @ 2:14pm
Thanks for the link. I've saved a copy as it is very interesting. But my original point stands: marijuana is not an FDA approved medicine or treatment.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--take a wild guess at the difference between chemicals that are combined to make a pill...and something that occurs naturally.
take a wild guess.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 4:03pm
meanwhile, back on the ranch:
"Ignoring objections from Latin American governments and Colombian civil society, the Obama administration is moving ahead with plans to station more US military personnel inside Colombia. In an agreement with the Uribe administration, the US military will soon be able to operate out of 7 Colombian military bases.
This is a troubling shift from the rhetoric of candidate Obama, who once sharply criticized the Colombian regime's appalling human rights record. Now President Obama appears to be solidifying Washington's partnership with Uribe's right-wing government, and at the same time alarming a continent that is no stranger to brutal US military interventions."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/19/2009 @ 4:04pm
frosty, bibletorium???? Thanks for the giggle, I needed that!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 4:06pm
--take a wild guess at the difference between chemicals that are combined to make a pill...and something that occurs naturally. take a wild guess. Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 4:03pm
arsenic is natural.
just sayin'.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/19/2009 @ 4:08pm
--take a wild guess at the difference between chemicals that are combined to make a pill...and something that occurs naturally. take a wild guess. Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 4:03pm arsenic is natural. just sayin'..... Posted by frosty zoom at 10/19/2009 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--common sense is natural too. embrace it.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 4:09pm
But my original point stands: marijuana is not an FDA approved medicine or treatment.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 3:46pm
Troll, I really don't think we need the FDA to "approve" the use of a plant that has more practical applications than any other botanical on the planet..
Do you need the FDA to approve water? Marijuana has been used for thousands of years.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 4:09pm
But my original point stands: marijuana is not an FDA approved medicine or treatment. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 3:46pm Troll, I really don't think we need the FDA to "approve" the use of a plant that has more practical applications than any other botanical on the planet.. Do you need the FDA to approve water? Marijuana has been used for thousands of years. Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--for once i'm in complete agreement with chaoszen.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 4:14pm
But my original point stands: marijuana is not an FDA approved medicine or treatment.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009
This is a laugher. You want to bring in the FDA to this argument. Ok, let's look into this... squalene, high fructose corn syrup, flouride, magnesium stearate, thimerosal, ecoli viruses, salmonila, and the list is endless. The FDA is corrupt and broken. Why does the FDA need to be involved in medical cannabis? They cannot even keep us safe with the food that we eat. Which, by the way, will kill you faster than smoking like Marley ever would. The FDA, lmao. I'll tell you what, once someone actually over doses from cannabis, then I may agree with you. On second thought, no I wouldn't. The FDA, ROTFLMAO.
Don't tread on me
Posted by LegalizeFreedom at 10/19/2009 @ 4:27pm
Its about time, now they need to legalize cannibus for everyone over the age of 18 or 21, whichever, it needs to be legal.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 4:38pm
I have been puzzled since the 60's when I was at Berkeley. What is is about drug use that gets the lefties knickers in such a twist? I have never seen such emotion as when discussing drug policy with a progressive. What is it about being able to chemically distort ones brain that provokes such passion?
Posted by sntauri at 10/19/2009 @ 4:42pm
Troll, I really don't think we need the FDA to "approve" the use of a plant that has more practical applications than any other botanical on the planet..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 4:09pm
I declare bullshit. I'm supposed to believe that hemp has more uses than sugar cane?
Sugar cane can be made into jelly donuts, and bavarian cream doughnuts, and long johns, and crullers, and cookies, frosting for cakes, and cakes, and don't even get me started on candy bars.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 4:42pm
See DTBFT, sugar and cannibas have many uses, and not in that order, cannibus 1st, then the jelly doughnut.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 4:47pm
This was the right decision by the Obama administration. Conservatives including conservative Christians who have long ranted against marijuana legalization while popping prescription pain killers and anti-depressants need to do some self examination.
I left the world of smoking weed 30 years ago, but that doesn't mean I'm don't realize the stupidity of these laws.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 4:56pm
What is it about being able to chemically distort ones brain that provokes such passion?
Posted by sntauri at 10/19/2009 @ 4:42pm
It always has to come back to this though huh? Why is it that a patient can take morphine, oxy, methodone, vicodin, etc. for pain knowing their addictive properties/overdose chances? Introduce a plant that has no addictive properties, no chance of overdose, relieves pain, reduces naseua, increases appetite, helps insomnia, and another endless list, and all people can come back to is the likes of the quote above...incredible.
To answer the question directly though, Who are you or anyone else to tell me what I can or cannot put into my body?
Don't tread on me
Posted by LegalizeFreedom at 10/19/2009 @ 4:56pm
Type in Cannabis in google and go to Wikipedia look under cannabis(drug), when you get there take a look at that bad girl bud in the upper right hand corner and click on it to enlarge it.
What you will see is the most beautiful example of pure natural art. There is so much potential in the beauty of that bud. Makes my mouth water and my imagination soar. Check it out.
Cannabis is probably the most feared plant on the planet. It is powerful and gentle at the same time. What a blessing.
It has uses that vary from bio-fuel to a natural durable fiber, recreation, food source, and medicinal and religious applications.
The reason it is feared is that it is easy to grow, requires no pesticides or chemical fertilizers. Anyone can grow it and take advantage of it's many qualities.
This is a threat to the greedy. A plant like this should not exist in their world of tyranny. That is why many unfortunate individuals have had their property seized and their lives destroyed.
Cannabis is the ultimate social protest..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 4:56pm
what's your favourite drug, sntauri?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/19/2009 @ 4:57pm
What is it about being able to chemically distort ones brain that provokes such passion?
Posted by sntauri at 10/19/2009 @ 4:42pm
If you don't understand that, your time at Berkely was wasted..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 5:01pm
Sugar cane can be made into jelly donuts, and bavarian cream doughnuts, and long johns, and crullers, and cookies, frosting for cakes, and cakes, and don't even get me started on candy bars.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/19/2009 @ 4:42pm
Wow! Perhaps I'm mistaken here Troll, sounds like Sugar can be made into all sorts of healthy combinations. Especially those "crullers".
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 5:08pm
Its about time, now they need to legalize cannibus for everyone over the age of 18 or 21, whichever, it needs to be legal. Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I live in CT, on a border town to Mass. In Mass they've decriminalized certain amounts of pot (I think an ounce). If you're caught with it, the cops can confiscate it and write you an infraction ticket.
It's nowhere near as good as legalizing it, but decriminalization is a good first step.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 5:21pm
I have been puzzled since the 60's when I was at Berkeley. What is is about drug use that gets the lefties knickers in such a twist? I have never seen such emotion as when discussing drug policy with a progressive. What is it about being able to chemically distort ones brain that provokes such passion?
