11th State to Legalize Medical Marijuana

[nm420]

11th state legalizes medical marijuana
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/03/RI....ap/index.html

Rhode Island on Tuesday became the 11th state to legalize medical marijuana and the first since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that patients who use the drug can still be prosecuted under federal law. The House overrode a veto by Gov. Don Carcieri, 59-13, allowing people with illnesses such as cancer and AIDS to grow up to 12 marijuana plants or buy 2.5 ounces of marijuana to relieve their symptoms. Those who do are required to register with the state and get an identification card. Federal law prohibits any use of marijuana. However, Maine, Vermont, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington allow it to be grown and used for medicinal purposes. The U.S. high court ruled June 6 that people who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it can still be prosecuted under federal drug laws, even if their states allow it. Federal authorities, however, have conceded they are unlikely to prosecute many medicinal marijuana users.

OPINION: Yes, the federal authorities are more prone to just perform raids, seize records and plants, terrorize the sick and dying, and then pretend like it never happened. You only have to worry about prosecution if you're one of the more vocal opponents of this madness. If you watch the video clip that goes with this article, there are some rather naive people interviewed who express doubt that the federal government would actually do something so heinous. If they kept up on the news from the West coast however, they might be a bit more worried.

Seriously, though, this is pretty groundbreaking stuff. Most medical marijuana laws have been forced to get passed through voter initiatives, but this one came about through the state legislature, and over the veto of a governor seemingly out of touch with reality. I can only wonder how much longer this can go on before Congress decides to take another look at the ridiculousness of the current federal schedule of marijuana.

[lili462]

Kudos Rhode island..now i think its time other states follow suite. I'll admit it i smoke pot for recreational use and i would love for it to be legalized...but even if i can't have that..i would be over joyed if medical marijuana was legalized nationally.

[RickSp]

The "powers that be" have so much invested both financially and politically in the "War on Drugs" that it takes a referendum to make any positive change. Let's hope the groundswell continues.

I remember when the penalty for possession of an ounce or less in Ann Arbor became a parking ticket. That was thirty years ago. Do you know, has that changed?

Damned that makes me feel old.

Gonna go back to my rocking chair now.

[Jack]

The Feds have raided several distribution points here in San Diego, effectively ending the medical marijuana program here. They fall back on the argument that federal law trumps state law, and so far it seems the courts are agreeing. Of course that could be because appeals, once they've passed through the state court system, wind up in a federal court...and guess which side they usually come down on?

[nm420]

Quote by: RickSp The "powers that be" have so much invested both financially and politically in the "War on Drugs" that it takes a referendum to make any positive change. Let's hope the groundswell continues. I remember when the penalty for possession of an ounce or less in Ann Arbor became a parking ticket. That was thirty years ago. Do you know, has that changed? Damned that makes me feel old. Gonna go back to my rocking chair now.

As I've heard, that law in Ann Arbor still stands, though the price for the ticket has likely gone up now. For what it's worth, they also passed a medical marijuana initiative in 2004, though it seems the state of Michigan is still a few years away from that. There's been at least three attempts in recent years that I can recall to get a proposal on the statewide ballot which would essentially allow marijuana to be regulated like alcohol, though we keep coming up short every time. While such a leap might be too much to expect this soon, the idea is gaining more and more attention, if not support.

[SteveA]

Though I discourage drug use, it's obviously not a federal issue if someone has a marajuana plant in their backyard. I remember the term 'drug trafficking' and technically from a federal point of view, assuming they want to be involved the only real Constitutional right they have is to deal with interstate issues, this definitely doesn't extend down to deciding what plants people can grow on their own property. This is a state and/or local issue, assuming government wants to address it, though truly it's most appropriately a local issue.

One major problem with the War on Drugs has been the number of non-violent people that have ended up in prison. The War on Drugs has detracted from enforcing real crimes. Wasn't the intent of this 'war' simply to deter real crimes that sometimes were caused by drug use? If we'd instead have simply said that noone cared what you smoke, as long as you don't go around trashing the neighborhood, wouldn't that have been a lot better as it wouldn't create unnecessary conflicts and would remain directed at deterring truely criminal/destructive actions. I assume some people believe we're saving people from themselves with the War on Drugs but that's wishful thinking. Laws don't make people moral and without a more internal reference, what happens when police aren't around? Do we degrade into chaos? And who's going to police the police? It's just a bad idea to try to substitute parents, church, relatives and whatever other typical forms of teaching morality that people use for government instead. And truly how much good comes from putting someone in prison for possibly some action that never even hurt anyone else (except maybe a few puffed up egos)?

