Thread Options 
|
#281119 - 11/29/04 08:00 PM
Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Your thoughts?
I'll withhold mine to avoid tainting the jury.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281120 - 11/29/04 08:33 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 682
IL
|
Jokerman, I can't get past laughing at seeing the phrase "medical weed" in print. For some reason it hit the funnybone and got me thinking (medical reefer, medical ganja, medical doobies, medical fatty, etc).
Not to mention the visual of Diana Ross wearing a justice's robe & sitting on the bench.
_________________________
Foosball: a combination of soccer and shishkabobs- M.H.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281121 - 11/29/04 08:36 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Sounds like you've been doing a little sampling JJohns.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281122 - 11/29/04 08:45 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,896
R.I.P. Chief Illiniwek
|
Has anyone else seen the Simpson's episode where Homer is given medicinal marijuana?
_________________________
We're doing oil changes. Oil changes for EVERYONE!!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281123 - 11/29/04 09:09 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
It was the one where he's attacked by crows, right?
But back to the question at hand - has no one an opinion?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281124 - 11/29/04 09:15 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Jokerman, I can't get past laughing at seeing the phrase "medical weed" in print. For some reason it hit the funnybone and got me thinking (medical reefer, medical ganja, medical doobies, medical fatty, etc).
Not to mention the visual of Diana Ross wearing a justice's robe & sitting on the bench.
Too funny...here's some HEALTHY HOOCH...a BONG for what's WRONG...oh the possibilities are endless!  
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281125 - 11/29/04 09:46 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,636
snorkeling in warm, clear wate...
|
and on Romper Room:
"When you're sick, Do Bee a Doobie!"
_________________________
CRCM|CAMS
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281127 - 11/30/04 12:05 AM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 27,749
On the Net
|
When it is prescribed by medical doctors I don't know why it would be contradictory to the government's war of drugs. The folks who I have seen have gone through many medications before getting to MM, and if it works for them, why should that be a bad thing? These folks are in pain and hurting. They don't do this to get high.
Perhaps it depends on what medications Rehnquist is getting for his treatment.
_________________________
AndyZ CRCM
My opinions are not necessarily my employers.
R+R-R=R+R
Rules and Regs minus Relationships equals Resentment and Rebellion. John Maxwell
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281130 - 11/30/04 01:51 AM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Possession of marijuana is a violation of federal law. What part of the law do people not understand?
The stupid part where the federal government has so politicized an issue that it is being denied (by prescription) to people in chronic pain or with terminal illnesses.
I have always felt this way, but it's now interesting to see the number of conservatives that agree with this logic increasing as the years go by. Aging baby boomers perhaps?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281131 - 11/30/04 01:53 AM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 27,749
On the Net
|
And when does the state have a say? That is the question the states want answered.
_________________________
AndyZ CRCM
My opinions are not necessarily my employers.
R+R-R=R+R
Rules and Regs minus Relationships equals Resentment and Rebellion. John Maxwell
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281132 - 11/30/04 04:05 AM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
I think the Feds should be required to show us all where in the Constitution it provides for their regulation of pot grown in, sold in, and used in, a sovereign state. (For any use whatsoever, by the way, not just for medical use.)
Importing, commerce between states, etc., I agree they would have the authority to prohibit.
And, of course, states have the authority to prohibit use or possession within their borders according to their constitutions and popular will.
Just my two cents. (Whatever happened to the cent sign on the keyboard? I know it was there when I took eighth grade typing...)
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281134 - 11/30/04 02:35 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
100 Club
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 234
|
While I do not have a strong opinion on this subject, I would remind you of the famous quote from Oliver Wendel Holmes that hard cases make bad law. The gist of this comment is that we should not decide matters of law based on our sympathies because we may be tempted to vote our heart even though this may lead us away from the logical path. We may feel sorry for, and wish to compensate, the burned, elderly woman, but do we do so and then dictate that coffee musn't be served hot? I believe that, however painful, and I too have had close relations who died in slow, painful manners, these sorts of decisions should be made in the cold clear light of day, whatever the outcome.
