Medical marijuana in Missouri

qFor the second year in a row, House Speaker Rod Jetton has ignored repeated requests from patients, doctors, nurses and fellow Missourians to give medical cannabis legislation the attention it needs and deserves.

Like last year, Jetton waited until House committees are only hearing bills that have passed through the Senate to assign HB 1830 to the House Crime Prevention and Public Policy Committee, ensuring that it will not be scheduled for a hearing. This is unfortunate because this particular committee could have examined how medical cannabis legalization might enhance public welfare and address patients’ needs.

Legitimate medical cannabis patients must now live with the fear of being criminally persecuted, and doctors who would safely recommend this therapeutic herb are forced to remain silent for at least another year.

Shame on Jetton for abusing this bill as he has abused patients.

Jacqueline Patterson
Bolinas, Calif.

Legalizing medical marijuana would allow seriously ill patients to have safe access to cannabis. As a nurse I have seen how much difference cannabis can make to a patient. Believe it or not, doctors sometimes recommend it on the DL.

Polls have shown that a majority of people in the U.S. want medical cannabis to be available to seriously ill patients

John Schneider
Harrisonville

Comments

[Rogue]

I cannot believe this thread generated 72 comments.....are you all inhaling?

[solomon]

eye height ewe stown

[stone]

Jeff

if you don't like the smell, then there are other options too!
In Kansas, there is the Sweet Island Skunk that smells like lemons, and currently, out here, I have some 'Peach Kush' that smells like....peach!

[Jeff H]

Interesting points all...

from someone who can't stand the smell of the stuff, or the concept of secondhand smoke in general, all I will say is, as long as tobacco is legal, it's hypocritical and inconsistent for marijuana to not be. I say, legalize it and regulate it like cigs are getting to be (ie what you do at home). Historically, it was made illegal for political reasons, not medical ones. Several folks were terrified at how it might hurt their wallets to have something out there with as many uses as hemp has, in competition with their own products... so they bought politicians, funded slandering/racist rags, filmed ludicrous "PSA" movies that were nothing more than blatant lies and false propaganda and so on till they got what they wanted.

heh heh, and NoMoreMrNiceGuy, before ya think I'm going around disagreeing with you in threads, I agree with ya on this one!

[jack]

Way back when it looked like pot was going to be legalized (early 70s) Iowa State University had a program to develop marijuana as a potential row crop. Best pot I ever smoked came from seeds stolen there.

"Street" marijuana is now more than 30 times more powerful than what was availble in the 60s and 70s. This is due to careful, controlled cultivation. Try letting the marijuana self polinate for a couple generations and you will get really good rope.

THC is lipid soluble. It disolves in fat. Brain cells are primarily fat. It ends up laying on the inside of the brain cell wall in clumps. As the level builds over time, there is a thinkening of the brain cell wall and the cell works more slowly. The good news is that, with anstinence, the THC leaches back out and the cell returns to normal functioning.

The only answer I can give to anyone who believes that there is no possible harm in smoking pot, or making tea, or brownies or "vaporizing" it means you ONLY get the THC is, "You must be smoking something."

[stone]

GCYL-
Right now, outside of these debates which have little to no influence on any laws actually being changed, the most I can do is go with the flow and "work" towards more leniency in regards to cannabis. (hence why I live in a state where it IS legal to use..... I went with the flow and moved here...)

[stone]

alright. i'm outta here for now. I got one more meeting before I can medicate to ease my anxiety (and road rage) from driving in LA rush hour, then I can get home to Venice where I will legally buy more medicine (although there are only at least 10 stores in Hollywood/west hollywood I could stop at without altering my route home), and then I will be enjoying my medication while I play paddle tennis (not ping pong, but tennis on a mini court with a real tennis ball (slightly deflated) and wooden paddles) on the Venice Boardwalk, right outside of my apartment.
Solly-
I'm sorry you can't medicate without worrying about being arrested, but if it is any consolation (which is probably isn't), I'll take a couple of tokes in your honor on my way home. But if your ever in Venice, just look for the Jayhawks flag on the boardwalk...

[solomon]

jack(louie),

Excellent post.

GCYL,

Once again you attribute things to me I have not expressed. There is no anger in me about the marijuana laws. There is a resentment over a control by government that was irrationally instituted with lies and bigotry. You have not made a single arguement throughout this thread to say why it should ever have been deemed illegal in the first place.

