Medical Marijuana

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

There shouldn't even be a slippery slope in this discussion. It is put there through artifice. Legalization of recreational marijuana (or any other drug) is a matter unto itself. If a medical profession sees marajuana as the appropriate indicated treatment for a given condition, he should be allowed to prescribe that as a controlled therapeutent just like he would prescribe any other chemotherapeutic. The fact that recreational pot use exists has no more bearing on whether it is effective when taken as indicated for medicinal use than the fact that people recreationally abuse pain pills and other prescription drugs.

 

 

Jim. You're taking me a bit out of context there. My slippery slope argument was in response to SoxBadgers "legalize and tax" strategy. That also went for LCR's thing about making pot use legal because having it against the law "violates peoples privacy".

[FlaSoxxJim]

Jim. You're taking me a bit out of context there. My slippery slope argument was in response to SoxBadgers "legalize and tax" strategy. That also went for LCR's thing about making pot use legal because having it against the law "violates peoples privacy".

 

I apologize, I did not mean to do that. I hadn't read fully through the discussion, and assumed the slippery slope was reference to the conundrum of legality for clinical use but not for non-indicated recreational use. I don't see that as a slipper slope. Rather, it is two distinct issues that are often conveniently conflated to more easily denounce clinical patients who can legitimately benefit from doctor-prescribed use as potheads and doctors who took an oath to first do no harm as pushers and enablers.

[Soxbadger]

Nuke,

 

There is no slippery slope.

 

The drugs you compared it to: Meth, heroin, and cocaine, are all much different than marijuana.

 

First, every drug that you mentioned on that list can kill a person on their first try. This is a very important part of drug legislation, as the entire purpose is that the govt is supposed to be protecting us from ourselves. When a drug can kill you because of an overdose, that drug is much more dangerous. You can simply not overdose on marijuana, it is physical impossible. That right off the bat makes marijuana far different from the substnaces you listed.

 

Second, addictive qualities. Unlike the drugs you listed, marijuana is not known to have any physically addictive qualities. Even compared to nicotine, the stopping marijuana has almost no impact on the person. There is pyschological addiction, even if it can not be proved well. But at the same time I have been pyschologically addicted to video games, and they are readily available.

 

Three, drugs that are far more dangerous than marijuana are given out by doctors every day. Morphiine, yes. Oxycoton, yes. But marijuana, some times the only thing that will make these people feel better can not be given, because the US govt says so. There is just no policy rationale, and this relates back to the argument of why marijuana should be legalized in general.

 

Fourth, this is not going to happen over night. I do not really give much credit to the slippery slope, because tobacco and alcohol are already legal. No one is seriosly considering making crack, meth, herion, or coke legal, society can draw the line on what is to harmful and what is not.

 

Those senators and representatives are no better or worse than you or I, but I have seen with my own eyes what alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana can do. And I can say with absolute certainty that marijuana is at worst, just as bad as the other two. The govt should not get to make rules just because, there should be reasons, otherwise people should have the freedom to do it.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke,

 

There is no slippery slope.

 

The drugs you compared it to: Meth, heroin, and cocaine, are all much different than marijuana.

 

First, every drug that you mentioned on that list can kill a person on their first try. This is a very important part of drug legislation, as the entire purpose is that the govt is supposed to be protecting us from ourselves. When a drug can kill you because of an overdose, that drug is much more dangerous. You can simply not overdose on marijuana, it is physical impossible. That right off the bat makes marijuana far different from the substnaces you listed.

 

Second, addictive qualities. Unlike the drugs you listed, marijuana is not known to have any physically addictive qualities. Even compared to nicotine, the stopping marijuana has almost no impact on the person. There is pyschological addiction, even if it can not be proved well. But at the same time I have been pyschologically addicted to video games, and they are readily available.

 

Three, drugs that are far more dangerous than marijuana are given out by doctors every day. Morphiine, yes. Oxycoton, yes. But marijuana, some times the only thing that will make these people feel better can not be given, because the US govt says so. There is just no policy rationale, and this relates back to the argument of why marijuana should be legalized in general.

 

Fourth, this is not going to happen over night. I do not really give much credit to the slippery slope, because tobacco and alcohol are already legal. No one is seriosly considering making crack, meth, herion, or coke legal, society can draw the line on what is to harmful and what is not.

 

Those senators and representatives are no better or worse than you or I, but I have seen with my own eyes what alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana can do. And I can say with absolute certainty that marijuana is at worst, just as bad as the other two. The govt should not get to make rules just because, there should be reasons, otherwise people should have the freedom to do it.