_________________________
My opinions should not be taken as legal advice and I do not speak for my employer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281135 - 11/30/04 03:03 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
10K Club
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 10,124
Way, way south.
|
I believe that is should definitely be legal for medical purposes (and, actually, I am not that far from the opinion that it should be legal to possess a small amount of pot as I believe it is far less dangerous than alcohol, but that's another argument). If it works to lessen suffering and it can be controlled via the perscription drug system, why is this even an issue?
_________________________
Giddy up.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281136 - 11/30/04 03:08 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
it shouldn't be an issue.
it is helping people, nothing wrong with that.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281138 - 11/30/04 03:54 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I believe that is should definitely be legal for medical purposes (and, actually, I am not that far from the opinion that it should be legal to possess a small amount of pot as I believe it is far less dangerous than alcohol, but that's another argument). If it works to lessen suffering and it can be controlled via the perscription drug system, why is this even an issue?
Because it has been demonized...remember Reefer Madness? One argument is that the drug is smoked, and we all know that smoking is bad for your health. But in the case of someone with a terminal illness...is that really the most important thing? Shouldn't be. 
And they are looking at alternative delivery methods for THC...such as patches and strips placed under the tongue. There are far more dangerous and addictive drugs that can be obtained with a legal prescription. This is purely political...if it were only a health issue, alcohol and tobacco would not be legal either. 
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281139 - 11/30/04 04:34 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
10K Club
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 10,124
Way, way south.
|
You know, the funny thing is after I wrote the above post is that I sound like I am an avowed pot smoker. I tried it one time in my life, once when I turned 30 and was on vacation with a bad influence friend (but an AWESOME friend) and it didn't do much for me.
_________________________
Giddy up.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281141 - 11/30/04 10:04 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
100 Club
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 165
|
What's next???
Judicial Joints
Federal Fatties
Washington Weed
Government Ganga
Bureacratic Blunts
Gov't Grass
Partisan Political Pot
Democratic Dope
Republican Roaches/Reefer
Capitol Hill Hash
D.C. Doobies
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281142 - 12/01/04 12:16 AM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
What's next???
Judicial Joints
Federal Fatties
Washington Weed
Government Ganga
Bureacratic Blunts
Gov't Grass
Partisan Political Pot
Democratic Dope
Republican Roaches/Reefer
Capitol Hill Hash
D.C. Doobies
And for the 2006 elections...Roach Clips with your politial party's mascot on the handle!!!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281143 - 12/01/04 12:52 AM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,934
here and there
|
I am for MM, mainly because it is not nearly as bad for you as some other prescription drugs. I was watching TV the other day and heard an advertisement for a class action lawsuit for a drug that made people so depressed they tried to overdose on the drug. Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure weed is bad for you in one way or another, but here's the thing, I have heard time and time again about people O.D.ing on all kinds of drugs (even over the counter drugs) but in my life, I have never heard of anyone dieing of THC poisoning. I’m sure it could hypothetically happen. If it is any safer than the drugs that it may replace than why not give it a chance??
_________________________
I am the ringmaster of my domain!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281144 - 12/01/04 12:54 AM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,934
here and there
|
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281146 - 12/01/04 07:41 AM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,272
Where the heart is
|
Quote:
While I do not have a strong opinion on this subject, I would remind you of the famous quote from Oliver Wendel Holmes that hard cases make bad law. The gist of this comment is that we should not decide matters of law based on our sympathies because we may be tempted to vote our heart even though this may lead us away from the logical path. We may feel sorry for, and wish to compensate, the burned, elderly woman, but do we do so and then dictate that coffee musn't be served hot? I believe that, however painful, and I too have had close relations who died in slow, painful manners, these sorts of decisions should be made in the cold clear light of day, whatever the outcome.
Hard cases may make bad laws, but zealously causes cruel laws.
BTW - the situation with the McDonald's coffee and the old woman is not even germane to this discussion. Anyone who studied that case would know that the McDonald's coffee WAS heated far above the temperature that most other places served coffee.
http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
Anyone who has EVER had any experience with "ZERO TOLERANCE" policies knows the level of absurdity that these over-zealous rules tend to cause.
http://zerointelligence.net/
_________________________
CRCM,CAMS
Regulations are a poor substitute for ethics.