[GCYL]

“However, on the topic of conformity, I do not think that Pot, Alcohol and tobacco are at all in the same class.” – stone

But they are. All three are: A form of a drug. A drug commonly associated for it’s primary use as recreational. Two of the three have legitimate medicinal uses. They all have a “sin” tax that is or could be collected on them. The assumption is the tax level on legalized cannabis would be on the same level as our current “sin” taxes. Lastly, as poor devin has pointed out, you have to stop people from matching up the three big sins as justification for legalization. Without fail the “no better or worse than” argument is where alcohol and smoking comes in. You even used it consistently on the “better” side.

You should just go with the flow and work for more leniency under medical prescription while accepting the whole “conformity of the three major sins” concept. The vast majority of their use is based on personal choices for recreational use. Tax them all the same. Treat them all nearly the same while allowing room for medical use.

But as the rest of your post points out, personal preferences on these sins would be the major problem. I’m not disagreeing with your examples. I’m pointing out that all your’re saying is “oh by the way, it has some medical uses too”. My 92 year old father-in-law’s doctor game him instructions to start drinking glass of this or a shot of that each day. Apparently there are proven medical benefits to be obtained from another sin whose major consumption is for recreation. He still drives and he doesn’t need the alcohol consumption to scare me with his driving skills.

“To recap: one of the three items has proven medical benefits, the other two are poisons. And the two poisons are the legal ones.” - stone

On the other hand there will always be a big part of our society that will view all of them as nothing more than common recreational drugs and all three are a poison to our society. Two of them are legal. I say go with that and obtain some sort of conformity of use to make all three legal.

[Marctnts]

“I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?” -Denis Leary

[stone]

Demolition man also mentioned Schwartenzager as a president of the USA.....

[stone]

on the issue of cultivating cannabis Jack, with little or no care, the male plant will pollinate the female plant, which will cause the cannabis to have seeds. Nobody wants herb with seeds in it

[Marctnts]

"Salt is bad for you, hence it is illegal". -Sandra Bullock, Demolition Man

I agree with the points that jack has made. What I find more disturbing though, is the concept that if something is bad for you it is fine for the government to ban it, as long as the ban is enforceable and won't lead to violent crime. Since when did it become the government's job to protect me from myself?

Salt, fatty foods, lack of exercise, contact sports, and hundreds of other things can also be considered bad for me. Does this make it okay to ban them?

[stone]

Mike,
with little or no care, you would grow marijuana that is so terrible to taste and smell that nobody would WANT to smoke it! ;)

Good cannabis takes lots of care to grow, and specific light schedules that do not happen naturally.

Jack-
there are many ways of consuming thc without smoking it that make the tar issue obsolete. THC can be extracted into oils and turned into butter than can be cooked with. No tar issue in the lungs there.
Vaporization also greatly reduces the tar levels, as the THC is turned from a solid into a gas, as opposed to being burned (vaporization leaves behind, rather than ash, dried up pieces of pot that have no thc left, and do nothing when smoked).

Like I also mentioned earlier, there are DRINKS that contain THC that are medically beneficial.

Jack, also:
Last: During "prohibition" we ended up with highly motivated, mainly male, young people, from the lowest economic groups, running around shooting at each other. Due to the illegal drug trade we have exactly the same thing. If you do the same thing and get the same result, it is NOT a coincidence.

Want to get rid of a large percentage of the gang related problems we have? Open up the "State Drug Store". Legalization takes the money away from the gangsters. No money equals no turf wars and no weapons to wage them with.
---
very well stated

[mike d]

I'm not sure it would be possible to grow enough tobacco for a year in your backyard. With little or no care you could easily grow a years worth of pot in a small space. What other reason other than money is it illegal? Ignorance? Misinformation?

[jack]

Let me try to get some things through deaf ears again. As a former Internationally Certified, Supervisory Level, Drug Abuse Counselor, I am aware of some things on this issue.

Neither alcohol, tobacco or marijuana is "good for you". All have naturally occurring receptor sites within the brain. All are naturally occurring. All have "medicninal uses" (alcohol is a powerful pain killer/anesthetic; nicotine is a strong stimulant; marijuan has uses in glaucoma and as an appetite stimulant--anyone got some Cheetos?).

All have drawbacks. Alcohol is a solvent--it dissolves things like cells. Nicotine has all the problems of any stiimulant PLUS the carcinogens in the tar. Marijuana has many of the same drawbacks as tobacco, including MORE carcinogens.

Biggest problem with marijuana is that the THC is primarily located in the tars. The better the pot, the more tars. Anyone who has ever seen the inside of a pot pipe knows better than to claim marijuana is not harmful--all that crap is going into your lungs and much of it is staying there.