Posted by sntauri at 10/19/2009 @ 4:42pm | ignore this person |
--outlaw booze and see how many republicans turn to making their own or buying from bootleggers.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 5:22pm
This was the right decision by the Obama administration. Conservatives including conservative Christians who have long ranted against marijuana legalization while popping prescription pain killers and anti-depressants need to do some self examination. I left the world of smoking weed 30 years ago, but that doesn't mean I'm don't realize the stupidity of these laws. Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I congratulate you on your common sense my friend.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 5:23pm
Free the herb. I love it.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/19/2009 @ 5:27pm
"Free the herb. I love it."
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/19/2009 @ 5:27pm
I believe your supposed to NEED it, medically speaking.
Right?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 5:42pm
Seems some of the quasi Libertarian/Conservatives here have no qualms about getting high or getting laid.
Confirms my belief that Libertarians are Conservatives who want to smoke pot and get laid..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 5:43pm
NEED Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 5:42pm
NEED is entirely subjective my friend..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 5:44pm
"NEED is entirely subjective my friend.."
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 5:44pm
Your opponents will take that and run with it.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 5:47pm
There needs to be a major change in all laws reguarding the "use of chemical imparements" ie. legal drugs, alcohol!
If you smoke weed and use heavy equipment or drive you should also be shoot on the spot "justifiably "when stopped by law enforcement!
Otherwise, do what you wish with your freedom without endangering the lives and property of innocent others!
Now there is some "common sense law" for you but doubt any would agree to that! Enjoy flying the friendly skies while your pilot lights up a joint!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 5:49pm
benchrest--who needs booze?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 5:50pm
bigpasture: "If you smoke weed and use heavy equipment or drive you should also be shoot on the spot "justifiably "when stopped by law enforcement!"
--same goes for booze or any prescription drugs that affect judgment, right?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 5:52pm
who needs booze?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 5:50pm
Who's talking about booze?
The social perception is quite different, no?
Just 14 states at present?
weak
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 5:56pm
who needs booze? Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 5:50pm Who's talking about booze? The social perception is quite different, no? Just 14 states at present? weak Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 5:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I'm talking about booze. It's a mind altering drug. Just like weed. Public perception is exactly what's being discussed. Even Larry can admit it's nonsense to be so against weed when booze and prescription drugs are so prevalent. Can you admit the same?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 6:03pm
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 6:03pm
The current path chosen is the way you will attain your goal.
A medical necessity.
Comparing weed to booze and Rx drugs will only add to the public perception of one more bad thing that society doesn't need, and guarantee a reverse trend in said perception, and as such, is a weak argument.
Hence, the 14 state statement.
Now, what did you want me to admit?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 6:12pm
Big P, of course you should not smoke and pilot or operate machinary, thats just common sense, just as you shouldn't do those things under the influence of drugs or alcohol, duh!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 6:17pm
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 6:03pm
The current path chosen is the way you will attain your goal. A medical necessity. Comparing weed to booze and Rx drugs will only add to the public perception of one more bad thing that society doesn't need, and guarantee a reverse trend in said perception, and as such, is a weak argument. Hence, the 14 state statement. Now, what did you want me to admit?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 6:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I disagree wholeheartedly. This country already tried to outlaw booze. Didn't work. Complete disaster. I contend most people are aware weed is no worse than booze. Most people who seek legalization of marijuana are not asking for legalization of cocaine or heroin, etc. You give people little-to-no credit to be able to differentiate between marijuana and "hard" drugs. Marijuana is arguably does less harm to society than booze and prescription drugs. It's not a weak argument to make an apples-to-apples comparison. Booze will never be prohibited again. Prescription drugs obviously will never been outlawed. Marijuana falls in the same class as either. If your contention is it should only ever be "legal" as a prescription drug; I contend that's not enough.
Larry admits marijuana laws are stupid. Why can't you?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 6:21pm
Sorry Benchrest, didn't mean to make your point for you, I'm just so darned impressed that the whitehouse actually did something positive that I didn't know if I'd see in my life time, now they need to go a little further and legalize it.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 6:21pm
prescription drugs are so prevalent
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 6:03pm
They are prevalent because there are some damn good prescription drugs out there. Oxycontin is amazing if you are careful and have a closet full.
Has anyone ever tried Tussionex Suspension? An elixir from God. Hard to get and dangerous but if you use it per directions, life is fine.
Or for the other side of the equation, Provigil, a prescription medicine to improve wakefullness, used by the the military for pilots who need to stay awake and productive for long periods. Non-addictive speed, with virtually no side effects. Stay up for as long as you want and then eat or go to sleep as you choose.
There is something to say for the statement, "Better Life Through Chemistry"...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 6:25pm
I'm one who feels that marijuana is not near as harmful as booze and pills, and would be a wonderful substitute. I have never known anyone who got in a wreck because of marijuana, or started a fight, hit a child, etc., actually after reading what I wrote, I take part of the first sentence back, marijuana is not harmful.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 6:27pm
However I do not advocate the use of any of these substances without a prescription and monitoring by a licensed physician.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 6:30pm
I take part of the first sentence back, marijuana is not harmful.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 6:27pm
It is the most innocuous and harmless substance on the planet. That is why it is illegal. No profit in it for law enforcement if it was legal..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 6:34pm
chaoszen, absotootly, I don't advocate it either, HA!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 6:39pm
This is probably just another Obama PR stunt..... throwing a bone to the left (no pun intended) while he and congress revitalize the Patriot Act, start and escalate more wars, kills insurance reform by committee, do nothing to contain the banksters and watch while workers starve and the dollar self-incinerates. Besides, if more of the public is stoned, they won't see what's really going on. Either way, they win, we lose.
Posted by DejaVu at 10/19/2009 @ 6:42pm
"It's not a weak argument to make an apples-to-apples comparison."
"I contend that's not enough."
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 6:21pm
You contend wrong.
How long did the public allow the illegality of booze?
How long have they allowed the illegality of maryjane?
Making the leap from controlled substance (barely at this point, and only on a state level, in just 14, and still illegal on a federal level), to completely harmless OTC is not based in reality.
That argument is guaranteed failure.
As a random example, Rogaine was first a prescription.
NOW, you can buy it OTC.
I contend first things first.
THEN you can be as big a stoner as you want.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 6:48pm
"...now they need to go a little further and legalize it."
Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 6:21pm
The President has already said, plainly, that he would not do that, nor approve of that being done.
It's gonna take a long long time.
The 2010 elections will not help.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 6:57pm
As a random example, Rogaine was first a prescription.
NOW, you can buy it OTC.
I contend first things first.
THEN you can be as big a stoner as you want.
Posted by Benchrest at 10
So we need a waiting period comparable to rogaine? How about 72 years?
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/19/2009 @ 7:00pm
This is probably just another Obama PR stunt..... throwing a bone to the left (no pun intended) while he and congress revitalize the Patriot Act, start and escalate more wars, kills insurance reform by committee, do nothing to contain the banksters and watch while workers starve and the dollar self-incinerates Posted by DejaVu at 10/19/2009 @ 6:42pm
Your post is probably true. We are fucked. The Dollar is losing basis points on a daily basis. Soon our cash will be nothing but trash. Gold and Silver are trying to break new records, despite the efforts of the FED.