Just sayin'
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281148 - 12/01/04 03:18 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
100 Club
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 165
|
I was just thinking... How would the court's handle the "second hand smoke" issue? There is no problem with people taking prescription drugs in public, so would MM smokers argue that they should be able to light up in public? With a note from their shaman, um doctor, could they "medicate" in smoke free areas? What about those who get a second hand high? I can see it now: "but sir, I really want this job. The only reason I failed my drug test is because I work with the terminally ill in my spare time!" Just a thought...
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281150 - 12/02/04 03:54 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
This, from the NYT: Quote:
In fact, much of the debate in the courtroom on Monday centered on one particular precedent, Wickard v. Filburn, a decision from 1942 that upheld Congress's effort to support wheat prices by controlling wheat production. The court held that even the wheat that a farmer cultivated for home consumption could be regulated under the Agricultural Adjustment Act's quota system on the theory that all wheat production took place within a national market. That decision is regarded as one of the most far-reaching extensions of Congressional power that the Supreme Court has ever upheld.
.
Randy E. Barnett, a Boston University Law School professor arguing on behalf of the two women, told the justices on Monday that if they accepted the administration's argument in this case, "then Ashcroft v. Raich will replace Wickard v. Filburn as the most far-reaching example" of Congress's power over interstate commerce. Prohibition of "a class of activity that is noneconomic and wholly intrastate" was not essential to the government's "regulatory regime," he said, adding: "There is no interstate connection whatsoever."
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281151 - 12/03/04 02:10 AM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
The problem with Doctor's Dope is that there are enough greedy physicians who will prescribe Oxycontin and other pain killers to addicts without caring if they actually NEED the drugs, and the risk of a bunch of potheads driving around claiming it's physician approved dope and having prescriptions to get high outweighs the benefits of Physicians Pot.
Perhaps if they allowed it to be used ONLY under a physician's care, in the presense of a nurse....
Yes, but the stuff that can be legally prescribed (and the associated abuses) is already there. Pot is so far down the food chain. The narcotics and tranqs that are legally available with a perscription are addictive and people die ODin on them all the time.
Sorry, I grew up in the 70's and had friends that ended up in rehab, suicide, etc. Never from pot though. And the "gateway" drug issue? The gateway drugs are alcohol and cigs. Some of my rehab friends went for drinking, and I just had a 40 year old friend die of lung cancer.
Hey, give the sick people their pot if it helps them. And try to find a better delivery method than smoking (I hear they are working on patches and some type of lozenge). Sure there will be folks cheating the system. BUT, it will take the wind out of the street pot sales so the war on drugs can focus on the stuff that is more dangerous...
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#281152 - 12/03/04 03:13 PM
Re: Supremes Hear Medical Weed Case
|
100 Club
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 234
|
Again, I didn't opine on which way tis issue should go, just that the decision should be made with clear logic, not emotion. If the McDonalds case is inapposite, how about why we have warnings on irons that clothing should not be ironed while worn or that costume capes do not actually allow flight. My point was not to be zealous, but to warn that we should consider all the possible consequences of our actions. If we absolutely know that a person will not recover and will only live with increasing suffering, what would the highest sympathy dictate that we do? You say that you watched your mother -in-law die, I did the same with my father. While I personally may have been willing to do anything to ease his suffering, I would be very careful saying that I want my law made on that basis, knowing that, at that point, I am at my most vulnerable and least logical. It's sort of like asking a death penalty opponent, at the point when a relative has been raped or murdered, if they think the perpetrator should be killed. The law should be above the passions of the moment. It may be that the court should decide that the Federal government has no business here. If they do though, it should be because this is beyond the powers granted by the Constitution. We should not make great decisions in the weakness of the moment, and I still believe we should consider all consequences. What else will this precedent be stretched to include? I really don't mean to be extreme, but based on my legal training, I know that the name of the game is to stretch and exploit precedent to fit whatever facts you need it to fit.
_________________________
My opinions should not be taken as legal advice and I do not speak for my employer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index