This is all true. So, why do I favor legalization? Because there is zero control to be had by keeping marijuana or any drug "illegal".

It is easier for a kid to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get alcohol. The alcohol (or tobacco) dealer has a license to protect. The dealer of illegal drugs does not. There for there is no reason for the illegal drug dealer to care who is buying or using the drugs.

Last: During "prohibition" we ended up with highly motivated, mainly male, young people, from the lowest economic groups, running around shooting at each other. Due to the illegal drug trade we have exactly the same thing. If you do the same thing and get the same result, it is NOT a coincidence.

Want to get rid of a large percentage of the gang related problems we have? Open up the "State Drug Store". Legalization takes the money away from the gangsters. No money equals no turf wars and no weapons to wage them with.

Why will marijuana and the other drugs stay illegal? Primarily because there is a huge and powerful industry who's survival depends on it. There are billions of $ being legally made that disappear with legalization. This industry will fight tooth and nail to prevent legalization.

It may be insane, but it's the American way.

[Kate]

stone, drinking in class? And to think I was worried about sending my daughter off to the wilds of Pittsburg – which, compared to my son’s education, seemed like a liberal playground at the time.

Cassady, your explanation makes sense, but it’s probably just as well neither of my children took courses like that. I still would have worked the 12-hour days, but knowing I was doing it so I could pay for them to listen to music would have taken all the fun out of it. :)

[stone]

and Mike D, the government, if it wanted to, could control taxes for cannabis effectively. The same way they control taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

For instance, you can buy alcohol at a liquor store, and you pay taxes on it. But you can also make your own, of which you don't pay taxes on, but should you try to sell your own, it becomes ILLEGAL (i think it is illegal to sell beer you make on your own, if you dont pay taxes on it that is).

Same rules should apply for cannabis. Have retail locations that can sell it, regulated the same way alcohol is, and if you grow your own, you don't pay taxes on what you use. However, the moment you try to sell your own, it also becomes illegal.

One can also grow their own tobacco and roll it into their own cigs, but if they sell that, they need to pay taxes on it for it not to be illegal

[GCYL]

“This argument DOES NOT WORK. IF IT IS ILLEGAL, THERE HAS TO BE A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR IT,” – stone

There are several legitimate reasons for the laws. You probably know, sorry, heard many more than I have. The difference is you disagree with all of them. I fully realize I’m not about to change your point of view. Hopefully you’re coming to the same realization.

“and like Solly said before, you are just refusing to state that you are arguing an ignorant position.” - stone

A poorly worded response to M turned out to be nothing more than a personal reminder for you and Solly of your anger towards a law that currently is. That’s not my problem and I haven’t heard a good enough reason here to change my views on legalization. Still, I think a case could be made for legalization under conformity.

[stone]

GCYL-
at least in your last post you didn't try to continue the 'test' argument, and finally, you started to explain yourself and make more sense.
However, on the topic of conformity, I do not think that Pot, Alcohol and tobacco are at all in the same class. Two of the three items are poisons (well, if you lump tobacco with nicotine, then yes). One of the three is a natural plant, where human beings brains already have natural receptors for its active ingredient (thc). Plus, thc has proven medical benefits. Not many people will feel better from drinking a fifth of whiskey while trying alleviate the pains of cancer (a few might). Smoking cigs will not help an anorexic person start to crave food again (alcohol might, but not exactly in a good way).
To recap: one of the three items has proven medical benefits, the other two are poisons. And the two poisons are the legal ones.

[mike d]

I think the test that it failed was that the government can't control (tax) pot efficiently. Anyone who has a 5'x5' square of land can grow enough to last a year, and it pisses the government off so they say "No Pot For You!" OK by me, Because Bush would just make the price skyrocket, just like he did gas. (Sarcasm)

[Casady]

"a “history of rock and roll” exam? Knife through the heart of us parents who worked a second job to pay for a child’s college."

I don't Kate. I think a class like this would be a useful elective for a music journalism or audio technology major, or perhaps someone who is planning to work in other areas of the industry. IMHO, studying say Dylan, the Beatles or the impact of rock and roll has had on society in general is just valid as studying Satre or Byron. There is a reason Nixon wanted Lennon out of the US.

But I digress. Carry on!

[GCYL]

“It is much harder however, to come up with a way to quantify how much thc a person consumes will make them unable to drive.” – stone

At least we’re now talking about issues that pertain to efforts to equalize our society’s three major sins. We all want and need the tax money right? Wouldn’t making cannabis no better or worse than smoking and drinking give it a better chance to become legal? I think so.

