Forgive my failure to notice the subjunctive. I really didn't catch the fact that we had switched from an argument about reality to an argument about how you think things would have been, if not for medical cannabis advocates. I was still thinking about this statement, in other words:
Supreme Court to weigh medical marijuana laws
- Thread starter MicroBalrog
- Start date
Forgive my failure to notice the subjunctive. I really didn't catch the fact that we had switched from an argument about reality to an argument about how you think things would have been, if not for medical cannabis advocates. I was still thinking about this statement, in other words:
Fred Hansen
New member
Language can get tricky that way. Just as absurd medical marijuana laws whose real purpose was never about medicine in the first place can be. Tell me, since it is going to be important that the patient smoke to their own proper dosage, how many bales or truckloads should they be allowed? Will they need to have their prescription on them? Or can it simply be affixed to the side of the baggie or bong?
As I said if people want to argue against the prohibition of a weed they will get little to no argument from me. I have no problem with people being able to smoke the stuff - aside from the minor irritation of how stupid it is - I'm just asking that they don't blow smoke up my pantaloons by calling it "medical".
Hehe... I said smoke... pot... smoke... get it?
Pantaloons
I love that word, (& the women who wear 'em!
)
This varies from county to county. Where I live, one can keep six plants with each legal user.
One is advised to keep the original document in a safe place at home, & a copy on their person.
Stupid is a somewhat nebulous & overapplied word. I know many very bright people who smoke it. They are graduate students, successful lawyers, & yes, also some slackers. I couldn't make any apt generalizations about their intellects.
I will continue to be straight with you, Fred; you can count on it.
I love that word, (& the women who wear 'em!
) This varies from county to county. Where I live, one can keep six plants with each legal user.
One is advised to keep the original document in a safe place at home, & a copy on their person.
Stupid is a somewhat nebulous & overapplied word. I know many very bright people who smoke it. They are graduate students, successful lawyers, & yes, also some slackers. I couldn't make any apt generalizations about their intellects.
I will continue to be straight with you, Fred; you can count on it.
Fred Hansen
New member
Who doesn't?
My subjective experience is that the bright people smoking it are far outweighed by the imbeciles who do. That's all. YMMV and all that jazz.
I'm just tired of hearing about the harmless nature of it when I have friends who have killed other friends (car accidents) while doped up, and have a beloved member of my family utterly destroying what had promised to be an extraordinary life with it. Again, YMMV.
So while I agree that many if not most people - let's say born post 1960 - know many very bright people who smoke it, I do not agree that those handful of bright people outweigh the great hordes of unwashed that I find to be (as I put in another thread here some time ago) shockingly stupid and painfully dull. [disclaimer]YMMV[/disclaimer]
So in conclusion let me state once more for the record that I find the "medical" marijuana issue to be a dodge, and that since I don't like that sort of phony crap when gun grabbing types do it (assault weapons/Saturday Night Specials/other euphamistic garbage), I don't like it here either.
Folks who oppose the prohibition have my grudging support. The folks with the melodrama about the needs of Puffy the Tumor Boy make me want to wretch. What's that you say? There is a prescription cure for my nausea? Dude! Pass the fatty.
Oops! Not gonna work! :barf: I'm done.
Bales or truckloads? Are you implying that after all these thousands of years with millions of humans using this plant, we can't get a better idea of dosage amounts than that? That's just too ridiculous to bother with a response. Almost like the rest of the dosage argument, which I notice you didn't answer.
Do you have to carry your prescription around if you're on Lortab or Valium or Hillbilly Heroin or any of the other psychoactive prescription drugs which are much more dangerous than cannabis?
Fred Hansen
New member
Honest to God I wouldn't know. I avoid drugs stronger than aspirin like the plague.
It would seem that since this prescription would allow a person to commit what might otherwise be considered a crime that it would be nice if someone cleared the issue up a little no?
To begin with let's not make believe that the plants available to today's consumer are on a par with those available even 20 years ago, much less "thousands of years". We're all adults here.
You were the one who pointed out that the beauty of it all is that the patient finds their own unquantifiable "right" dosage. So now who is this "we" that gets interjected between the patient and his sacred herbal remedy?
IronGeek said:
I've seen (mature) dope plants 15 feet tall, and (mature) dope plants 15 inches tall. One could harvest as much as 10+ times the weight of bud off the former plants, while perhaps gleaning as much as a few pounds off (lets say 6) of the latter plants in a given year. So let's say I'm the Sheriff and I drive by Puffy the Tumor Boy's house and I notice that his bubba-wide is dwarfed by six plants. That's not suspicious, oh no. Please.
Fred Hansen
New member
One of the symtoms one can exibit after smoking marijuana (and/or intruders for all I know) is the lack of ability to note and recall detailed information. Such as:
Again: Your Mileage May Vary
Hi Fred,
I don't know the prescription answer either. If we haven't had any need to clear it up so that it's common knowledge regarding dangerous and relatively more difficult to obtain psychoactive drugs, I don't really see the importance of clearing up the carrying requirements in this case.