[Osborn F Enready]

NM420, if you ever need assistance in organizing or getting signatures in the Northwest Ohio region, contact me through this site, and I will provide any assistance I can.

[Milton Bradley]

I just heard the Drug Czar speaking on C-SPAN yesterday, and there is little hope for change in Washington with these authoritarians running the show. They won't even address the truth, let alone actually considering it. Their absolute denial of the truth only proves Patrick's point of having a vested interest in seeing the injustice continue.


Dude, these guys regulate the amount of water you flush down the commode each time you flush, they are never going to volentarily reduce their role in controlling, and ruining your life.

[dilligras]

Just curious.........to have a debate on this topic, wouldn't you necessarily need someone to take the other side of the issue?

Also, if it is not a debate, what do you call it.......a rant thread? :)

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: dilligras Just curious.........to have a debate on this topic, wouldn't you necessarily need someone to take the other side of the issue? Also, if it is not a debate, what do you call it.......a rant thread? :)

This is the Breaking News thread, with a little space provided to opine if one feels compelled to do so.


If it turns into a debate, so be it.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Milton Bradley This is the Breaking News thread, with a little space provided to opine if one feels compelled to do so. If it turns into a debate, so be it.

Ahah........I might be induced to take the other side, if only for the sake of argument, which is my everything.

My mom's argument: it's not good for you.

My dad's argument: it's not legal

As to the first, one of my neighbors (who happens to be a lobbyist for environmental issues in Austin) and I were sharing a number a few weeks ago, and he mentioned that some study had shown that one joint has as much tar as a whole pack (20) of cigarettes.

As for the second, there is something to be said for not getting popped and having the state take your kids into foster care.

Of course niether of those arguments address whether any govt.--much less the federal one--ought to be regulating anything but the quality of whatever substance one chooses to employ to alter one's perception, or alleviate a nagging pain.

State and federal beaurocracies have long disputed jurisdiction on a wide range of issues, so why should this one be different, especially since there is such a large federal anti-drug machine that fears for its continued existence.

Those DEA dudes need to send their kids to college, too, y'know.


.

[nm420]

Quote by: dilligras Ahah........I might be induced to take the other side, if only for the sake of argument, which is my everything. My mom's argument: it's not good for you. My dad's argument: it's not legal As to the first, one of my neighbors (who happens to be a lobbyist for environmental issues in Austin) and I were sharing a number a few weeks ago, and he mentioned that some study had shown that one joint has as much tar as a whole pack (20) of cigarettes. As for the second, there is something to be said for not getting popped and having the state take your kids into foster care. Of course niether of those arguments address whether any govt.--much less the federal one--ought to be regulating anything but the quality of whatever substance one chooses to employ to alter one's perception, or alleviate a nagging pain. State and federal beaurocracies have long disputed jurisdiction on a wide range of issues, so why should this one be different, especially since there is such a large federal anti-drug machine that fears for its continued existence. Those DEA dudes need to send their kids to college, too, y'know.

Your dad's argument is utter crap, IMO. It's illegal for me to get a blowjob in my home state, yet that's not going to stop me from receiving one as I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. In general, my behavior is relatively uninhibited by laws, except when driving, as any action I choose to take is obviously one that I feel to be moral, or at least not immoral. Luckily, such choices generally coincide with the law, but certainly not always. Certainly, some of my choices have to be exercised with a bit more caution because of various laws. But if someone doesn't see any inherent moral dilemmas with a particular action and has an actual desire to perform said action, the law be damned! Some people (myself included) are a bit sqeamish about breaking the law out in the open, but that shouldn't stop you from getting your kicks in a more discreet fashion.

I feel your mom's argument is utter crap as well, and there are at least reams of scientific studies to back me up on that. Marijuana has the potential to debilitate and cause physical harm, yet compared to most drugs, both illicit or regulated, it is relatively harmless. Yes, smoking anything is not good for your lungs, but a recent study suggests that the tar in marijuana smoke may be less harmful than that in cigarettes due to the chemical nature of the cannabinoids found in it. Mind you, no definite conclusions can be made, but it certainly goes along well with the fact that lung cancer has not been strongly associated with marijuana smoking.

On top of this, the number of ailments for which this drug may be used as effective treatment is astounding. Evidence keeps piling up that the medical value of this drug is great, and this is completely aside from the recreational use of it. While I will admit that the medical marijuana movement is an attempt by some as a stab at a broader legalization strategy, this does not make all of the overwhelming support from real scientific and medical studies disappear.