 

 

Bottom line is that marijuana use is against the law and nobody, not even certain states with a radical hair up their ass, get to decide what laws they can and can't obey. If you are unhappy with the laws that are on the books then use the system to change them. Vote for people who agree with your viewpoint and maybe changes will get made that suit you. The way the electorate has been voting recently that does not appear likely.

Edited June 23, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Soxbadger]

Your right, one day I will get my states rights battle on marijuana.

 

Daley already wants to make it no more than a fine.

 

When the day comes, which side will you be on, states rights or federal rights?

 

And I dont get what your point is. So what that it is illegal right now, that does not mean people should just stop talking about the reasons why it should be legal. That seems to be the whole point of the message board, to get your viewpoint across. If you want to have the viewpoint that marijuana should be illegal just because the govt says so, that is your opinion. But for most people that is not enough, they want reasons.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Your right, one day I will get my states rights battle on marijuana.

 

Daley already wants to make it no more than a fine.

 

When the day comes, which side will you be on, states rights or federal rights?

 

And I dont get what your point is. So what that it is illegal right now, that does not mean people should just stop talking about the reasons why it should be legal. That seems to be the whole point of the message board, to get your viewpoint across. If you want to have the viewpoint that marijuana should be illegal just because the govt says so, that is your opinion. But for most people that is not enough, they want reasons.

 

 

I actually agree with Daley that those caught posessing a small amount of Marijuana should recieve a fine ( a really high one to be sure ) but jail time should be reserved for those with 3+ arrests. Those caught dealing the stuff should be the ones receiving automatic jail time.

 

I never said that Marijuana should be illegal "just because" either. My argument against legalizing marijuana is that it initiates a slippery slope. You and other legalization proponents have decided that it's not worth prosecuting because we can never stop it all. Once again......you could apply the same logic to other illicit narcotics and with a precedent in place those who favor legalizing other drugs would have an actual leg to stand on.

 

I think the state's rights argument is funny also because the last time "states rights" was a buzzword was in the 1960's when Southern states argued against civil rights legislation. ( Which side were you on with regards to that issue?? ). It's very dangerous when states decide what laws they are going to obey and what laws they are not. You of all people, as a law student, should be aware of this.

[Soxbadger]

Im not a law student, please dont disrespect me again.

 

And states do have limitations on their power. I do not think a state could make a law that would deprive a fundemental right, or do something that would be at a strict scrutiny level at the federal level. I do think that states should have great leniancy in laws that would only need rational basis on the federal level.

 

Also if they were not prosecuting marijuana they would have more people to prosecute the harder drugs. Not to mention, the most effective tool against drugs is education. When people saw the effects of crack, many of them no longer wanted to do it. It was no longer glamorious. People make good decisions, they dont need the govt to hold their hand.

Edited June 23, 2006 by Soxbadger

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Im not a law student, please dont disrespect me again.

 

And states do have limitations on their power. I do not think a state could make a law that would deprive a fundemental right, or do something that would be at a strict scrutiny level at the federal level. I do think that states should have great leniance in laws that would only need rational basis on the federal level.

 

Also if they were not prosecuting marijuana they would have more people to prosecute the harder drugs. Not to mention, the most effective tool against drugs is education. When people saw the effects of crack, many of them no longer wanted to do it. It was no longer glamorious. People make good decisions, they dont need the govt to hold their hand.

 

 

No disrespect intended. I agree with your last paragraph as long as it's in the context of levying harsh fines against those who guilty of posessing small amounts of marijuana.

[jackie hayes]

I actually agree with Daley that those caught posessing a small amount of Marijuana should recieve a fine ( a really high one to be sure ) but jail time should be reserved for those with 3+ arrests. Those caught dealing the stuff should be the ones receiving automatic jail time.

What happened to the 'they're all criminals so let's make sure they get sodomized before we put them in the chair with a high voltage electric switch attached to their penis' Nuke that we all know and love?

[Soxbadger]

NP if no disrespect intended. I already have my juris doctor.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

What happened to the 'they're all criminals so let's make sure they get sodomized before we put them in the chair with a high voltage electric switch attached to their penis' Nuke that we all know and love?

 

 

Damn, that's harsh!

 

LOL!

 

 

High voltage electricity is so 1930's anyway. Caning someone with a bamboo pole while they are forced to listen to Enya? Now THATS my style!

 

[Gregory Pratt]

Nuke: I think you misspoke, but I have to ask:

 

Like I said before. There's plenty of legal prescription drugs available for people to use. There is no need for us to legalize banned substances just so some jackass can get high.

 

You're not saying that old people with cancer and AIDS victims are jackasses who want medical marijuana just to smoke, are you?

 

You don't have to change your position or anything, but I think you should admit to, ah, an error in diction there.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll throw in a couple bits here.