Luckily I saw this crap coming a long time ago and all my money is now in physical Gold and Silver. I keep getting richer by the day. And I keep buying mostly silver with every extra penny.
The Administration is blowing hard to reinflate the Banking Bubble and hopes it will stay inflated until the mid-term elections. Meanwhile Wall Street is covering it's ass by taking huge bonuses to insure their safety net.
When the Bubble pops (I predict by next summer) the theives will be covered and bug out. Little do they know that some of us are watching them. They can steal America blind, but can they keep it? Hard to spend ill gotten gains when you are dead.
This is the greatest robbery ever committed, and it's being done right under our collective noses.
It remains to be seen how it will end. They can run but they cannot hide...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 7:14pm
"So we need a waiting period comparable to rogaine? How about 72 years?"
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/19/2009 @ 7:00pm
If you do it right, as a medical necessity, you might narrow it down a little, say 10 to 15 years for a majority of states to allow it.
Telling the public you demand they legalize a recreational drug for you, just for the hell of it, and 72 years may not be far off.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 7:18pm
If you do it right, as a medical necessity, you might narrow it down a little, say 10 to 15 years for a majority of states to allow it.
Telling the public you demand they legalize a recreational drug for you, just for the hell of it, and 72 years may not be far off.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 7:18pm
I was talking what should be, not what is. You talk as if the hypocrisy has to be proven.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/19/2009 @ 7:24pm
"I was talking what should be, not what is."
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/19/2009 @ 7:24pm
See how that works out for ya.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 7:28pm
See how that works out for ya.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 7:28pm
Works fine for me. I live in one of the 14 states and I'm legal.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/19/2009 @ 7:39pm
"Works fine for me. I live in one of the 14 states and I'm legal."
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/19/2009 @ 7:39pm
Well, lucky you.
You got yours, so screw everybody else.
Yeah, 72 years your way may be more accurate than I thought.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 7:45pm
Smoking tobacco is bad but smoking marijuana is OK.
Killing babies is OK but the death penalty is bad.
Lets OK all smoking and all killing.
(Seriously, how long will it be before the antismoking nuts find themselves at odds with the dopers?)
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/19/2009 @ 8:05pm
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/19/2009 @ 8:05pm
THC is a drug with incredible efficacy relative to certain applications, especially with cancer patients on chemo as an anti-emetic and appetite stimulant.
It is legal for such in all 50 states.
It's called Marinol and is in pill form. Tightly controlled and prescribed mainly by Oncologists.
I consider that legitimate.
The rest is "wants" by people who like reality altered.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 8:24pm
Benchrest;
You are on the right path but wrong information. THC in it's natural form, ie cannabis, is not legal in all 50 states. Marinol, being synthetic THC, also called dronabinol is legal in all 50 states. There is also an analog of dronabinol, nabilone, that is marketed as Cesamet. It is made in Canada and received FDA approval in 2006. These are lab developed and in no way do they compare with the THC in it's natural form.
Even if we "want" to use, why do we not have that choice? We meaning adults, 21 years and older. Do we not have the same rights as someone who enjoys a beer, wine, whiskey, etc.? Prohibition is outdated and absolutely will not work. The amount of pressure for real reform is beginning to show, finally.
Also, why is hemp still illegal? We have farmers standing by begging to grow hemp to save their homesteads. The uses of hemp are as endless as it gets. This is a start but we still have miles to go.
Don't tread on me
Posted by LegalizeFreedom at 10/19/2009 @ 9:17pm
Thowing the Dog a Bone
While agreeing to allow banks immunity from credit regulation by the proposed Dept of Consumer Affairs and declaring that a public option is not required in the final health-care bill and appointing another Bear Stearns graduate to head a regulatory agency, President Obama cunningly offers a bone to the left: no medical marijuana federal prosecutions in states where it is legal.
The left is supposed, I guess, to say, "Gee thanks, Pres. You are really a good guy at heart!"
Well, this leftee sees through you, BO, as I am sure others do, too.
Posted by goedel at 10/19/2009 @ 9:30pm
"THC in it's natural form, ie cannabis, is not legal in all 50 states."
Yes, I know.
"Marinol, being synthetic THC, also called dronabinol is legal in all 50 states."
Why didn't I think of that?
"These are lab developed and in no way do they compare with the THC in it's natural form."
THC is THC.
"Even if we "want" to use, why do we not have that choice?"
Because the public says so.
"Do we not have the same rights as someone who enjoys a beer, wine, whiskey, etc.?"
Not yet.
" Prohibition is outdated and absolutely will not work."
Relative to what? Lots of stuff is prohibited. Like plutonium.
"Also, why is hemp still illegal? We have farmers standing by begging to grow hemp to save their homesteads. The uses of hemp are as endless as it gets."
I agree. Humans can be stupid, which unfortunately, is still legal.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 9:52pm
There needs to be a major change in all laws reguarding the "use of chemical imparements" ie. legal drugs, alcohol!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--same goes for booze or any prescription drugs that affect judgment, right?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Big P, of course you should not smoke and pilot or operate machinary, thats just common sense, just as you shouldn't do those things under the influence of drugs or alcohol, duh!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Try reading the first sentence this time or any other time! Context is everything.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 9:52pm
The smoking of Pot by the Obamanation administration must be rampant! They think Fox is Republican!
Is Fox News "an arm of the Republican Party" as White House Communications Director Anita Dunn says?
Democratic and independent voters beg to differ. A national survey conducted for the League of American Voters by the Global Marketing Research Center during last week shows that 46 percent of those who watch Fox News "just about every day" are Democrats or independents as are 50 percent of those who watch it "several times each week" or more.
Overall, the survey showed that 21 percent of all American voters watched Fox News every day and 18 percent watched it several times each week. So, combined, 39 percent watched the station several times each week or more.
• Among Democrats, 17 percent watched it several times each week or more
• Among Independents, 46 percent watched the station several times each week or more
• And among Republicans, 55 percent watched it several times each week or more
Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 10:19pm
The rest is "wants" by people who like reality altered.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 8:24pm
--in which category alcohol firmly rests. condescend to us some more...
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 11:21pm
Even if we "want" to use, why do we not have that choice? We meaning adults, 21 years and older. Do we not have the same rights as someone who enjoys a beer, wine, whiskey, etc.? Prohibition is outdated and absolutely will not work. Don't tread on me
Posted by LegalizeFreedom at 10/19/2009 @ 9:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I am all for freedom! If you pile out of your car after killing a member of my family in a alcohol, any legal or illegal drug such as pot induced haze I should also have the right to execute YOU on the spot without legal prejudice! We agree!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 11:25pm
legalizefreedom wrote: "Even if we "want" to use, why do we not have that choice?"
benchrest wrote: "Because the public says so."
legalizefreedom wrote: "Also, why is hemp still illegal? We have farmers standing by begging to grow hemp to save their homesteads. The uses of hemp are as endless as it gets."
benchrest wrote: "I agree. Humans can be stupid, which unfortunately, is still legal."