[lili462]

Quote by: dilligras My mom's argument: it's not good for you.

neither are ciggarettes, alcohol, and pollutants given off by cars and factories..i might say myself that marijuana is much more safer than the above said.

[Apeman81]

Oh, how better our lives will be for this

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Oh, how better our lives will be for this

Specifically what is being discussed is alleviating the pain of cancer sufferers among others, not that you apparently give a damn.

[lili462]

Quote by: RickSp Specifically what is being discussed is alleviating the pain of cancer sufferers among others, not that you apparently give a damn.

some people just won't open up their eyes, and they continue to listen to the lies of the media. in other words Ignorance.

[Athena]

Quote by: dilligras Just curious.........to have a debate on this topic, wouldn't you necessarily need someone to take the other side of the issue? Also, if it is not a debate, what do you call it.......a rant thread? :)

Why do we always have to have a debate? Agreement is very nice. Information that is nothing more than information can be very nice.

Personally, I think when a person is facing permanent and severe disability, or death, no branch of government should intervene in that person's decisions. I am not sure government should be intervening in our private lives at all. There is a very important line between private and public, and doesn't liberty mean government respect that line? It sure should respect state soveriegnity and limit is authority to interstate commerce. This is one of the difference between our democracy or a police state.

By the way, the federal government can regulate the amount of water our toilets use, because we adopted the German model of bureaucracy, where instead of individuals making decisions (those on the bottom), those decisions are made by a committee and once the policy is set, the committee is dismissed, leaving no to be accountable nor with the power to adjust policy (authority over the people). This crushes our individual liberty and power, and it was what we defended our democracy against in two world wars.

As for the Dad's arguement that pot isn't legal. Dad wants to protect his son, but isn't the federal government violating the Constitution? If his son were dying how would Dad want to protect his son then? No way would the colonies have united behind the Constitution if they thought this would destroy state soveriegnity, nor if the people thought government would be running their private lives.

PS Mom is right, pot isn't good for humans unless they have a good reason for using it.
Among other things, pot does to the brain what candy does to the teeth. And although a person may not become physically addicted to pot, a person can become psychologically addicted. Young people who use substances, risk delaying their development and this is really sad! I have worked with people who have no life other than as a substance users. When their substance is taken away, they don't have careers or talents or interest to fall back on. I think it is extremely important that substance use does not begin at least until a person has a fully developed life and this would be after 30 years of age.

[dilligras]

Quote by: nm420 Your dad's argument is utter crap, IMO.

Thank you for sharing.

It's illegal for me to get a blowjob in my home state, yet that's not going to stop me from receiving one as I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

There's a visual I would have forgone, given the choice. Since you chose to so encumber me without authorization, I'm sure you won't mind if I reciprocate in kind.............how'd ya get the vet to pull the dog's front teeth? :)

Otherwise, I'd say you have a good exuse for political activism in Michigan, pardner.

I feel your mom's argument is utter crap as well, and there are at least reams of scientific studies to back me up on that. Marijuana has the potential to debilitate and cause physical harm, yet compared to most drugs, both illicit or regulated, it is relatively harmless. Yes, smoking anything is not good for your lungs, but a recent study suggests that the tar in marijuana smoke may be less harmful than that in cigarettes due to the chemical nature of the cannabinoids found in it. Mind you, no definite conclusions can be made, but it certainly goes along well with the fact that lung cancer has not been strongly associated with marijuana smoking.

Excellent.....I'm sure my mom will say pot's fine now...........NOT. More likely she will switch to Dad's argument, or remind me that smoking that much of anything will decrease the efficiency of the lung's incredible ability to convert O2 into CO2 which will cause a strain on the heart because of the need to pump more blood to get the necessary oxygen throughout the body.

Which is what killed Dad, by the way---heart failure.

On top of this, the number of ailments for which this drug may be used as effective treatment is astounding. Evidence keeps piling up that the medical value of this drug is great, and this is completely aside from the recreational use of it. While I will admit that the medical marijuana movement is an attempt by some as a stab at a broader legalization strategy, this does not make all of the overwhelming support from real scientific and medical studies disappear.

You wouldn't happen to have this evidence in your bookmarks, perchance? I need all the help I can get with Mom.

[Milton Bradley]

Here are a couple of the most informative links about drugs that I have run across.


http://www.drugwarfacts.org/

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...y/basicfax.htm

[Jack]

Man, this thread's giving me a headache.
Hey, I know a good way to treat that...brb