I've seen the statistics on potency, and I'm starting to not believe them. Just based on personal experiences in the past and observations made by friends, my take is that potency went up dramatically during the late 1970s and th 1980s, but has reached a plateau since then. Also, quality on the black market varies widely, with much of what's out there today being far less potent than what I was smoking in the 1980s.
Perhaps I should explain that we're more on the same page than you might suppose. I'm a longtime Libertarian, been arguing for the end of prohibition for much longer than medical pot has even been a significant political issue. Perhaps that contributes to my impression that it is prohibition, not the medical pot movement, which has hindered cannabis research.
In any case, my opinion is that the medical pot movement is a stepping stone, a path toward ending prohibition incrementally. You obviously disagree, but because of my opinion, I'm willing to tolerate and even advocate all kinds of restrictions that go along with medical status.
So, when I say that the patient finds the right dosage, I mean it in the same sense as is meant when the patient is using Lortab. My wife's hobby for a while was having knee surgeries. I think there were 7 in all, but I honestly lost count. Her doctor was one of those who was not afraid to prescribe lots of pain meds, and she's a person with a low resistance/tolerance to narcotics. The result? When the bottle of Lortab said take 1 or 2 every 4 to 6 hours as needed, she wound up finding that her right dosage was about half of the recommended minimum.
That's how they do it. It's not the system I'd design, but it's the system we have. If her doctor prescribed 10 times that amount, he'd have FDA breathing down his neck. There is a range which is considered appropriate by the government. I DO NOT approve of this. I see it causing all kinds of trouble for docs who try to treat patients with chronic pain, but that's the system we have. Similarly, we could have the government see that doctors did not prescribe two bales a week to any medical pot patients. We can get the "right" dosage closer than that, then let the patient fine-tune it from there. Just like we do with the more dangerous Lortab.
I don't know the prescription answer either. If we haven't had any need to clear it up so that it's common knowledge regarding dangerous and relatively more difficult to obtain psychoactive drugs, I don't really see the importance of clearing up the carrying requirements in this case.
I've seen the statistics on potency, and I'm starting to not believe them. Just based on personal experiences in the past and observations made by friends, my take is that potency went up dramatically during the late 1970s and th 1980s, but has reached a plateau since then. Also, quality on the black market varies widely, with much of what's out there today being far less potent than what I was smoking in the 1980s.
Perhaps I should explain that we're more on the same page than you might suppose. I'm a longtime Libertarian, been arguing for the end of prohibition for much longer than medical pot has even been a significant political issue. Perhaps that contributes to my impression that it is prohibition, not the medical pot movement, which has hindered cannabis research.
In any case, my opinion is that the medical pot movement is a stepping stone, a path toward ending prohibition incrementally. You obviously disagree, but because of my opinion, I'm willing to tolerate and even advocate all kinds of restrictions that go along with medical status.
So, when I say that the patient finds the right dosage, I mean it in the same sense as is meant when the patient is using Lortab. My wife's hobby for a while was having knee surgeries. I think there were 7 in all, but I honestly lost count. Her doctor was one of those who was not afraid to prescribe lots of pain meds, and she's a person with a low resistance/tolerance to narcotics. The result? When the bottle of Lortab said take 1 or 2 every 4 to 6 hours as needed, she wound up finding that her right dosage was about half of the recommended minimum.
That's how they do it. It's not the system I'd design, but it's the system we have. If her doctor prescribed 10 times that amount, he'd have FDA breathing down his neck. There is a range which is considered appropriate by the government. I DO NOT approve of this. I see it causing all kinds of trouble for docs who try to treat patients with chronic pain, but that's the system we have. Similarly, we could have the government see that doctors did not prescribe two bales a week to any medical pot patients. We can get the "right" dosage closer than that, then let the patient fine-tune it from there. Just like we do with the more dangerous Lortab.
Fred Hansen
New member
No need for it to be gun related in the Legal and Political forum.
publius42, I do think that we aren't very far apart on this issue either.
In terms of the potentcy issue I don't think it will be much longer before Cannabis sativa (and indica for that matter) become a genetically modified organism at which time the plant's potentcy will simply be up to the mad doctor in the smock. For that matter it probably won't be long before someone gene-splices a dandelion so they can harvest opium in days rather than months. By then all bets will be off anyway.
"
Tell me, since it is going to be important that the citizen use the right weapon for their own personal defense, how many bullets or magazines should they be allowed? Will they need to have their permit on them? Or can it simply be affixed to the side of the gun or house?
To me, liberty isn't about what the government is going to allow its citizens to do, it is about how much the citizenry will tolerate their government telling them what they can do.
Tell me, since it is going to be important that the citizen use the right weapon for their own personal defense, how many bullets or magazines should they be allowed? Will they need to have their permit on them? Or can it simply be affixed to the side of the gun or house?
To me, liberty isn't about what the government is going to allow its citizens to do, it is about how much the citizenry will tolerate their government telling them what they can do.
