Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
Let Teabaggers be Teabaggers.[/CENTER]
now how do you know that lady is a teabagger?.....there is a 50% chance she could be as far left as you are.....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let Teabaggers be Teabaggers.[/CENTER]
I am not a Doctor, but I am a third year medical student, so at this point there is a high probability that I will be a doctor and that will be my attitude. I didn't go into medicine to become a pot dealer nor did I go into medicine to practice bad prescription practices and become someone's candyman and give patients everything they want.
I'd be glad to look at any peer-reviewed literature you have that supports MJ for the vast indications it's currently prescribed for.
Medicine should be evidence based. There isn't a lot of evidence supporting the indications for MJ for much of anything. So, unless someone has a terminal condition and there isn't the time/luxury to explore better options, then it's tough shit.
The people who think MJ is some sort of miracle drug are moronic. Of course getting stoned is going to keep you from being anxious. Is going through life stoned a better alternative?
No.
I used to support medicinal MJ, but after seeing what happened in California I am skeptical now.
Just legalize it so I can avoid the awkward "I am sorry, you aren't getting Marijuania for your ingrown toenail" conversations.
the biggest two groups fighting against this type of legislation are:
1) drug cartels
2) big government politicians and their minions
does that tell you anything?
If you are not sure of your position it means you harbor conflicting thoughts on the issue, so I have two questions for you:I understand some of you want to see it legalized. Honestly, I am not sure what my position is on it anymore.
This happens to be very important issue for a number of reasons, first of which is legalizing marijuana will be a significant step in the direction of eliminating a major waste of federal funds and calling public attention to one of the most immoral and destructive aspects of the contemporary federal government, the wholly counterproductive War On Drugs.But it seems that focusing on this when there are so many other important issues out there, is kind of short sighted. What does it matter if marijuana is legalized if we are unemployed, have no control over our health care, have to pay $8 Gasoline, and have widespread corruption through the system?
In the same way as there are laws against moonshining there will be laws against growing your own marijuana. But while that won't stop some of the same people who are growing it now the percentage of those who risk the consequences will be predictably small.I get the legalization part, and eagerly await the end of corruption associated with the wod. I don't get the enthusiasm from the same folks for regulation and taxation once it is legal. The stuff will grow wild with next to no effort and do you want the tax man in your back yard garden?
What you're saying is quite valid. But everything depends on how the public reacts to the fed demonstrating contempt for the will of the People. I'm sure the DEA bastards will assert themselves, but what happens next will tell the tale.Only dreamers think this will become law, and I am not a dreamer, despite being a libertarian who thinks that the feds do not have constitutional authority to even pass drug laws.
You're not alone in questioning this curious discrepancy. But there is a reasonable justification for decriminalizing rather than legalizing marijuana.Why support decriminalization and not legalization. I have never understood that stance as it seems a half assed way of doing things.[...]
What you're saying is quite valid. But everything depends on how the public reacts to the fed demonstrating contempt for the will of the People. I'm sure the DEA bastards will assert themselves, but what happens next will tell the tale.Only dreamers think this will become law, and I am not a dreamer, despite being a libertarian who thinks that the feds do not have constitutional authority to even pass drug laws.
The fact that this Proposition appears to be strongly supported by the public means the people of California are fed up with the oppressive pot laws. So maybe a showdown will be a good thing in the end.
Aren't you assuming that everyone who favors legalization of marijuana is a "pothead?" And what exactly is a "pothead," anyway?What you're saying is quite valid. But everything depends on how the public reacts to the fed demonstrating contempt for the will of the People. I'm sure the DEA bastards will assert themselves, but what happens next will tell the tale.Only dreamers think this will become law, and I am not a dreamer, despite being a libertarian who thinks that the feds do not have constitutional authority to even pass drug laws.
The fact that this Proposition appears to be strongly supported by the public means the people of California are fed up with the oppressive pot laws. So maybe a showdown will be a good thing in the end.
Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.
You're not alone in questioning this curious discrepancy. But there is a reasonable justification for decriminalizing rather than legalizing marijuana.Why support decriminalization and not legalization. I have never understood that stance as it seems a half assed way of doing things.[...]
Legalizing marijuana is a complicated and relatively indelible action. To recriminalize it would require more complicated, time-consuming legislation. But decriminalization requires little more than a formalized declaration by an attorney general which suspends or modifies prosecution for certain aspects of an illegal activity but leaves the laws intact.
For example, marijuana was somewhat decriminalized throughout the sixties and seventies in New York City. Possession of up to 55 grams (two ounces) was a summons offense for which the punishment was a $25 fine, but public "trafficking" or use was a misdemeanor for which one could be arrested and possibly serve some jail time.
