Doesn't the government have better things to do then go after ctitically ill people who are just looking for some relief from the pain they face on a daily basis. I live with cronic pain and let me tell you it aint fun. I couldn't imagine what people going through chemo must feal like. This makes me glad to live in Canada where we don't have stupid crap laws like that.
Doesn't the government have better things to do then go after ctitically ill people who are just looking for some relief from the pain they face on a daily basis. I live with cronic pain and let me tell you it aint fun. I couldn't imagine what people going through chemo must feal like. This makes me glad to live in Canada where we don't have stupid crap laws like that.
I'll go on the other side of this and say I like the ruling. Marijuana is illegal, point blank and period.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
What's bad about this whole situation is not whether weed is good, bad, or indifferent; it's the absence of any constitutional logic in the majority opinion that is troubling.
I don't have time to go in too deep of detail, so here's the quick version:
The federal law banning pot and other drugs is based, in some form, on the interstate commerce clause, which is the basis for much federal law, mostly specious in nature, but I digress.
The crux of the case was not the general legality of weed, but more about a state's rights to regulate intrastate trade. The mj in question was entirely homegrown, with all aspects of the process handled within state borders. It is the primary obligation of the states to establish their own criminal code to deal with such matters. The states in question have done just that, no more no less. And above all, these state laws were with respect to medical purposes only, not even recreational. Aside from the constitutional aspects, I am disheartened by the fact that people are so willing to to shout a big FU to terminally ill people, essentially requiring them to live and die in pain.
StlSluggers wrote:Not to make light of whatever condition you might have, but...
A Cubs Fan actually wrote:I live with cronic pain and let me tell you it aint fun.
Your right it is painfull that a Great league like the national league, with its throw back style of play, is represented on a National Scale by a bunch of chokers like the St. Louis Cardinals. Way to make our league look like crap last year
RugbyD wrote:What's bad about this whole situation is not whether weed is good, bad, or indifferent; it's the absence of any constitutional logic in the majority opinion that is troubling.
I don't have time to go in too deep of detail, so here's the quick version:
The federal law banning pot and other drugs is based, in some form, on the interstate commerce clause, which is the basis for much federal law, mostly specious in nature, but I digress.
The crux of the case was not the general legality of weed, but more about a state's rights to regulate intrastate trade. The mj in question was entirely homegrown, with all aspects of the process handled within state borders. It is the primary obligation of the states to establish their own criminal code to deal with such matters. The states in question have done just that, no more no less. And above all, these state laws were with respect to medical purposes only, not even recreational. Aside from the constitutional aspects, I am disheartened by the fact that people are so willing to to shout a big FU to terminally ill people, essentially requiring them to live and die in pain.
I agree, although I'm perplexed by why substances such as marijuana are illegal. Studies do show that medicinal marijuana (for the most part, genetically altered) does indeed help cope with anxiety disorders and nervous system disorders.
I understand that the drug does alter the mind and can cause hallucinations, but how is this any worse than alcohol? If anything marijuana is safer than alcohol; it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana. Not to mention it's easier to transport than a bottle of alcohol, easier to distinguish the product as what it is, easier to operate machinery, etc.
I'm not trying to argue for the legalization of marijuana; I'm not a smoker and personally don't care either way. I'm trying to argue for consistency in government policy. If one substance is banned because of its effects, then why not all similar substances, especially ones with worse effects? This is all besides the point, however. The people that would be prosecuted aren't committing any heinous act; they're using marijuana for medical purposes. When was the last time drinking alcohol was used for proven medicinal purposes?
RugbyD wrote:What's bad about this whole situation is not whether weed is good, bad, or indifferent; it's the absence of any constitutional logic in the majority opinion that is troubling.
I don't have time to go in too deep of detail, so here's the quick version:
The federal law banning pot and other drugs is based, in some form, on the interstate commerce clause, which is the basis for much federal law, mostly specious in nature, but I digress.
The crux of the case was not the general legality of weed, but more about a state's rights to regulate intrastate trade. The mj in question was entirely homegrown, with all aspects of the process handled within state borders. It is the primary obligation of the states to establish their own criminal code to deal with such matters. The states in question have done just that, no more no less. And above all, these state laws were with respect to medical purposes only, not even recreational. Aside from the constitutional aspects, I am disheartened by the fact that people are so willing to to shout a big FU to terminally ill people, essentially requiring them to live and die in pain.
I agree, although I'm perplexed by why substances such as marijuana are illegal. Studies do show that medicinal marijuana (for the most part, genetically altered) does indeed help cope with anxiety disorders and nervous system disorders.
I understand that the drug does alter the mind and can cause hallucinations, but how is this any worse than alcohol? If anything marijuana is safer than alcohol; it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana. Not to mention it's easier to transport than a bottle of alcohol, easier to distinguish the product as what it is, easier to operate machinery, etc.
I'm not trying to argue for the legalization of marijuana; I'm not a smoker and personally don't care either way. I'm trying to argue for consistency in government policy. If one substance is banned because of its effects, then why not all similar substances, especially ones with worse effects? This is all besides the point, however. The people that would be prosecuted aren't committing any heinous act; they're using marijuana for medical purposes. When was the last time drinking alcohol was used for proven medicinal purposes?
The reason tobacco and alcohol are legal: American companies make money and fund political campaigns off it.
The reason marijuana and others are illegal: Latin American and South American drug lords make the money, and don't give it to the government. They should all be illegal, but we aren't that lucky. Hooray for alcoholism, cigarettes, and marijuana users!
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by WharfRat » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:10 pm 