Problem is people have different levels of conformity when it comes to their preferred sins. Back here in K.C. MO we just kicked out the public smokers. Many here also envied the strict laws forbidding smoking in cars if children are present. They embraced the continuation of that logic to homes with children. Personally I think public drinking is more dangerous to me than public smoking and I can’t understand why both of them were removed from public consumption. People voted and since they don’t smoke all the smokers had to go, however, since they drink all the drinkers could stay. How convenient.

Since there is very little public and lawful conformity with these three major sins I have no need to decriminalize cannabis. Thanks to my personal preferences towards the three major sins, I’m content to continue to float in our sea of contradictions. That’s your real problem stone. Still, I think a case could be made for legalization under conformity.

[stone]

Kate-
if you think that class is a waste of money, my cousin, whom also goes by your name, recently told me of a class at USC where the professors actually allow the students to drink alcohol IN the class, along with use of other illegal substances. I dont remember the name of the class, but I will ask her next time I speak of her so I can elaborate further in the future- just remind me sometime (Makes me wonder why USC is accredited frankly)

[stone]

"From what I understand cannabis has failed some sort of test and thus the laws in question and thus my desire to know what solomon thinks is sufficient reason to make an illegal plant legal."

GCYL

once again, you claimed earlier that it failed "some sort of test" which is why it is illegal.

Now you say: "Legality is the “test”. This is the ONLY “test” I’m referring to. Is cannabis legal, yes or no? Yes or no?"

Legality was NOT the test you were originally referring to, (as, once again, you were referring to a litmus test on why it should be illegal) and there is no conceivable interpretation of your original "test" comment that can lead anyone to believe that is what you meant

So, WHAT TEST DID IT FAIL THAT MADE IT ILLEGAL?? you are constantly avoiding this question, because you dont have the answer for it, and instead of answering, you just respond by saying it is currently illegal, that is the test. This argument DOES NOT WORK. IF IT IS ILLEGAL, THERE HAS TO BE A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR IT, which you HAVE NOT provided, in any way, and are trying at all costs to avoid doing so.

and like Solly said before, you are just refusing to state that you are arguing an ignorant position.

[Kate]

stone, a “history of rock and roll” exam? Knife through the heart of us parents who worked a second job to pay for a child’s college.

[GCYL]

“Am I understanding your statement correctly?” - stone

No. Legality is the “test”. This is the ONLY “test” I’m referring to. Is cannabis legal, yes or no? Yes or no?

No. Then cannabis has failed the “test”. (Setting fairness aside.)

“We've also not dicussed why corn, wheat, tobacco, or a million other plants should be legal. Should all plants be assumed illegal until they pass some sort of test.” - Posted by: Marctnts

We’re not discussing corn, wheat and tobacco because why? Legality is the “test”. Are corn, wheat and tobacco legal, yes or no? Yes or no?

Yes. Then corn, wheat and tobacco have passed the “test”. (Setting fairness aside.)

I fail to see the reasoning behind Marctnts post. My response to him has caused confusion that I think cannabis has failed some kind of medical testing. There are all kinds of drugs that have passed medical testing but have failed the “test” called legality. Better?

[stone]

"And best to my knowledge you’re also a legal resident. With legal identification."
~GCYL
I certainly hope that being born in KCMO makes me legal, and my KS DL and CA DL's are legal, along with my passport

"Any who, we’re all very proud of you for passing your tests."
~GCYL
thanks- glad to have your support!
(note the 'lighter side' of this part of the debate)

[solomon]

GCYL,

There was no test. Your response of it currently being illegal is no evidence of a test.

Or maybe you feel the government using lies and fear to make a substance illegal in an era of prohibition a valid test.

Why don't you just admit that in your anxiety to be contrary you have taken an ignorant position.

[stone]

"From what I understand cannabis has failed some sort of test and thus the laws in question and thus my desire to know what solomon thinks is sufficient reason to make an illegal plant legal."

GCYL

"it’s currently illegal. That is the “test”. "
GCYL

so, it failed some sort of test which is why it became illegal, but this "test" you speak of is that it is currently illegal? Am I understanding your statement correctly?

[GCYL]

“Oh, I also aced my "history of rock and roll" exams when both studying on cannabis, and taking the exam on cannabis.” - stone

And best to my knowledge you’re also a legal resident. With legal identification. Any who, we’re all very proud of you for passing your tests.