 

One, I'll add another reason why marijuana is in a very different category than meth/crack/coke/heroin or any of the really hard stuff... it doesn't create a dangerous person. Someone toked up on mary jane is pretty harmless. Someone on a speedball becomes violent, in humanly strong and wholly irrational.

 

Two, if Daley really wants to make a change to make marijuana possession a no-biggie, he doesn't need to change a single law or ordinance. He can simply do something well within his purview as chief executive of city government (even in a strong-council system like Chicago)... he can simply order the P.D. to emphasize other enforcement. This sort of thing happens regularly. He can just tell them "hey, I want you to go after X big time. Let Y go by the wayside for the most part." You can't find anything illegal about that, even if you want it to be. The city council would have to explicitly override him, or the Feds would have to do the enforcement themselves.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So now it's racists and corporate tyrants who are to blame for your inability to toke up huh?

 

Yeah actually it was racists and people who were against the free market (not to mention racist yellow journalists like Hearst) which inhibited cannabis. And you may not know this Nuke -- but even your own beloved US Army was quite pro-hemp (even after it was banned in 1937) In 1942-43, they came out with a very pro-cannabis movie entitled:

 

 

Im against government intrusion into people's lives but not when that means allowing them to use illegal narcotics. By your twisted logic I could make the case that not allowing people to do coke, heroin, meth and crack is intruding on their lives also. Where does this nonsense end?

Like I said before. There's plenty of legal prescription drugs available for people to use. There is no need for us to legalize banned substances just so some jackass can get high.

Same logic applies to you. You could make this exact same argument, only substitute meth, heroin or cocaine in there. Where does this slippery slope you want to put us all on end?

 

Calling AIDS patients, people with glaucoma and other sufferers of disease "jackasses". Your compassion overwhelms me It isn't about recreational use here -- it is the right for doctors to be able to prescribe the substance to patients whom they believe it can help. As for alternative drugs, here's Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School: http://www.rxmarihuana.com/excerpts.htm

 

But in the non-medicinal marijuana sense -- yes, what business is it of the government if a person who knows the risks and benefits of a substance decides to smoke it/eat it/put it in his veins as long as he's not hurting another person? You know whose business it is -- f***ing nobody's. People can make their own well informed decisions. We already have two legal drugs on the market that kill more people than crack, coke, heroin, pot and all other illegal drugs...COMBINED EACH YEAR. People are using anyways, it makes sense to provide a safe means for them to do so (and please refrain from saying "It'll cause a huge spike in use!" because case studies such as Amsterdam show that there is a brief spike in use for a short time and then...ranks lower than the United States in the percentage of people who have ever used marijuana in every age category, has a higher age of initiation among those that do try marijuana, and fewer adolescents in the Netherlands than in the United States use other illegal drugs) Not to mention -- In 1972 the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "The Commission is of the unanimous opinion that marihuana use is not such a grave problem that individuals who smoke marihuana, or possess it for that purpose, should be subject to criminal procedures." Gotta love when people dispatched by the President to write a report say what they said /waiting for Nixon advisors to be called "leftist extremists"

 

Back with medicine -- there's a difference between crack and the list of drugs you had and marijuana. Marijuana is impossible to overdose on. Marijuana has clear history of being therapeutic in studies that clearly challenge marijuana's status as a Schedule I drug. We've legalized alcohol, cigarettes, barbituate sleeping pills and these have killed people. Yet people are afraid of legalizing cannabis for medicinal purposes.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 05:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bottom line is that marijuana use is against the law and nobody, not even certain states with a radical hair up their ass, get to decide what laws they can and can't obey. If you are unhappy with the laws that are on the books then use the system to change them. Vote for people who agree with your viewpoint and maybe changes will get made that suit you. The way the electorate has been voting recently that does not appear likely.

If the internet was around during the prohibition, your post would have read;

 

QUOTE(TOMMYGUN_MANHATTAN @ AUG 23, 1926 -> 05:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bottom line is that alcohol use is against the law and nobody, not even certain states with a radical hair up their ass, get to decide what laws they can and can't obey. If you are unhappy with the laws that are on the books then use the system to change them. Vote for people who agree with your viewpoint and maybe changes will get made that suit you. The way the electorate has been voting recently that does not appear likely.

You always brag about your Jack Daniel's stories, and have polls about s***ty beers, but why aren't you against pot considering we were in the same situation with alcohol 80 years ago.

 

Think about it nuke. The government banned the sale of alcohol, yet people were still finding ways to get drunk. Police were wasting their time fighting the mobs (now gangs, although not all pot comes from gangster) with innocent people getting mowed down in gun fire.

 

Any thoughts on the comparison between pot and alcohol prohibition? If I had my choice, I wish pot would be legal and alcohol was banned, and this is coming from a non-smoker, weekend drinker who works in a liquor store.