--"because the public says so" is enough for benchrest why pot should be illegal. on the other hand, "humans can be stupid" is his response to hemp being illegal.
that kind of selectivity is so keen!
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 11:26pm
I am all for freedom! If you pile out of your car after killing a member of my family in a alcohol, any legal or illegal drug such as pot induced haze I should also have the right to execute YOU on the spot without legal prejudice! We agree!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 11:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--no, pot doesn't remain illegal unless you get to kill people who are high. we do not agree.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 11:29pm
An off-duty Nevada Highway Patrol sergeant who last month triggered a three-car accident that left one person dead had more marijuana in his system than state law permits while driving, according to a police report.
Nevada law does make allowances for drivers who test positive for trace amounts of marijuana that could be ingested secondhand.
Sgt. Edward Lattin, a 22-year NHP veteran who supervises a team that investigates fatal crashes, voluntarily submitted to a blood test that determined he had exceeded those legal limits, a Las Vegas police official said.
Lattin, 46, was arrested Tuesday on one felony count of drug-related driving under the influence resulting in death. He remained in the Clark County Detention Center on Wednesday night for his role in the June 11 accident that claimed the life of 49-year-old Ying Warren near Rainbow Boulevard and Hacienda Avenue.
Lattin's arrest caused some experts familiar with Nevada's law to argue that although he had marijuana in his system, it's difficult to determine if the drug impaired his driving. Marijuana can stay in a person's blood for more than a month after ingested.
Lattin's crash stirred echoes of Jessica Williams' March 2000 crash.
Williams mowed over six teenagers collecting trash in the median of Interstate 15. The six victims died.
Testimony at the trial showed Williams and a friend used the drug Ecstasy about 10 hours before the crash. She and the friend smoked marijuana about two hours before the accident.
Williams was convicted of driving with prohibited substances in her blood, although a jury found she was not impaired during the time of the crash. She is serving a prison sentence of 18 to 48 years. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld her conviction in 2002.
According to the
Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 11:30pm
A recent study by the Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety showed that 15% of all interstate truck drivers had marijuana in their system, 12% had stimulants (non-prescription), 5% had prescription stimulants, 2% had cocaine and less than 1% had alcohol in their system.
Many people have the false notion that driving after smoking marijuana is safer than driving after drinking. This is simply not true. Marijuana can affect concentration, perception and reaction time as long as 24 hours after it is smoked. That is much, much longer than alcohol affects a driver's behavior. Marijuana has been found to be a factor in over 12% of fatal trucking accidents. In recent years, out of the truckers tested randomly for drugs and alcohol, a whopping 45% showed marijuana in their system.
Yep, I sure think I should also have the right of execution without legal prejudice if you smoke pot and drive killing family members!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 11:34pm
Yep, I sure think I should also have the right of execution without legal prejudice if you smoke pot and drive killing family members! Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 11:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--the same thing happens with drunk drivers...and at a much higher incidence. My father, just last winter, was struck by a drunk driver. Luckily his truck was just grazed. The driver came to a complete stop, then sped away, and less then 10 seconds later ran a red light, plowing into another driver. Both were killed.
what percentage of driving deaths are alcohol related? what percent marijuana related? dollars-to-doughnuts alcohol related driving deaths FAR outnumber marijuana driving deaths.
so why you focusing on pot?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 11:44pm
I'm not! If you read my posts above it is ALL legal and illegal products that impair driving period! I see no excuse for operating machinery or driving while under any imparement. It is stupid to legalize any without consequence! Like we need pilots flying pot high or drunk.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 11:58pm
"that kind of selectivity is so keen!"
Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 11:26pm
It is very keen.
And very selective relative to usefulness to the individual (Marinol) and to society (hemp).
It's called "being responsible". (condescending enough?)
You're just pissed because I won't include getting high as part of it's usefulness.
You can still be a stoner URMY.
Just not legally.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/20/2009 @ 12:09am
"that kind of selectivity is so keen!" Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 11:26pm It is very keen. And very selective relative to usefulness to the individual (Marinol) and to society (hemp). It's called "being responsible". (condescending enough?) You're just pissed because I won't include getting high as part of it's usefulness. You can still be a stoner URMY. Just not legally. Posted by Benchrest at 10/20/2009 @ 12:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
--I'm not pissed, or a stoner. And I've gotten high twice since college (I'm 30). And I'm not gay, but I don't think society's homophobia is a valid argument against gay marriage. There are all sorts of political beliefs one can have that are based on common sense rather than experience.
Pot is equivalent to alcohol. You don't condescend to alcoholics though. There's no "you can go be a drunk" from you (in a sarcastic tone). There's nothing responsible about outlawing marijuana but not outlawing booze. It's selectivity based on bias; not science, or statistics.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 12:19am
I'm not! If you read my posts above it is ALL legal and illegal products that impair driving period! I see no excuse for operating machinery or driving while under any imparement. It is stupid to legalize any without consequence! Like we need pilots flying pot high or drunk.
Posted by BigPasture
--we have laws to deal with people who drive while intoxicated (on any substance).
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 12:24am
" There's nothing responsible about outlawing marijuana but not outlawing booze. It's selectivity based on bias; not science, or statistics."
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 12:19am
There are multitudes of pros and cons on both sides of that coin, and you know it.
So frickin many that we couldn't argue them all if we tried.
It isn't pretty either way.
Public opinion is moving your way, albeit slowly, which is a good thing to iron out all the unintended consequences.
You can rake me over the coals tomorrow, night.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/20/2009 @ 12:33am
There are multitudes of pros and cons on both sides of that coin, and you know it.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/20/2009 @ 12:33am | ignore this person | warn this person
--there is no logic to arguing pot should be illegal but alcohol legal...and you know it.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 12:39am
Legalize it and tax it.
I'd prefer my kids choose to smoke, or vaporize or whatever the healthiest method turns out to be. And comparing impairment to alcohol is just silly. I've seen many people who can handle alcohol and those who cannot. (Worked as a bartender, among other things, while in college.) So a .08 state limit is arbitrary. And I've never seen someone stoned on pot only, fall down in the middle of the street. (Can't get off the couch to walk.)
"The federal government pulled in about $8.9 billion from alcohol excise taxes in 2005. By comparison, the economic and social costs of drinking far exceed alcohol tax revenues, burdening society with an estimated $184 billion per year in health care, criminal justice, social services, property damage, and loss of productivity expenses."
-Updating Estimates of the Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse in the United States: Estimates, Update Methods and Data. Report prepared by the Lewin Group for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Journal of Law and Economics. 31(1):145‐171.