[stone]

"Are you under the impression that our society can’t do the same with cannabis and driving?"
GCYL

It is much harder however, to come up with a way to quantify how much thc a person consumes will make them unable to drive. Myself personally, I could consume an absurdly high volume of THC, and still pass a drivers test (written, and driving) with flying colors. Each person is different on this level. Most people however, probably couldn't. But the way THC interacts with your body is vastly different than alcohol (alcohol is a poison, whereas the human brain has natural receptors for THC).

As of now, however, I do not know of any sort of field test that could check for thc levels, and results of such a test with a "standard for intoxication" (like .081 blood alcohol level) can be completely unreliable in terms of cannabis, as someone who hasn't used it in the past 2 weeks could still possibly test over the "legal limit" to drive on, if there is one.

Also, it could be very possible (and likely) that someone who is returning from the gym from a workout could fail a 'field test' for cannabis, despite not consuming in a period of time, as THC is stored in your body's fat cells, and when you exercise, you the THC is secreted from the fat cells back into the blood stream, reactivating the 'high' you get (which feels almost identical to the "exercise high" you get after long workouts, as the chemical that is secreted in your brain from exercising is remarkably similar to THC)

[GCYL]

“What "test" did cannabis fail exactly?” - stone

“What test did marijuana fail?” – solomon

It’s currently illegal. That is the “test”. We’re not arguing over corn or wheat because they passed the “test” of legality. Both of you aren’t arguing over making legal corn legal. The “test” here is what is or is not legal. Clear?

[GCYL]

“Me, strawman? No, you, braying farm animal.” - solomon

That’s it? You’re caught dead to right using an old strawman statement “There is nothing in the constitution that disallows...” and all you can do is say something even older “I know you are but what am I?”?

[GCYL]

“What exactly is wrong with being "under the influence" of cigs off of private property?” – stone

One of the points for making cannabis legal is the various degrees of inconsistency our society has with these three (generally accepted term) “sins”. As devin has pointed out a case for cannabis being a safer form of drug than alcohol could be made. My point is, if legalization is based on “no better or worse than this or that” what easier way to resolve the issue than by making this or that equal or nearly equal in all legal facets?

“And exactly what level of "under the influence of marijuana" in public should be crime?” – stone

I’m under the impression that our society has come up with a measurable answer with alcohol and driving. Are you under the impression that our society can’t do the same with cannabis and driving?

“If someone who uses cannabis for a medical reason, say,...” - stone

In the effort of uniformity of laws dealing with “sins” this wouldn’t necessarily be a problem. The problem lies with your personal level of conformity based on which “sin” you enjoy or need the most. I understand that my level of uniformity is harsh but it’s just one example. Still, it not like I’m not talking about prohibition.

[stone]

I once failed an english literature test while studying on cannabis...... but I aced my intermediate analysis exam (a class where we had to prove the theories in calculus) after studying for THAT exam on cannabis, and got an "A" on a statistics exam that I TOOK on cannabis.

Oh, I also aced my "history of rock and roll" exams when both studying on cannabis, and taking the exam on cannabis

[solomon]

my previous comment was directed to GCYL

[solomon]

What test did marijuana fail? It was not outlawed for any valid medical reason? Mixed marraiges and blacks using white restromms were also vestiges from misinformed statutes.

You're big on going back to old threads. There's one from march 24, 08 that list numerous endorsements.

[stone]

here is a reason to make an illegal plant legal:
consumption of it has been proven to be medically beneficial for a variety of reasons, ranging from the terminally ill to people who suffer from back pain, ankle sprains, anxiety, insomnia, anorexia and a variety of other ailments.
And with the many ways of consuming this plant that do not involve burning it, the limited health consequences are eliminated

[stone]

What "test" did cannabis fail exactly?

[GCYL]

“We've also not dicussed why corn, wheat, tobacco, or a million other plants should be legal. Should all plants be assumed illegal until they pass some sort of test.” – Marctnts

Why would Marctnts wish to have a discussion about making legal plants legal? No, all plants are assumed legal until they fail some sort of test. From what I understand cannabis has failed some sort of test and thus the laws in question and thus my desire to know what solomon thinks is sufficient reason to make an illegal plant legal.

[solomon]

Hey jack(louie),

There's a donkey in my back yard chasing my goat.

GCYL,

As I said, truly rhetoric.

To be critical of my opinion then in essence backing off when pressed for logic.

Me, strawman? No, you, braying farm animal.

[stone]

"Being caught under the influence or use of any of them off private property would have the same legal consequences."
~GCYL

Since this comment was made for smoking, drinking and cannabis, I have to ask...

