High Court to examine medicinal marijuana

[Eazy E]

I've smoked weed since grade 10 and I have never had problems in school as a result.  Never had problems with the law.  Rarely in fights, never in ones that I start.

Its funny - but when u talk to people that smoke they answer in the same way - 'my uncle smoked for 900 years and never got lung cancer'....

Well its not like I smoke everyday, I'm talking about responsible use.  "Potheads" may have the problems that I Q listed, but someone who smokes once a week/month won't (much like someone who drinks occasionally).

Cigarettes are highly addictive, marijuana is not.  Besides, tobacco is legal.  Making marijauan legal doesn't mean that YOU have to smoke it, or that it is 100% HEALTHY.  You're thinking seems to be "Marijuana is bad for you, it is the devil, ban it".  However this isn't stopping anyone from smoking it (and looking at the success of prohibition, there's a chance that MORE people may be using it).  So what good is it doing making it illegal?  I'm not saying ENCOURAGE people to smoke weed, but getting a criminal record for being found with some pot on you is stupid.

Also, America's tight-ass views on the subject prevent neighbouring countries from moving forward with legalizing marijuana... just to maintain good relations with the big bad.
 

[Izzy]

Cigarettes are highly addictive, marijuana is not.? Besides, tobacco is legal.? Making marijauan legal doesn't mean that YOU have to smoke it, or that it is 100% HEALTHY.? You're thinking seems to be "Marijuana is bad for you, it is the devil, ban it".

Actually i said

I have no problem with people smoking it (providing they ain't going to be driving and they are not around those that don't want to inhale it) but its those that try and justify it that annoy me

People can smoke it all they want, my problem is when people claim it has medical VALUE, that it can help people - this is just untrue

Even if it did have medical value - are any of u in need of its 'medical' properties? The medical thing is just to disguise what ur really doing - taking a drug because u want to get high.

Even if it was proved that it helped people in terrible pain - how is that an argument for Joe Bloggs to take it for recreational use?

By all means use it (but don't drive or handle firearms) but DON'T justify it on medical grounds which don't apply to u - or anyone, just admit ur taking an illegal drug because u want to and are making a free choice in the face of warnings

[Eazy E]

Cigarettes are highly addictive, marijuana is not.  Besides, tobacco is legal.  Making marijauan legal doesn't mean that YOU have to smoke it, or that it is 100% HEALTHY.  You're thinking seems to be "Marijuana is bad for you, it is the devil, ban it".

Actually i said

I have no problem with people smoking it (providing they ain't going to be driving and they are not around those that don't want to inhale it) but its those that try and justify it that annoy me

People can smoke it all they want, my problem is when people claim it has medical VALUE, that it can help people - this is just untrue

Even if it did have medical value - are any of u in need of its 'medical' properties? The medical thing is just to disguise what ur really doing - taking a drug because u want to get high.

Even if it was proved that it helped people in terrible pain - how is that an argument for Joe Bloggs to take it for recreational use?

By all means use it (but don't drive or handle firearms) but DON'T justify it on medical grounds which don't apply to u - or anyone, just admit ur taking an illegal drug because u want to and are making a free choice in the face of warnings

Ok, I get where you are coming from.  I'm not saying that I should be allowed to smoke marijuana because it has medical value.  I'll admit when I smoke it, I'm doing it to get high.

What I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't have to justify their use by saying its for "medical purposes".  I disagree with you that marijuana has no medical value at all... I'm sure it truly helps some people.  However, if it was legal, you wouldn't need to debate whether or not it has medical value.  People who believe it does can go right ahead and smoke it.

[SLCPUNK]

People can smoke it all they want, my problem is when people claim it has medical VALUE, that it can help people - this is just untrue

There are so many drugs, legal by prescription, that claim to have medical value as well. Many of these claims are false. In fact, many (especially of the late) prove to cause more harm then good and eventually get pulled off the market.

If a drug decreases vomitting and increases appetite...does that not contain a value?

Define value.

[Izzy]

People can smoke it all they want, my problem is when people claim it has medical VALUE, that it can help people - this is just untrue

There are so many drugs, legal by prescription, that claim to have medical value as well. Many of these claims are false. In fact, many (especially of the late) prove to cause more harm then good and eventually get pulled off the market.