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, alcohol causes as many as 85,000 deaths annually in the United States and contributes to a wide array of health problems and human suffering. Those include various cancers, liver disease, alcoholism, brain disorders, motor vehicle crashes, violence, crime, spousal and child abuse, drownings, and suicides."
-ʺThe effects of alcoholic beverage prices and legal drinking ages on youth alcohol use.ʺ National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2000). ʺDrinking over the life span: Issues of biology, behavior and risk.ʺ ~In: 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, pp. 1‐66."
Posted by FLaim at 10/20/2009 @ 02:50am
[Need is subjective] - chaoszen
Your opponents will take that and run with it.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/19/2009 @ 5:47pm
Not me. I agree completely.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/20/2009 @ 07:16am
Lots of people hate lawyers. This can be attributed to the fact that they often employ strategies that are dishonest, deceitful, and disingenuous to get what they want. They are masters of "manipulating the system" to their advantage.
I have often "generalized" about the Left's propensity for dishonesty and "cheating". There are rules in place and when you manipulate the rules, I consider that cheating.
Look at the comments above and then contrast that with Nichols' article. Nichols starts with some bullshit cannard about Bush being anti-science and President Obama being the embodiment of reason. Because, marijuana you see, is medicine.
Bullshit!
Whether I agree with legalization or not, this isn't about science. This isn't about medicine. This is about manipulating the rules to legalize recreational drug use. The Left knows it can't win on the merits or by following the rules, so the Left just tells themselves they are justified to cheat because their opponents are stupid.
The ends justify the means when it comes to recreational drug use, but not torturing terrorists.
I see that as being hypocritical.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/20/2009 @ 07:33am
Darin: "Because, marijuana you see, is medicine. Bullshit!"
--thanks for clearing that up Dr. Troll
Darin: "Whether I agree with legalization or not"
--you clearly don't
Darin: "This is about manipulating the rules to legalize recreational drug use."
--are you angry with Monsieurs Budweiser, Miller, and Coors?
Darin: "The Left knows it can't win on the merits or by following the rules, so the Left just tells themselves they are justified to cheat because their opponents are stupid."
--what's being "cheated"?
Darin: "The ends justify the means when it comes to recreational drug use, but not torturing terrorists."
--if one thinks it's crazy to outlaw pot, which is in many ways safer and less harmful to society than alcohol...one also must be for torturing terrorists? Talk about BULLSHIT!
Darin: "I see that as being hypocritical."
--I'll give you a chance to not be hypocritical...since opportunism seems to bother you so much. Was Saddam ever proven to be looking for Yellow Cake? Were any WMDs ever found in Iraq? Was there ever any connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks?
These (among others) were the justifications Bush used to invade Iraq. None were, or have been, proven true. So you must consider Bush a "cheater" (to use your parlance).
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 10:12am
I see that as being hypocritical. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/20/2009 @ 07:33am | ignore this person | warn this person
--also, antisocialist, an avowed conservative, admits marijuana laws are stupid. plus, if a state approves the use of medical marijuana and the federal gov't wants to overrule the state and prosecute those that sell and buy medical marijuana, then the states' rights (and the people's rights) are being trampled. A true conservative should not be for the DOJ prosecuting the sale of medial marijuana.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 10:23am
The facts still speak for themselves with regards to medical marijuana. Big Pharma and conventional medicine do not want it to become too widespread precisely because it might cut into their market.
As for casual/recreational use, it has been proven to be safer than alcohol, is non-addictive, and nobody has ever died from overdosing on it.
Prohibition is a futile failure as a policy. We have known this for more than 80 years. There is no "War on drugs," there is simply a black market created out of a general ignorance of basic economics.
Posted by tanstaafl28 at 10/20/2009 @ 10:31am
Prohibition is a futile failure as a policy. We have known this for more than 80 years. There is no "War on drugs," there is simply a black market created out of a general ignorance of basic economics. Posted by tanstaafl28 at 10/20/2009 @ 10:31am | ignore this person | warn this person
--never mind tax dollars to house people in our overcrowded prisons....and the injustice of people having criminal records b/c of possession of pot (but not possession of alcohol).
also, violent crimes are committed mostly by men who were drunk at the time of the commission of the crime. rape, domestic violence, robbery, etc. does anyone reasonably think people who get high get violent?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 10:41am
chaoszen, FLaim, and others:
Be careful what you wish for. Legalization of pot will lead to corporatization of pot production, sale, and marketing. Phillip Morris will convert those tobacco fields into high-profit marijuana fields overnight. Export of quality American grass could single-handedly reverse the trade deficit. But, it would kill what, right now, is a cottage industry. Mom-and-pop outfits could not compete with Phillip Morris and others. See Harper's, October 2009.
Is this what you want? To see Phillip Morris on top again?
Posted by twillie at 10/20/2009 @ 11:16am
"--there is no logic to arguing pot should be illegal but alcohol legal..."
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 12:39am
Sure there is, because that is the reality at present.
Perception is everything.
The public perceives drinking in a different light, such as having a glass of wine during dinner, with minimal effect. (Yeah, I know it can be abused)
Lighting up a fat one after dinner, and the public perceives Jeff Spicoli, or Cheech and Chong, who portray dumbass stoners who can't function normally in society.
That's one of the reasons that bitching that you should be able to get stoned just because people imbibe is a weak argument.
You will have much greater success arguing it as a medical necessity, or as a valuable commodity (hemp).
Posted by Benchrest at 10/20/2009 @ 11:28am
I was wondering if there would be a negative medical effect of marijuana allowed as arecreational drug. Think about the effect of munchies on an already obese population - can't be a good thing.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/20/2009 @ 11:37am
Is this what you want? To see Phillip Morris on top again?
Posted by twillie at 10/20/2009 @ 11:16am
uh,
tobacco is extremely difficult to cultivate.
marijuana, on the other hand, is extremely easy.
next question.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 11:47am
actually,
smoking pot causes various throat cancers.
EAT IT!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2009 @ 11:49am
LOL hilarious that DARIN is hiding behind the federal drug admin!
Couldn't have anything to do with partisan politics could it? A "conservative" that constantly posts comments about the feds keeping out of our lives, reducing regulation...now he WANTS federal regulation of a plant that grows wild around the country?
This is a long overdue change in policy. Most "real conservatives" will be applauding... those that want to protest their Commander during war ...well...see Darins posts.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2009 @ 11:53am
Confirms my belief that Libertarians are Conservatives who want to smoke pot and get laid..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 5:43pm
funny stuff.
----
and DARIN trots out the if/then cannard....
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/20/2009 @ 07:33am
did you know that if we outlaw dove hunting soon ALL hunting will be banned?
did you know that if we don't stop Saddam AQ and he will nuke Kansas?
DARIN, why don;t you list the states that have approved recreational use of marijuana?
