SpaceCity, You mean a lemming with a lot more of my functioning brain cells, right? You guys are wasting your time, and your minds. DD
The primary reason that "most people" do not want drugs regulated is because of the lies spewed out at every opportunity by prohibitionists. I have asked you (general term, but you too, DD) to provide the reasons you have for supporting the drug war and yet all you can come up with is this? Thank you, if I am included. I agree with the first part of this, in that the bottom line is that drugs are bad for you. The substances we are talking about are the most dangerous chemicals in the world with the exception of the ones that are DESIGNED to kill you. These are toxic, addicting products whose distribution we cede to criminal organizations and terrorists. I do not want to provide more people access to drugs. The real point is that drugs are and will be accessible in this country for anyone who wants to use them. We cannot keep drugs out of our prisons, which are supposed to be the most secure environments that one can conceive. In the short term, what I want is for FEWER people to be able to gain access to drugs. Regulation will reduce the availability of drugs and use by minors, this has been a fact everywhere it has been tried and has been the opinion of virtually every study done since the 1800s (even the ones comissioned by the government). In the long term, we concentrate on demand reduction through the education of adults, who are actually capable of making mature decisions about what they will put into their bodies. Actually, my opinion in my early career as a counselor was that the drug war was absolutely justified based on the harm that I THOUGHT drugs caused. As I have matured and studied this issue, I have come to realize that prohibition causes significantly more harm than drugs themselves in America today. As I have aged, I have come to see that the drug war is an evil, corrupt enterprise run by power and money hungry racists who will do anything to see that their agenda is fulfilled.
Not wrong, simply misinformed. The only way that the prohibitionists can keep their regime in place is through lies, deception, and smoke screens. Your opinion isn't wrong. You have studied the issue from your perspective and have reached your opinion. All I ever ask is that people THINK about WHY they have their opinion. OK, I ask one other thing. Tell me what your opinion is so that I can better understand this issue. You mean like slavery? Native American genocide? Communist blacklists? Witch trials? All policies perpetuated by the majority at the time and vilified in modern times. We MADE the Mafia in America with our last attempt at prohibition, and this time we are putting our children in gangs. My point is that we can reduce the access that our children have to drugs and save money by implementing a regulatory structure to control access to the most dangerous chemicals on the planet.
Couldn't have said it better myself! Keep up the good work homey. I, for one, agree with your position and applaud your work as a drug counselor.
In another story on the drug war front, 12 more people from Tulia, Texas are free! http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/page1/1955444 This is the kind of thing that the drug war brings us. Innocent people held in jail for years on the word of one man. The only reason these people are out of jail now is because the arresting officer was indicted on perjury charges and because several law firms donated their time because the whole thing was so obviously fixed. Can you imagine how many innocent people are still in jail because their lone accuser hasn't been discredited? How do the prohibitionists justify such behavior? Can anyone give me a reasonable answer?
Here is another one. The government passed a law called the RAVE act, which makes it possible to take legal action on the owner of a property if so much as a single person uses drugs at an event. http://www.drcnet.org/wol/290.shtml#dearave They used it to close down a political rally, a concert to benefit the medical mar1juana movement. It is sad what our government will do to keep its people in the dark.
Medical mar1juana is so stupid. Everyone knows that these people just want to smoke pot. If it could be used as medicine, it wouldn't be illega.
You oviously have no idea what you are talking about. Try telling that to an Aids or cancer patient who cannot even eat due to the nausia caused by their cocktail of pills or chemo treatments. It is also an effective treatment for those who suffer from glaucoma.
It would be easy to say that you have no clue what you are talking about and leave it at that. However, since you are offering up an opinion and obviously have not looked into the facts of medical mar1juana, I will attempt to enlighten you. "It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance" -DEA Judge Francis Young That's a Drug Enforcement Agency judge. I would think that he knows more on this subject than you do. But let's continue. The United States funded Institute of Medicine did a study commissioned by the White House and Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey on Medical mar1juana. In short, the report verifies that mar1juana does have medical benefit, and argues that it should be made available to patients who could benefit from its use now. This link will take you to their website, where you can read a full copy of the report In addition, there have been a series of six studies conducted by state health departments under research protocols approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.The focus of these studies, conducted by six state health agencies was the use of mar1juana as an anti-emetic for cancer patients. The studies, conducted in California, Georgia, New Mexico, New York, Michigan and Tennessee, compared mar1juana to antiemetics available by prescription, including the synthetic THC pill, Marinol. mar1juana was found to be an effective and safe antiemetic in each of the studies and more effective than other drugs for many patients. I could go on but I think you get my point. Next time, do some research before you post.
