WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court refused to sanction the use of marijuana for medical purposes, dashing the hopes of thousands of US patients using the substance for pain relief.
By a vote of six to three, the US high court refused to allow residents in 10 states to use the drug with a doctor's permission and under highly regulated conditions.
There are public concerns that we all must abide by. The issues that you bring up involve one person directly affecting another in a way they might not want. I don't see how someone smothering a newborn or "renting someone" is the same as 2 people of the same sex getting married. You are trying to compare apples to oranges.
There are public concerns that we all must abide by. The issues that you bring up involve one person directly affecting another in a way they might not want. I don't see how someone smothering a newborn or "renting someone" is the same as 2 people of the same sex getting married. You are trying to compare apples to oranges.
No I'm not. These are all subjective moral concerns that society must agree upon. But, I'm not going to engage in a debate about them that would most likely be fruitless. I believe that abortion is a grave wrong and should be illegal. Many people disagree. What can I say, except that I'm glad it was illegal in 1957 when I was conceived and surrendered for adoption.:)
As far a same-sex unions, my belief is that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely and merely grant civil unions, which would provide legal rights for property, childrearing and inheritance etc. Even people in non-sexual relationships would be allowed to enter into them. Every person would be allowed only one of them.
Did you know that in Poland and many other countries, one must get a civil wedding separately? The Church wedding must be separate. I think that's a good idea.:)
It is my understanding from the AP article that "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."
So this has to do with the dichotomy of a state law being different than a federal law. "Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana." (AP).
Now, this was a closely watched case, "and it was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in 2003, and at issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana 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" . . . . . and that's what's interesting about this because there arguably is no interstate commerce in this.
So, it is a bit more complicated than right-wingers trying to take away medical pot . . . .
well i don't know how the marriage thing got into this thread...if you want to know the truth i picked a lemon and he was about as opposite as you can get
as for the smoking mj i can see every day harm that comes from alcohol and from smoking i can't see why anyone would want to combine the effect of both
well i don't know how the marriage thing got into this thread...if you want to know the truth i picked a lemon and he was about as opposite as you can get
as for the smoking mj i can see every day harm that comes from alcohol and from smoking i can't see why anyone would want to combine the effect of both
Uh, a little punctuation and capitalization might improve this post...
I agree that the problem is with the law. Thats why I stated that in my initial post. The court did their job in intrepreting that law. However, it was the Bush administration's people that brought this case up. Hopefully, the law will be changed to reflect the science behind medical marijuana use.
About two years ago or so there was a gentleman in Oakland, California who was growing medicinal mj. He had the blessing of the state, law enforcement, the doctors who prescribed marijuana, his neighbors and so on. He was vigilant in making sure everything he did was okay with the state and local laws. This guy did it out of the kindness of his heart. There was absolutely nothing in it for him except helping someone he knew who was sick and who inspired him to start his charitable "farm." He made no money.
In a heartbeat and against pleas from the state, local law enforcement, the mayors of a couple of cities and local docs and citizens, the feds raided his place, destroyed his crop, arrested him and he ended up in jail. I know that there was a great threat of him spending years in jail for comitting a felony.
Suddenly the patients who relied upon his providing them with their perscription marijuana were SOL. The feds didn't give a rats azz. They made him out to be a federal criminal. He vowed to fight all the charges and to sart growing again. Honestly I don't know what ever became of his situation. I wish I could remember his name. His determination to help others was truely an inspiration.
I wonder if his case is related to this ruling in any way?
Under the current federal legislation and the Bush administration this guy would fry. Why? I don't understand the thinking behind this except that the big drug companies might feel intruded upon and the Bush administration wants to keep them happy. What else could it be? There was no interstate commerce. There wasn't commerce period. The only money that exchanged hands was small patient donations to keep this guy's "business" going. This was a guy who was LEGALLY, according to the state of CA, supplying legally perscribed medicine to patients.
btw Hodge, I appreciate what you're saying and I agree with you 100%.
The drug companies are a huge, vested interest that contribute a ton of money, probably to both parties actually. Our whole political system is corrupt in my opinion. I voted for Nadar in the last election out of utter disgust.:angryfire :barf01:
Not nice.
:barf01:
Hodge
116 Posts
There are public concerns that we all must abide by. The issues that you bring up involve one person directly affecting another in a way they might not want. I don't see how someone smothering a newborn or "renting someone" is the same as 2 people of the same sex getting married. You are trying to compare apples to oranges.