OK, let's grant that LOTS of people want to, and do, use pot recreationally. As a "conservative", what right does the federal govt have to limit such use? I assume that your 300lb obese body achieved it's ruin like status through the use of recreational sugar, as you were quick to point out the delicious uses. I seem to recall you writing about the obsurdity of "leftists" controlling trans fats via regulation.
What we are left with is.... a hypocrite whining about hypocrisy.
or
zero shame when it comes to siding with Usama binLaden..as DARIN has pointed out to us MULTIPLe times... Usama and his brethren love it when Americans hate the president.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2009 @ 12:04pm
For those self described "conservatives" that have suddenly found the FDA and the feds to be a fine Big Brother...
think about all of the tax dollars that will be saved when the feds stop wasting it chasing , prosecuting and jailing users. Now they can use that manpower, money and time to chase domestic terrorists.
I would think you would be happy, but it appears that you will not be appeased until Rush and Usama get their wet dream, the failure of a president during war.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2009 @ 12:08pm
Is this what you want? To see Phillip Morris on top again?
Posted by twillie at 10/20/2009 @ 11:16am | ignore this person | warn this person
That will happen to some extent. But like the local brewery, fine mircobrews versus Natural lite. PM will not be able to compete with the higher end products being produced locally, not in quality or fresheness. To top that off, there will be an exponential increase in home gardeners. Brewing beer at home is a moderately complicated process, growing plants is fairly simple, just ask the local mexican cartel worker living in the woods behind your house.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/20/2009 @ 12:08pm
The history of marijuana laws in this country are inextricably linked to racism.
Don't believe me? look it up.
Of curse, to many of our resident cons, there is no racism in the USA.
Right HAPPY?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2009 @ 12:13pm
"This is about manipulating the rules to legalize recreational drug use"
do you have advanced cancer or an AIDS-related illness, darin? or are you currently in chemotherapy or radiation therapy?
do you have any idea how extraordinary marijuana is to control symptoms like.....extreme nausea? any idea?
do you have any clue how hard it is to eat with either of the above diseases *without* the ability to use marijuana?
Posted by darladoon at 10/20/2009 @ 12:25pm
I am sorry, I don't see this as anything. I live in a state with medical mj. My sister lived in a red state (AZ). She had ovarian cancer and every drug available in mass, a whole cupboard full. She was still in pain and couldn't eat. Her doctors, pain clinic, ( had a pain implant), nurses, hospice people all suggested we find some pot. For the 1st time in 2 weeks, she could finally eat without throwing up and she smiled! Her husband was livid as it was illegal. I would have gone to jail and so would her son. We just couldn't watch her suffer anymore. I spend hours cooking anything she thought she could eat and it didn't help. I want medical mj laws passed for ALL states. Why should you suffer because your law makers are ignorant @ss' and don't care to be educated. My sister couldn't come to Washington state on the advise of her doctors and doctors in WA, as we tried that. She was trapped to suffer and starve. She wasn't the only one in my immediate family to suffer this long death. Most of my family has had cancer in one form or another. We smuggled them pot also. Just to clear the air. I am from the 60's and not a pot smoker as it would be the last of my choices! One baby step at a time. I believe we will have a better chance to legalize Pot in Obama's second administration!
Posted by greenriverkate at 10/20/2009 @ 1:38pm
Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll: Who gives a flying troll?
Posted by gamphd at 10/20/2009 @ 1:56pm
Be careful what you wish for. Legalization of pot will lead to corporatization of pot production, sale, and marketing. Phillip Morris will convert those tobacco fields into high-profit marijuana fields overnight. Export of quality American grass could single-handedly reverse the trade deficit. But, it would kill what, right now, is a cottage industry. Mom-and-pop outfits could not compete with Phillip Morris and others. See Harper's, October 2009. Is this what you want? To see Phillip Morris on top again? Posted by twillie at 10/20/2009 @ 11:16am | ignore this person |
--I don't agree with your premise. It's much easier to grow pot in your own backyard (or a small greenhouse; or even in your house) than it is to grow tobacco.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 2:17pm
"--there is no logic to arguing pot should be illegal but alcohol legal..." Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 12:39am
benchrest: "Sure there is, because that is the reality at present. Perception is everything."
--so you admit you're arguing with an emotional barrier to common sense. the truth is there if you'll put your bias aside.
benchrest: "The public perceives drinking in a different light, such as having a glass of wine during dinner, with minimal effect. (Yeah, I know it can be abused)"
--you pretend the public imagines all pot smokers as cheech and chong. they don't. but the prejudice works for your argument, so you'll try and push it to the fore.
benchrest: "Lighting up a fat one after dinner, and the public perceives Jeff Spicoli, or Cheech and Chong, who portray dumbass stoners who can't function normally in society."
--ha! see my previous section. keep pushing it to the fore.
benchrest: "That's one of the reasons that bitching that you should be able to get stoned just because people imbibe is a weak argument."
--it's not a weak argument at all; b/c the way you frame it is illegitimate. the country "bitched" during prohibition; and rightfully so.
benchrest: "You will have much greater success arguing it as a medical necessity, or as a valuable commodity (hemp)."
--and that it's not worse than alcohol. and in a society that respects freedom, one substance can't be legal and another not simply b/c people like you want to paint anyone who smokes pot as a lazy stoner.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 2:28pm
I was wondering if there would be a negative medical effect of marijuana allowed as arecreational drug. Think about the effect of munchies on an already obese population - can't be a good thing. Posted by Extraneous at 10/20/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person
--canard. I have a handful of friends who smoke pot regularly (at least once a day). They're in better physical shape than 95% of the population.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 2:36pm
"Mom-and-pop outfits could not compete with Phillip Morris and others"
yeah, that mom-and-pop heirloom tomatoe industry, simply cannot compete (snark, snark).
or that microbrew scene? totally dead (snark, snark)
Posted by darladoon at 10/20/2009 @ 2:51pm
Perception is everything.
The public perceives drinking in a different light, such as having a glass of wine during dinner, with minimal effect. (Yeah, I know it can be abused)
Posted by Benchrest at 10/20/2009 @ 11:28am
What public are you talking about? It can be abused? Yeah, maybe occasionally. Jesus, you talk as though our number one substance abuse problem were something akin to a mosquito bite.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/20/2009 @ 3:01pm
The ends justify the means when it comes to recreational drug use, but not torturing terrorists. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/20/2009 @ 07:33am
Not much of a leap there, eh.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/20/2009 @ 3:12pm
"so you admit you're arguing with an emotional barrier to common sense."
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 2:28pm
No, that is what you are doing.
Look at the title of the article.
Look at the premise of the article.
Look by which methodology cannibis became legal in 14 states. (It wasn't "we wanna get stoned!" or by comparing it to alcohol)
Look at Darla's 12:25 post, makes your arguments look fairly insignificant, no?
If you honestly believe that your argument can sway public opinion more effectively than the currently accepted one, then you are full of BS, or should be running the show.