What exactly is wrong with being "under the influence" of cigs off of private property?

And exactly what level of "under the influence of marijuana" in public should be crime? If someone who uses cannabis for a medical reason, say, for this example, severe anxiety of flying (a legitimate reasoning doctors prescribe Xanax to people- to reduce their anxiety when flying), should the person be jailed for medicating before a flight (in the privacy of their own home), even though that is the only way they can control themselves in a reasonable manner (as in, not freaking out on the plane)?

[solomon]

We are still awaiting our friend to post why he/she believes marijuana in any form should be illegal. As the only posts he/she has made so far are strictly arguementative and truly rhetoric (Houghton Mifflin, 3b), we might have a long wait.

[GCYL]

“There is nothing in the constitution that disallows use of marijuana.” – solomon

As much as I enjoy reading strawman arguments this isn’t sufficient grounds for me to support decriminalization.

I think a case could be made to make smoking, cannabis and drinking on the same level playing field. Restricted to use only on private property where children are not present. Being caught under the influence or use of any of them off private property would have the same legal consequences. We’ll get the “sin” tax benefits while protecting the public and, this is the best part, it’s not like we’re talking about prohibition.

[Marctnts]

"You’ve never addressed my original observation that you haven’t given sufficient reason why marijuana should be legal." -GYCL

We've also not dicussed why corn, wheat, tobacco, or a million other plants should be legal. Should all plants be assumed illegal until they pass some sort of test.

Here's my reason why marijuana, along with all the other natural plants and chemicals as well as a few artificial ones, should be legal. BECAUSE IT'S MY DAMN RIGHT. It is not Uncle Sam's responsibility to protect me from myself. I used to find the Dennis Leary bit about wanting to eat greasy cheese fries, smoke a cigar, etc. very funny. The closer we get to world where you really can't do those things, the less funny it becomes.

[GCYL]

“Please get the law makers out of the doctor offices, it has never worked.” - T. Hanson

To point out the obvious again, it was you who used the word NEVER. It’s an extreme that is seldom supported by reality.

“It seems whenever there could a law, or a repeal of a law is needed you are very very much against it.” – T.Hanson

No, I’m very much in favor of banning public drinking just like the majority supported banning public smoking. It’s a very similar health issue. Now do you have specific health related laws that’s supports your above statement? Or do we stick with unsupported generalities?

“Are you currently happy with everything that is on the books?” – Mr.T.

My happiness wasn’t the issue, yours was. Remember? NO medical laws have ever worked. Keep the law makers out.

“Or are you just against any change?” - T. Hanson

With your assumption that NO medical laws have ever worked, the change you’re implying is quite massive. You didn’t think someone might disagree with your statement?

[stone]

I got tons more I can add to this, but I got some meetings I have to be in for a while.... so you'll hear more from me later

[stone]

just move to California. I will probably stop at a dispensary on my way home from work. Maybe I'll stop by 2 stores, as one sells Lemonade with thc in it (quite tasty), along with many other edibles and other drinks.

I also have found at this store an herbal dietary supplement that is cannabis enhanced that helps me go to sleep better than Ambien ever has, and nearly as well as Xanax did.

[T. Hanson]

Just a normal question for GCYL. It seems whenever there could a law, or a repeal of a law is needed you are very very much against it. Are you currently happy with everything that is on the books? Or are you just against any change?

[devin]

GCYL, there's never been a documented case of a marijuana overdose killing anybody. Ever. Countless medicines that doctors currently prescribe for dealing with pain can not make the same claim, yet we allow doctors to prescribe them anyway. It would seem allowing doctors to prescribe a substance incapable of directly killing a person is far more reasonable than allowing doctors to prescribe drugs that we all know are capable of directly killing people. That's just one of many good reasons that restrictions on marijuana use should be greatly eased. There's countless others, but that one seems like the most obvious one to me for starters.

[solomon]

"actual meaning of the word frivolous"-GCYL

Can we have this conversation without you resorting to your usual braying?. Merriam webster shows my definition as well as yours, as would any dictionary. Your clouding the issue with your need to be authoritative gets old quickly.

I'll first say that my position on this is for from a personal reason. Medical marijuana would be beneficial to me with the disease I have. As stone and I discussed a few months ago, there is nothing manufactured that I take that does not have potential to damage organs, it does not really work and it leaves me with little or no appetite.

