Discussion in 'Green Room' started by muzikool, Jun 6, 2005.
Hopefully this won't affect anyone here...
Now this is rediculous. I think they should legalize it and Tax the hell out of it. Give it the same restrictions as acohol. I feel the crime rate would go down if they did .. The affects of it are no diff than alcohol if you think about it ..
The affects are less worse then alcohol and it should be legal. I have done both and will have to say that alcohol is worse then weed. Pot doesn't make everything spin and all that like alcohol does which leads to crashing if your drunk driving and are drunk enough. I have always said that they should make it legal if they have alcohol legal. People that smoke pot are usually high for about 30 min to an hour if that and dont hardly ever leave from where they smoke at. Its usually you smoke with your buddies,laugh and eat for an hour then chill for a few min and then go off with your day or w/e. The people that are all big against pot usually have never had it and don't know how it truely affects them.
I say legalize it and bring back prohibition. How many people do you know that said "I got high last night with a bunch of friend and we had this big stupid fight about something. Anyway someone hit me in the face and broke my nose." When someone's high, they're easy to get along with. When they're drunk, it's kind of hit-and-miss.
I approve the judge's decision. They REFUSED to write law from the bench. They left lawmaking to the legislature, as it was designed to be, not forcing new laws to be created.
I've never understood this whole taking it for pain relief. I think that's crap - there's only so much pain the human body can take before you pass out, and there are numerous painkillers out there that can help.
I've had more injuries than anyone I know, and have never had anything more powerful than aspirin, even when I had a knife put through my hand and two holes put through my jaw bone, and I've never seen the necessity to have more. People who say they need it for pain are kidding themselves.
By the way: prescribing smoking as a medical solution is ridiculous.
Everyone has differing pain tolerances
- that's nothing. Ask any woman who has given birth.
how long has the medical system utilized narcotics for pain related problems? After surgeries...
Pot has a cultural association, and i think thats why it is so hard for it to be accepted by society.
The whole point of the decision, no matter what you feel about the morality pot usage, was that the judiciary wanted to send a clear message that they will not make laws, but merely enforce the existing ones.
o.k .. I had an uncle who was in the Army and had chrones desease, it was really bad. So bad to a point where he couldn't eat. Everytime he did he would end up throwing it back up. The doctors at Walter Reed Hospital, yes Walter Reed Hostpital prescribed him pin joints as a test to see if it would help him eat. I guess they were doing research on it at the time. When he took it he was able to eat and not worry about getting sick .. After he got his medical discharge because of the desease his doctors at the VA Hostpital where he went comtinued to give it to him .. So I guess it has some help as far as illnesses go ..
Most people that take pot for pain relief put it into tea, make cakes with it etc. You don't have to smoke it.
never understood why tobacco never took it under its wing and lobbied for it.. A money maker and your right tax the hell out of it like they do for cigs and alchole.
I am also glad that the court decided not to write law from the bench.
I don't understand what you mean, it seems to me they did make law from the bench...from the article;
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.
There is that angle, true, but I was referring to this...
Marijuana is illegal in the United States. The court did not re-write that law by making it legal for patients to take it upon prescription. Making it legal would have affected all 50 states.
What about the other states (10, I believe)? Was the marijuana prescribed there also grown in the same state? I'm asking because I don't know.
most perscription drugs are illegal...except by perscription...the bench is making law
Funny enough, the three dissenters to this ruling were O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas--the latter two being consistently the most conservative justices on most rulings.
I guess they were just showing their "activist judge" colors, weren't they?
I wouldn't consider that to be a sound analogy.
My view is that they are upholding law that already exists. There is a potential clash with the issue of interstate commerce, but referring to my previous question, were the other states producing their own marijuana?
Maybe I'm a screwed up conservative, but I just don't see what's so bad about marijuana. I would never use it, but I don't think it's any worse than alcohol. Pot is such a minor issue to me, since it just doesn't seem that bad.
It could be that it's not a liberal/conservative viewpoint, but rather what a person grew up thinking.