Possession of large quantities or distribution to minors remained serious offenses and were really the only marijuana offenses that the police would bother with. The attitude in the ranks was the bosses didn't want to see anyone coming off post with some "bullshit marijuana collars."
There were certain areas in the City, such as Tompkins Square Park, where one could buy an ounce of pretty good weed for around $30, or a single "fatty" for a dollar, and the cops looked the other way provided the dealers remained respectfully discreet. Also, pot was grown in backyards, on brownstone rooftop gardens, on apartment terraces -- even in window boxes. E.J. Korvette's department stores carried bongs and pipe screens in their smoke shops and there were head shops all over the place.
All of that ended in 1981 when the corrupt and demented sonofabitch, Ronald Reagan, decided to escalate Nixon's war on drugs to accomodate his corporate sponsors. The decriminalized marijuana laws in New York City were recriminalized with a stroke of the District Attorney's pen and were made infinitely more severe as the contingency for receiving federal drug war money.
If Obama was on the level and if he had any balls he would turn the clock back on marijuana to 1980 for the entire United States. And a good reason for doing that is the fact that the decriminalized status of marijuana throughout the 60s and 70s produced absolutely no identifiable problems but did in fact save New York City a lot of money by eliminating wasteful law enforcement activites.
Aren't you assuming that everyone who favors legalization of marijuana is a "pothead?" And what exactly is a "pothead," anyway?What you're saying is quite valid. But everything depends on how the public reacts to the fed demonstrating contempt for the will of the People. I'm sure the DEA bastards will assert themselves, but what happens next will tell the tale.
The fact that this Proposition appears to be strongly supported by the public means the people of California are fed up with the oppressive pot laws. So maybe a showdown will be a good thing in the end.
Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.
Also, give some thought to the fact that there are several aspects to legalized marijuana that will benefit all citizens, not only those who enjoy using it.
I agree with you -- and pardon me if I conveyed the wrong impression.That is not much of a benefit if you ask me. It has been shown several times and places that the probation of MJ is not good or even effective and the legalization would be a good thing. I do not believe that we need a reset option and actually see the fact that you can't recriminalize a substance that you already legalized easily as a reason to support legalization. That way there is little chance of a zealot overturning the law. I have a problem with a drug that is not regulated for the simple safety issue. I spoke of that in my last post. Keeping the sale and distribution of pot illegal keeps all the major problems that illegal substances carry and gives us little more than reducing the cost of enforcement by a small margin. Legalizing it reduces enforcement to virtually zero, more than recovers that in taxes and allows the product to be safely regulated and standardized. Just look at the model that Holland has given us, it works very well there.
and you are absoulutly right about that Geau.....lots of abuse.....that needs to be addressed....my wife can qualify....she is an epilleptic who gets frequent migraines.....and Pot takes care of her condition better than anything her Neurologist gives her....and she told him this, he told her....you know i have been told this by other patients.....if you can get it .....you got my blessing......use what works.....
What do you believe are good reasons to legalize marijuana.
What do you believe are good reasons to not legalize marijuana.
Aren't you assuming that everyone who favors legalization of marijuana is a "pothead?" And what exactly is a "pothead," anyway?What you're saying is quite valid. But everything depends on how the public reacts to the fed demonstrating contempt for the will of the People. I'm sure the DEA bastards will assert themselves, but what happens next will tell the tale.
The fact that this Proposition appears to be strongly supported by the public means the people of California are fed up with the oppressive pot laws. So maybe a showdown will be a good thing in the end.
Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.
Also, give some thought to the fact that there are several aspects to legalized marijuana that will benefit all citizens, not only those who enjoy using it.
Jokes? What jokes?If you read my posts you would see I support the legalization of pot, and all other drugs. Maybe you should lighten up and laugh at the jokes that are right in front of you instead of assuming you are the only person with a brain.
If that's what you think of as a joke I don't get it. So, again, I'd like to know what the term, "pothead," means. I hear it enough that it's become rather annoying so I thought I'd ask. And if I didn't think you have a brain, too, I wouldn't bother.Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.
Jokes? What jokes?If you read my posts you would see I support the legalization of pot, and all other drugs. Maybe you should lighten up and laugh at the jokes that are right in front of you instead of assuming you are the only person with a brain.
If that's what you think of as a joke I don't get it. So, again, I'd like to know what the term, "pothead," means. I hear it enough that it's become rather annoying so I thought I'd ask. And if I didn't think you have a brain, too, I wouldn't bother.Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.
Jokes? What jokes?If you read my posts you would see I support the legalization of pot, and all other drugs. Maybe you should lighten up and laugh at the jokes that are right in front of you instead of assuming you are the only person with a brain.
If that's what you think of as a joke I don't get it. So, again, I'd like to know what the term, "pothead," means. I hear it enough that it's become rather annoying so I thought I'd ask. And if I didn't think you have a brain, too, I wouldn't bother.Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.