There is nothing in the constitution that disallows use of marijuana. Its prohibition came from a political climate where an imposed temperance by people in has lasted until this day. A plant that anyone can grow in their backyard, it was maligned to a degree that for years it was considered on par with heroin and cocaine, which are processed by man for profit. Its medicinal value has been credited by many notable reviews and studies. recreationally it is less of a hazard than alcohol.

The millions of Americans who have been affected negatively by these laws, IMO, are victims of the billions spent on a prohibition brought by way of fear and ignorance, not any rational or scientific viewpoint.

Now, my question, why do you think it should be illegal?

[GCYL]

“Please get the law makers out of the doctor offices, it has never worked.” - T. Hanson

Really? You can’t think of one time where medical law made a positive impact?

[GCYL]

“If anyone should apologive it is I. From your use of the word "frivilous" I thought you meant "trivial" or "silly", or something of no substance, which are the most common uses.” – solomon

Apology accepted. I can now see why you made such a great effort to avoid the actual meaning of the word frivolous.

“You still never gave an answer to the first question I asked you” - solomon

You’ve never addressed my original observation that you haven’t given sufficient reason why marijuana should be legal. All you’ve given me are boogie man bullet points and making us more “otherwise law-abiding Americans” while saving money. This would happen with any law being removed from the books even when they're free of boogie men.

[solomon]

T Hanson

It really, IMO, should not be a matter for either. It was used as medicine for centuries before "the man" (take your pick who he is) became involved. It has proved to be helpful while never being shown to be any more dangerous (probably less so) than liquor.

[T. Hanson]

And before we go down the "Slippery slope" argument, we have many narcotics that are used in every day medicine. Yes, they do get abused, but they are controlled and most of the people prescribed the medicine need it to live a productive life. How would marijuana be any different from Demerol or other high strength pain relievers?

[T. Hanson]

Topic is medical marijuana and should it be legalized or not? The benefits have been shown over and over again in Cancer patients and other patients that get very nauseated during treatments. Once a person can eat, they can get stronger. Even if the medical marijuana is being used for something other than to increase the appetite as in relieving the pain, I doubt these people are exactly in the position to abuse the drug. Most are usually going to be bed ridden for the rest of their short lives.

Please get the law makers out of the doctor offices, it has never worked. If you can't do that then stop the federal law, this should be strictly a state matter.

[solomon]

GCYL,

If anyone should apologive it is I. From your use of the word "frivilous" I thought you meant "trivial" or "silly", or something of no substance, which are the most common uses.

As far as your Wikepedia documentation that states the guy wasn't any more racist than any other white, did I say he was? I think the quotes from his testimony in the link I gave sum up his opinions on race fairly well. His words, not mine and not something from Wikepedia.

You still never gave an answer to the first question I asked you, which was to provide an answer (from your own brain) to why marijuana should be illegal.

[GCYL]

Main Entry: friv•o•lous
Function: adjective
1 a: of little weight or importance b: having no sound basis (as in fact or law)

“You state that I consider the marijuana laws frivolous, which I never said.” - solomon

My sincere apology for confusing you with someone who thinks our current marijuana laws carry little weight or importance and that they have no sound basis for remaining on our books.

[GCYL]

“He used racial fear of blacks from the south and Mexican workers in the southwest in his crusade.” - solomon

(Wikipedia. Again.) In the 1970s and later has Anslinger been a target for a lot of criticism from opponents, and of course from Jack Herer and other pro cannabis activists. Opponents call him the "drug czar". A common theme is that Anslinger was responsible for racist themes in articles, not written by Anslinger, against marijuana in the 1930s: /snip/ It is an uncontroversial fact that some ethnic groups were more common than others among hemp smokers in the 1920s and 1930s. It is true that Anslinger used quotes from police reports about illegal drug use. Police reports are typically written with a concise language including such details as age, gender, race, ethnic group, type of crime etc. Anslinger, for example, pointed at the former big bootleggers of alcohol, something that many interpret as the Italian mafia, as responsible for big part of the organized illegal trade with opium and cocaine from mid 1930s. "The first Federal law-enforcement administrator to recognize the signs of a national criminal syndication and sound the alarm was Harry J. Anslinger, Commissioner of the Bureau of Narcotics in the Treasury" (Ronald Reagan 1986) /snip/ In Anslinger's book The trafic in narcotics from 1953 he gives a view of marijuana which doesn't support the claims that he was more racist than the average white U.S. civil servant in his generation. //end//

You’re mimicking pro-cannabis bullet points solomon. Good for you. Now back to that otherwise we’d all be law-abiding Americans while spending a lot less money when we remove frivolous laws from our books.....