Which one is it?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/20/2009 @ 3:23pm
this is for darin who seems to be grossly uninformed .you seem intelligent at times and then u go igmoramus on us. i wonder how u would react if you or a loved one of yours were struck down with one of many terrible diseases or disorders(i suffer from one of the most painful conditions).then, after years of being strung out on precription pain killers and various other man made drugs, you try a God given plant,and discover that it helps more than any pills.shots or other things tried by doctors. also as you may or may not know(i'm guessing not) all manmade pills have side effects, ranging from mild to very bad. quite often these are worse than the reason you're taking them in the first place. i could go on but i don't have time now. so, my main points are these, (one) you don't know what you are talking about,so go live with someone who is truly suffering, and also uses med. mar. to get through the day. (two) after that go live with someone who is suffering from something similar , but does not use med. mar; this way you can give an informed opinion. (two) pray that you never have to choose between suffering needlessly or having to sneak around, worrying about loising your house, your car, your kids or even your freedom just so you can get some relief. finally(three) any half way intelligent person in this age of internet who has an opinion on this subject should do research.then they would find the real reason why marijuana is illeagle...pure unadulterated greed. simple as that. give pot a chance.
Posted by slimfast222 at 10/20/2009 @ 3:47pm
Perception is everything. The public perceives drinking in a different light, such as having a glass of wine during dinner, with minimal effect. (Yeah, I know it can be abused)
Posted by Benchrest at 10/20/2009 @ 11:28am
What public are you talking about? It can be abused? Yeah, maybe occasionally. Jesus, you talk as though our number one substance abuse problem were something akin to a mosquito bite.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/20/2009 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--benchrest frames his argument that way because he's emotionally against legalization of pot. he doesn't want to talk common sense; he'll realize, intellectually, pot is no worse for society than alcohol, and in all likelihood, much safer.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 3:48pm
If you honestly believe that your argument can sway public opinion more effectively than the currently accepted one, then you are full of BS, or should be running the show.
Which one is it?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/20/2009 @ 3:23pm |
Do you mean sway public opinion even more? If the public had it's way I believe MJ would be legalized. Last I heard it was 56% in favor.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/20/2009 @ 3:50pm
ooops. It was 52%. California had 56% in favor.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/20/2009 @ 3:53pm
"so you admit you're arguing with an emotional barrier to common sense." Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 2:28pm
benchrest: "No, that is what you are doing."
--no, that's the exact opposite of what I'm doing. To you, pot should only be legal for "medicinal" purposes. Alcohol is worse than pot in so many ways; and is far more destructive on society; yet you think because it's currently illegal common sense must be put on the wayside. Nonsense. People can be swayed (not you, but you're emotionally against the legalization of pot; so much so that you minimize the effects of alcohol on society to make your point; never mind you paint pot as a "stoner's" drug; you feast on a slippery slope argument that pot will lead to laziness (which is nonsense).
benchrest: "Look at Darla's 12:25 post, makes your arguments look fairly insignificant, no?"
--not even remotely. Darla's points about medical marijuana highlight just one of the many reasons pot should be legal. Antisocialist admits marijuana laws are stupid, because the legality and prevalence of alcohol and prescription drugs means pot should be legal, because pot is in the same category as both. Antisocialist is a conservative. You seem to think that conservatives can't be convinced that the marijuana laws are stupid. We already have one here that believes they are.
benchrest: "If you honestly believe that your argument can sway public opinion more effectively than the currently accepted one, then you are full of BS, or should be running the show."
--I should be running the show. If I was, I'd sit down with people like you; let you get your emotions out; then tell you, rationally, why pot should be legal. You'd huff and puff some more; and urge you to use your common sense.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 3:59pm
You'd huff and puff some more; and urge you to use your common sense.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 3:59pm
With added emphasis on puff...
Posted by Extraneous at 10/20/2009 @ 4:15pm
You'd huff and puff some more; and urge you to use your common sense. Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 3:59pm With added emphasis on puff... Posted by Extraneous at 10/20/2009 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--perhaps if he "puffed" he'd huff less!
Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 4:35pm
Big P, of course you should not smoke and pilot or operate machinary, thats just common sense, just as you shouldn't do those things under the influence of drugs or alcohol, duh!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/19/2009 @ 6:17pm
Nor should one play a violin, make love or cook a delicious meal while driving a car. Each has it's place and in it's place all are beautiful things. Just like a High Tea Ceremony after smoking a couple of bowls of exquisite sens...
Cheers!
Posted by BruceDavis49 at 10/20/2009 @ 6:43pm
There's a reason why they call them "microbrews".
You can buy shredded tobacco and roll your own. But a fraction of smokers do that. Why? Marketing. Pot smokers, lazier than the average cig smoker, will flock to corporate high-potency weed, marketed to their lifestyle.
Posted by twillie at 10/20/2009 @ 6:48pm
There is no worse human being than the knowingly uninformed, know-it-all. Wouldn't you agree, Benchrest?
Posted by randwolfe at 10/20/2009 @ 7:55pm
BTW, I love microbrews. Especially Bell's Oberon.
Posted by twillie at 10/20/2009 @ 8:20pm
antisocialist may believe that pot should be legal, but he has made fun of me numerous times for using medical marijuana.
so he is very much opposed to the culture surrounding pot. typical NIMBY.
you can be gay and smoke herb, but just not in my backyard.
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 12:55am
Legal drugs are more harmful to many more than marijuana could ever be in the long run. Alcohol is the biggest gateway drug on the market, and it's legal. Finally, we have an intelligent President with some common sense to boot. I just find it incredible that some with an ouch of intelligence still believe in the reefer madness BS. Oh please, lets not do anthing to upset the Cartel! Get real!
Posted by sheila60 at 10/21/2009 @ 07:58am
This is common sense. It is obvious that medical marijuana patients/caregivers who are acting in accordance with state law should be left alone. Anything less is inhumane and cruel. That said, we should go further. There is no reason why cannabis should be illegal for recreational use either. The war on drugs is a war on American life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
First off, it was unconstitutional to make marijuana illegal at all, so they had to go about it in a round-about way. Secondly, at the time it was made illegal, it was renamed to "marijuana" (which nobody had ever heard of) and a propaganda campaign to cause fear painted it as a new drug that crazy Mexicans were bringing to America. Thirdly, an utterly insane "Reefer Madness" propaganda campaign spread so much of the misinformation the more ignorant among us still cling to as fact when it is total bullshit! Further, America imprisons more of it's citizens than any other country in the entire world! America is supposed to be free, but I don't think we can rightfully call ourselves that, given that we are the #1 jailer in the world.
In light of the FACT that science has proven that there is indeed medicinal value, that it is far less dangerous than alcohol, that it actually lowers the occurrence of head and neck cancer, has been shown to attack cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact, does NOT cause brain damage or kill brain cells, does not cause people to become violent or stupid, that every human civilization ever has had cannabis use (for medicinal and religious reasons) etc, etc, etc the government should stay out of this. It should be completely legal.