Fred Hansen
New member
Well you see, that would be the point of the argument against medical marijuana. It creates (under what can only be described as specious circumstances) a protected class of persons who may possess a drug that other lesser beings may not possess. To continue along the lines of the analogy you are making it would be akin to the idea that there should be (firearm) magazines that only law enforcement officers may possess, because as a special class it is safe for them to do so. While peons may not possess them, because as a lesser being it is not safe for them to do so.
Only in this case it is a little more absurd because in the making of the argument for medical marijuana the advocates tend to make claims that leave the realm of hard science and begin to delve into the realm of the cultural. Scientists don't generally (or at least they didn't used to) do that. Quantifying things, presenting clinical evidence and generally being able to support their findings with data was more at the mark. Now science seems influenced - if not driven by - agenda based activism.
I asked the questions about volumes and dosage rhetorically. Again, I did this because I find the argument itself specious, and I believe that at this point I have made my point about as clear as I can make it.
Obligatory disclaimer: Your Mileage May Vary... Feel free to disagree... Some settling occurs during shipping... Have a nice day... etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam... Did someone say there is a cure for nausea? Dave's not here man.
So, Fred, your problem is not so much with the medical pot movement as it is with the whole prescription system for controlling access to psychoactive substances. After all, my wife was in a special class of people who had permission to possess and take Lortabs, while a peon like me could only leave aspirin around in case I hurt myself (unless I swiped some of her extras, not that I would ever do such a thing).
Fred Hansen
New member
Not exactly publius42. My problem is with movements and activists with no... guts. The impetus behind "medical marijuana" comes not so much from the medical community as it does from the folks who want to see dope legalized. As I've said I see it as a phony route to dope legalization. That is to say they will eventually want to go from an argument that says "Hey! This stuff rocks when it comes to helping Puffy the Tumor Boy through his chemo for terminal cancer, therefore it's gotta be great to put on school kids cereal in the morning!" Helps with the A.D.H.D. don't you know.
OTOH people making the argument for prescriptions for Lortabs (I presume them to be a pain killer) are not going to subsequently argue that since lortabs work well for knee surgery, that everyone should take them for whatever ails them.
Some folks want dope to be legal because they claim it is totally harmless. I'm about halfway through what I can reasonably expect to be my lifetime, and I've done and seen a fair amount in that time. What I haven't seen is any evidence at all that pot, reefer, cheeba, etc. is harmless. If I ever do I'll be sure to find a way to let everyone (within reason) know. I'm not holding my breath though.
hehe I said breath... pot... breath holding... heehee
BTW did you get the handle Publius from Latin class?
OTOH people making the argument for prescriptions for Lortabs (I presume them to be a pain killer) are not going to subsequently argue that since lortabs work well for knee surgery, that everyone should take them for whatever ails them.
Some folks want dope to be legal because they claim it is totally harmless. I'm about halfway through what I can reasonably expect to be my lifetime, and I've done and seen a fair amount in that time. What I haven't seen is any evidence at all that pot, reefer, cheeba, etc. is harmless. If I ever do I'll be sure to find a way to let everyone (within reason) know. I'm not holding my breath though.
hehe I said breath... pot... breath holding... heehee
BTW did you get the handle Publius from Latin class?
Fred Hansen
New member
I see.
The reason I asked is becuase Publius was my student name in Latin class way back when. The teacher gve me the name (oddly enough) because of my keen interest in founding of America.
The reason I asked is becuase Publius was my student name in Latin class way back when. The teacher gve me the name (oddly enough) because of my keen interest in founding of America.
I would like to make the point that both Raisch and Stewart should be decided at the State level. Wickard v. Filburn was just plain wrong... And yes, the Supremes can be wrong: Dred Scott... anyone?
To construe the Commerce clause as reaching into things that are not interstate commerce, but possibly could be (especially if everybody does it) is nonsensical.
Not to mention that there are some recent rulings that tend to show that illegal substances can't be owned (no vested property rights), and therefore cannot be in commerce. To continue with the facade of Wickard, against these other rulings sets up several contradictions.
These are the real issues before the Court, but I really doubt that the Supremes will touch it. They will somehow narrowly construe that trade in unlawful substances to be commerce, even though if the substance is unlawful (hence, there can be no legal commerce). Once this is decided in Raisch v. Ashcroft, then it can be applied to 18 USC 922(o) in Stewart.
To construe the Commerce clause as reaching into things that are not interstate commerce, but possibly could be (especially if everybody does it) is nonsensical.
Not to mention that there are some recent rulings that tend to show that illegal substances can't be owned (no vested property rights), and therefore cannot be in commerce. To continue with the facade of Wickard, against these other rulings sets up several contradictions.
These are the real issues before the Court, but I really doubt that the Supremes will touch it. They will somehow narrowly construe that trade in unlawful substances to be commerce, even though if the substance is unlawful (hence, there can be no legal commerce). Once this is decided in Raisch v. Ashcroft, then it can be applied to 18 USC 922(o) in Stewart.