I won't waste my time explaining how wrong you are, you are obviously too stupid to understand anyway. If you can't post any better than this, don't post again. Moron.
Pipe,, If i am a moron, you must be a druggie idiot. All you are doped up losers who want to use anything you want. If you commit the crime, you do the time.
What no snappy retort for me? Is it because I didn't stoop down to name calling and instead presented evidence?
The only evidence you presented was from quacks who have a legalization agenda. There is "medical mar1juana" now. http://www.dea.gov/ongoing/marinol.html There is your evidence.
So are you admitting that mar1juana IS medicine now? Or just THC? So AIDS patients, cancer patients, and people with glaucoma are just stoners looking for the easy way to get a joint? Marinol is not the same as medical mar1juana. It does not have the same effectiveness, not even close. If medical mar1juana truely is legal, why are people still being arrested for it by federal officers in California? OAKLAND, California (CNN) -- Four plaintiffs in California filed suit in federal court Wednesday requesting an injunction to stop the federal government from arresting people for medically using mar1juana, as permitted under state law. Two of the plaintiffs, Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, are patients with serious medical conditions who have obtained recommendations from their doctors to use mar1juana to relieve some of their symptoms. The two unnamed co-plaintiffs are mar1juana growers who supply McClary Raich with the two ounces of pot she says she needs each week to alleviate her suffering. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Asa Hutchinson, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The lawsuit is the second time attorney Robert Raich has tried to bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled against his client, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club, in its claim that medical necessity overrides federal law. This time, Raich has broadened his argument while narrowing the number of plaintiffs. The lawsuit contends the four plaintiffs grow their own mar1juana solely for their own medical use within the borders of California, thus removing any federal authority under interstate commerce laws. The suit also claims constitutional protection under clauses guaranteeing state sovereignty and due process. If granted, the injunction would prevent the arrest and seizure of property -- including mar1juana -- of only the four defendants, but Raich predicts it will serve as a precedent for the entire country. "This case obviously involves only the four plaintiffs who brought the case. However, it would then lay a template for any other similarly situated seriously ill patient, in California or any other state with a medical cannabis law," he said. California's Proposition 215, approved by voters in 1996, exempts patients who possess or cultivate mar1juana for medical treatment from criminal laws against mar1juana use when the drug is recommended by a doctor. The physicians who prescribe mar1juana are also exempt from prosecution. Raich was married this summer to McClary Raich, who was a member of the now-dormant Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club. In a news conference following the court filing, McClary Raich said she suffers from an inoperable brain tumor and needs mar1juana to stimulate her appetite and prevent the continual weight loss that could eventually prove fatal. "Medical cannabis is not about cannabis, it's not about pot -- it's about real lives," she said. "It's about ending suffering, it's about sick, disabled, and dying Californians that suffer greatly like myself." McClary Raich said she feels angry and will fight with "every single ounce of energy that I have left" to make sure the government does not take the drug away from her. "When I was partially paralyzed and in that wheelchair, that was hell," she said. "And there is no way that I'm going to allow this federal government to send me back to hell. There's no way." Monson, who suffers from chronic back pain and muscle spasms, had been growing her own mar1juana at her home in rural northern California. She described a recent visit by sheriff's deputies and DEA agents, during which the deputies tried unsuccessfully to convince the federal agents not to cut down her six plants. "I am not a criminal," Monson said. "I do not deserve to have my home raided -- to have my peace of mind taken away from me, my privacy taken from me." Attorney David Michael said he believes the government does not have the right to make laws about health decisions made by patients and their doctors, especially if, in regards to mar1juana, the drug is used within the boundaries of their own state with no "commerce activity." "The federal government does not have the right to interfere," Michael said. "That's what's important about this case."