But surely two wrongs don't make a right?

These drugs need to be removed to

If a drug decreases vomitting and increases appetite...does that not contain a value?

Perhaps, but if it causes schizophrenia at the same time then probably not

Define value.

Ah, i can't define medical value - but then thats not my role

That role falls to the doctors of this world, and a majority would agree marijuana has no proven medial value.

Governments don't stop its usage because they are moivated by 'evil', they do so because the nations doctors who advise them largely agree that it has no proven benefit and has the potential to be doing much harm

When marijuana is proven to be safe and of much benefit i will be delighted to see it legalised

[SLCPUNK]

But surely two wrongs don't make a right?

Who says it is wrong? The side effects of the vicadin a took after my surgerie(s) are far worse (and addictive) then pot. I would not take oxycotin if prescribed to me, I'd rather go with something weaker and take the pain, then risk being addicted to that shit.

The side effects of viagra have recently shown to cause BLINDNESS. OK, and really, besides getting some wood, what is the real medical value of viagra? I mean...c'mon. There is none.


Perhaps, but if it causes schizophrenia at the same time then probably not

Who says it causes that?

I'd agree if you said cocaine causes people to become nutty, sure. But pot?


Ah, i can't define medical value - but then thats not my role

Well the question was kind of retorical (spelling?). It was meant to mean that it is all relative. I certainly don't see viagra as a medical breakthrough drug. But I can get a boner pretty good at the ripe old age of 34. However in another 30 yrs I may regard it as a miracle.

Same for pot. Like that Harvard doctor, whose son died of cancer. He did not see any value in pot, until he saw his son suffering via chemotherapy. Then the drug held a medical value because  it eased his sons pain and he was able to eat again.


That role falls to the doctors of this world, and a majority would agree marijuana has no proven medial value.

Would they? How do we know?

When marijuana is proven to be safe and of much benefit i will be delighted to see it legalised

Alcohol is not safe, yet socially acceptable.

Many prescription drugs are not safe, without a doubt.

I just don't see the danger in pot, especially compared to other drugs already on the market, that are much more powerful, addictive and dangerous.

[Hammy]

Marjuana may have it's dangers and making it legal would probably not be the best idea...although i would love to go in a shop and ask for 20 Marlboro Joints thing is there are worse things out there that are legal alcohol for instance.  A lot of side effects can come from supposed safe drugs, a friend of my mum's had her child immunised with some regular injections [for a holiday or to protect against some illness i'm not sure] anyway now that boy is pretty much a vegetable, as long as there are worse things out there that are legal marjuana's legisation would not be the end of the world, but rather than legalise it they should ban alot of stuff that's already legal.  Fact is i can get marjuana whenever i want so making it legal makes no difference to me anyway, and if it does cause scizophrenia then i guess the less people that smoke it the better...i'm just not one of those people

[Mal Brossard]

Son of a bitch.  When will this country ever learn?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050606/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_medical_marijuana_13

Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People

WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
 
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice     John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. At issue was whether the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer,     HIV and other serious illnesses.

In a dissent, Justice     Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice     Clarence Thomas.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

The case concerned two Californians, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General     John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.

Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.

[GnRNightrain]

Just as I would have predicted it would go.  I would have been shcoked if it had gone the other way.  However, I wouldnt have expected Scalia to concur with the majority.  I was definately disappointed with his opinion.

[BigCombo]

Marijuana was originally banned back in the 1930's b/c the govt. claimed it caused "reefer maddness" and had a muderous effect on people smoking it.? Gotta love that whole prohibition time period... 

[Nightfall]

And once again I'm so happy that i live in a country where it is allowed...even the docters can prescribe it to you and you can pick it up at a few Pharmacies. Home growing is also allowed (5 plants)...

Sure it's not going to be my first option of a painkiller but when i get immune for even more painkillers or when i have to take other medications to suppress sideaffects of the main medication then i might reconsider....hopefully for me it won't come this far.

If ppl really want this drug to be banned...then they should also start a crusade about banning Alcohol and Cigarettes.