Nobody should go to jail for choosing a far safer alternative to alcohol.
Posted by noxidereus at 10/21/2009 @ 08:15am
antisocialist may believe that pot should be legal, but he has made fun of me numerous times for using medical marijuana.
so he is very much opposed to the culture surrounding pot. typical NIMBY.
you can be gay and smoke herb, but just not in my backyard.
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 12:55am
No Darla, I just enjoy poking fun at you. You don't exactly hold back on your jibes at me.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 11:39am
Posted by slimfast222 at 10/20/2009 @ 3:47pm
Okay, point one, I didn't say marijana wasn't effective; I said the wild support for medical marijuana is because it is a trojan horse for legalizing recreational use. I said this was dishonest. How many of the the politician supporting this are going to say, "It just make sense, and beside, it will hopefully make it easier to legalize recreational use"?
Point two: the law is an ass. Why is the voting age 18, (and joining the army, and being able to contract) but the drinking age 21? Why? To keep alcohol out of high schools. (I attended the Republican caucus when I was a senior in high school circa 1984. My friend's dad, the doctor and school board member, introduced a resolution supporting a rise in the drinking age from 19 to 21. "Keeping it out of the high schools" was his point blank rationale. The resolution passed overwhelmingly. Minnesota's subsequently raised the drinking age to 21, but I was grandfathered in having reached my 19th birthday before the new law went into effect. But I didn't care because I don't drink.)
Everybody knows that 18, 19, and 20-years olds are going to drink. By setting the law higher than is reasonable, you effectively establish a hard barrier at 18 and don't get the sliding down to 16 you'd get if it were set at 18. It is a recognition of human nature that we will always test our boundries. Setting the boundry in a "conservative" fashion (Oh, that must piss you off) creates more responsible behavior.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/21/2009 @ 11:59am
Slimfast, I am sorry for your suffering. No one deserves this. But let me ask you a question: Has the law ever prevented you from self-medicating? It is my perception that 80% - 90% of the time, the cops look the other way for "resonable" recreational use. It is my perception that 99.9% of the time, they look for medical use. (This was portrayed in the film, "One Last Thing".)
But the cops still come down hard on organized distribution that promotes recreational use.
I think that is a reasonable policy, even if it is unofficial.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/21/2009 @ 12:03pm
That should have been "99.9% of the time cops look the other way for medical use" if that was unclear.
Finally, As to the charge that recreational use of sugar is similar to recreational use of marijuana, there is one important sociological difference: productivity.
I eat sugar/junk food when I'm depressed and these foods stimulate the pleasure centers in my brian so that I can regain my concentration and be productive again. This is also true for the 5 - 6 cans of diet coke that I drink each day.
Also the hundreds or thousands of dollars I spend on weight loss attempts every year also contribute to economic activity.
Recreational use of marijuana promotes apathy and retards productivity.
From a socio-economic perspective, sugar is helpful and recreational marijuana is harmful to society.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/21/2009 @ 12:13pm
This is also true for the 5 - 6 cans of diet coke that I drink each day.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/21/2009 @ 12:13pm
drug addict.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/21/2009 @ 12:38pm
Well Darin, let us all take a moment to thank you for your weight problem, which contributes to the ever-increasing costs of an already obscenely expensive Health Care system. Sadly, I don't think the "hundreds or thousands of dollars" you flush away each year on failed attempts to curb your insatiable compulsion to cram junkfood down your gullet will be quite enough to offset those cost increases to the rest of us, who don't allow a sweet tooth to turn into an obesity problem - munchies or not! Here's an idea: next time you get "depressed" and start feeling unproductive, how about, I don't know, doing some EXERCISE?!? I think you'll find that the natural endorphin rush produced by your body will FAR exceed the short-lived, artificial sugar high you get from inhaling a box of Twinkies. Just sayin'...
Posted by Nate_D. at 10/21/2009 @ 3:31pm
darin: "Okay, point one, I didn't say marijana wasn't effective; I said the wild support for medical marijuana is because it is a trojan horse for legalizing recreational use. I said this was dishonest. How many of the the politician supporting this are going to say, "It just make sense, and beside, it will hopefully make it easier to legalize recreational use"?"
--kind of like WMDs being a "trojan horse" to invade Iraq.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/22/2009 @ 10:15am
darin: "Finally, As to the charge that recreational use of sugar is similar to recreational use of marijuana, there is one important sociological difference: productivity."
--I have a handful of friends who smoke pot at least once a day. They all are productive members of society (and in much better physical shape than 95% of society).
darin: "I eat sugar/junk food when I'm depressed and these foods stimulate the pleasure centers in my brian so that I can regain my concentration and be productive again. This is also true for the 5 - 6 cans of diet coke that I drink each day."
--you could "regain your concentration" with some prescription drugs or cocaine by that rationale. sugar doesn't make you concentrate, it gives you an energy boost and then you crash. people who eat lots of junk food containing sugar are addicted for the same reason alcoholics get addicted, they're fending off the crash. and 5-6 cans of diet coke a day aren't giving you a sugar high either darin--it's the caffeine that's giving you the jolt.
darin: "Also the hundreds or thousands of dollars I spend on weight loss attempts every year also contribute to economic activity."
--what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? stay on topic.
darin: "Recreational use of marijuana promotes apathy and retards productivity."
--no it doesn't. you've bought into an untrue cliche.
darin: "From a socio-economic perspective, sugar is helpful and recreational marijuana is harmful to society."
--sugar's most helpful to people who sell sugar.
--and in regards to amount consumed: comparing sugar consumption to pot consumption is like comparing the size of the earth to a pebble on a beach.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/22/2009 @ 10:25am
Recreational use of marijuana promotes apathy and retards productivity.
From a socio-economic perspective, sugar is helpful and recreational marijuana is harmful to society.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/21/2009 @ 12:13pm
Really? I disagree. Stoners like drunks are both blights on society. Smoking pot does not make one a stoners, just like have a beer or two does not make one a drunk. Anytime anyone abuses a substance even sugar it can have socio-economic impacts.
Think how much society has to spend on the overwieght people who have too much sugar. We have to subsidize their medical care, which is far greater than those who maintain healthy weights. Fat people in my opinion are much more harmful to society than stoners. Most obese people I know are also lazy, which is a serious drain on the economic productivity of society. I have to sit next to them on the plane, and they take up half my seat, they stink because they are too fat to effectively wipe their rear.
I have known productive pot smokers, and stoners and also some not so productive ones. I had friends in college who would wakenbake and still score better on exams than I would. To make silly asumptions about stoners is just like me making silly assumptions that all fat people are lazy. SILLY and unwarrented.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/22/2009 @ 12:53pm
It's about time! Now legalize, and tax it, and we just might pull this Nation out of debt!
Posted by sheila60 at 10/23/2009 @ 08:17am
Well said, Extraneous!
Posted by Nate_D. at 10/23/2009 @ 12:03pm