[solomon]

One more thing GC,

You state that I consider the marijuana laws frivolous, which I never said. Frivolity did not send millions of America through the court and prison sytems. I view this law as an antiquated control of peoples individual freedoms, just as prohibition was.

[solomon]

Anslinger is the one with a "boogie man". After finding it impossible to get Congress to pass a national legislation he embarked on a campaign that resulted in state by state illegalization of marijuana. He used racial fear of blacks from the south and Mexican workers in the southwest in his crusade. Hearst, the newspaper man, was against hemp in general as it competed with the paper industry, in which he was heavily invested. There have been a number of books and documentaries produced on this issue. A good one is "the Emporer Wears No Clothes", by Jack Herer.

Typically, you've used Wikepedia (we all know how credible that site is) to support an issue you don't know much about. Hey, thats ok, there is some good information there sometimes.

A good description of what I said of Anslinger is at...

http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm

[GCYL]

“We do have entirely to many ridiculous and intrusive laws, I agree but speed limits need to be in place.” - NoMoreMrNiceGuy

That’s my point. We all feel that we have way too many frivolous laws but we can’t come to an understanding of which laws they are. I just find the logic of “we’d save lots of money if we get rid of my frivolous laws” meaningless based on the reality of how much more money we’d save if everyone got a piece of that action. And if you weren’t getting speeding tickets you would otherwise be a law-abiding American.

[GCYL]

“Comparing speed limit laws to Marijuana laws?” – solomon

You view one set of laws as frivolous. You try to use an interpretation of original intent to justify your claim as frivolous.

I view another set of laws as frivolous. Heck, I’ll use an interpretation of original intent too to justify my claim as frivolous.

Harry J. Anslinger: (Wikipedia) Today he is most remembered for his campaign against marijuana, but in his work he probably spent much more time on work against illegal trading of heroin, opium and cocaine. He has been the target of a lot of criticism, though it is evident that the use of illicit drugs in the US. during his last decade as head of Federal Bureau of Narcotics was evident lower than it is today. /snip/ Restrictions for marijuana started in District of Columbia 1906 and was followed by state laws in other parts of the country in the 1910s and 1920s. The early laws against the cannabis drugs were passed with little public attention. Concern about marijuana was related primarily to the fear that marijuana use would spread, even among whites, as a substitute for the opiates. /snip/ Members of the League of Nations had already implemented restrictions for marijuana in the beginning of the 1930s and restrictions started in many states in U.S years before Anslinger was appointed. Both president Franklin D. Roosevelt and his Attorney General publicly supported this development in 1935. /snip/ By using the mass media as his forum (receiving much support from William Randolph Hearst), Anslinger propelled the anti-marijuana sentiment from the state level to a national movement.

Solomon has a boogie man.

[Rogue]

What was the question again?

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Speed is the #1 contributor to vehcile related deaths more so than alcohol.
Beings that a fair amount of people are poor drivers on a good day, with perfect weather and road conditions, sober. I would hate to see speed freaks driving as fast as they choose on PepBoy tires and thinking they are DE Jr.
Weed on the other hand would likely allow police officers to kindly jog beside the driver and direct them to pull over while they have their hand stuck in a bag of Doritos. We do have entirely to many ridiculous and intrusive laws, I agree but speed limits need to be in place.

[solomon]

prohibitionist intent

[solomon]

Good morning GCYL,

Comparing speed limit laws to Marijuana laws? SSTTRREETTCCHHH.

If you know anything about the laws promted by Anslinger can you say how they are justifiable other than their original prohibionist intent?

[GCYL]

“costs us billions to persecute otherwise law-abiding Americans.”

In my opinion speed limits are another set of frivolous laws and the "war" against it costs us billions to persecute otherwise law-abiding Americans.

Hundreds of billions more will be saved when we finally rid ourselves of all these frivolous laws. We’d be this nation on earth be have nothing but “otherwise law-abiding” citizens.

[Rogue]

Dudes! Like right on!......what was the question again?

[solomon]

There is no rational reason that marijuana should be illegal. The laws concerning it were instituted through the work of an overzealous prohibionist and the "war" against it costs us billions to persecute otherwise law-abiding Americans.

If only I knew how to contact stone.........

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

The marijuana industry does not contribute enough money to the scoundrels to open their selective hearing. Plus the indoctrination of the masses regarding a natural plant that grows but ignorant morons continue to ignore the facts.
Alcohol kills more people than weed ever has (no documented weed overdoses). The pharma industry is against marijuama unless it is manufactured throught hem. It is about money not morality or even health.