View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Skylace Admin

Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: You win some you lose some |
|
|
|
|
The House rejected a bill to legalize the medical use of marijuana Thursday on a 33-36 vote, effectively killing the measure for the year.
The measure previously had passed the Senate and Governor Richardson had expressed support for it.
The proposal would have allowed the use of marijuana for pain or other symptoms of debilitating illnesses such as cancer, glaucoma, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, HIV-AIDS and certain spinal cord injuries
Supporters say marijuana could help patients who don’t respond to other treatment, such as an individual who suffers from nausea because of treatments for the cancer.
Opponents dispute the medical value of marijuana and warn that legalizing marijuana would send the wrong message to children about the use of drugs.
___________
At least the cockfighting should be going away!  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
IRiSHMaFIA Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
The cockfighting ban is a positive thing as it's cruelty to animals, but not letting this bill go through is cruelty to humans.
A lot of people with HIV-AIDS and other illnesses find marijuana a great help in dealing with pain and comfort, and I find it ignorant for these square headed fatcat politicians to sit on their heinie's in the senate passing and rejecting bills that tell people what they can and cannot do to make their lives a bit more bearable.
If their family members or themselves were in the same situation you can bet they'd be voting differently....same as stem cell research. It seems it has to effect them personally before they get a clue as to what's really is the right thing to do. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eefanincan Admin

Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Medical marijuana can work if the program is done properly, with the proper regulations in place. We've had it in Canada for awhile and you have to have special permission from the doctor, guidelines etc. But from what I understand, it's a lot of hassle and some people find it easier to deal with the pain.
What it comes down to is that people will find their own marijuana and use it in their own ways. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
girldorksrule Arrrrrrr...scurvy!

Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Location: Walkin' the plank
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Incidentally, it is still illegal by federal statute, so it wouldn't have mattered if it had passed on the state level or not. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
faceless admin

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
girldorksrule wrote: | Incidentally, it is still illegal by federal statute, so it wouldn't have mattered if it had passed on the state level or not. |
would it need a federal officer (not a local cop) to make the arrest if the state law said it was ok? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Skylace Admin

Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
faceless wrote: | girldorksrule wrote: | Incidentally, it is still illegal by federal statute, so it wouldn't have mattered if it had passed on the state level or not. |
would it need a federal officer (not a local cop) to make the arrest if the state law said it was ok? |
THIS PAST MAY, THE SUPREME COURT DELIVERED unwelcome news to those people who use marijuana to reduce severe pain and nausea. The justices ruled unanimously that the federal drug law that classifies marijuana as an illegal drug still stands--and that exceptions can't be made for states that allow distribution of the plant for medicinal use.
The federal government's strict marijuana policy is not new, but this was the first time that medical marijuana proponents have gone head to head with federal drug laws. The proponents had hoped that a Supreme Court win using medical necessity as their legal defense would force the federal government to realign its policy with California's less restrictive policy, allowing people with AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis to use marijuana with a doctor's permission.
Since 1996, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have passed laws to let sick people who qualify use marijuana. These laws have always been at odds with federal drug policy. However, the ailing folks who use the drug have been safe because states don't have to enforce federal drug laws and the feds lack the resources to pursue cases.
But large-scale marijuana distribution centers like the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (OCBC) in Oakland, Calif., have attracted the feds' attention. In 1998, federal prosecutors filed a court order prohibiting OCBC and five other marijuana distribution centers from supplying the plant to patients, a case which led to the May Supreme Court hearing. Because the focus of the court order was so narrow--directed at distribution centers only--state laws will still protect those patients who are referred by their doctors.
This ruling does not overturn existing state laws, says Chuck Thomas, director of communications at the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project. If convinced that medical marijuana is a valid treatment, states can still pass favorable marijuana laws and people can still lobby Congress to change its classification of marijuana.
Jeff Jones, executive director of OCBC, says he's standing behind his belief in medical marijuana. "We feel that this was round one and that there are many more rounds to go." |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pirtybirdy 'Native New Yorker'

Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Location: FL USA
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I don't think the feds have the manpower, money, or time to go after loads of individuals, nor do I think they would want to deal with the wrath of the people if they start picking on a terminally ill patient who is just trying to die without suffering so needlessly. The feds can pick on an individual in those states and drag them through court, and they may have attempted to do so, but I don't think it's common. At least I haven't heard so in the news. Anyone have any statistics on this? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
girldorksrule Arrrrrrr...scurvy!

Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Location: Walkin' the plank
|
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Feds aren't going to pick on anyone other than major dealers, who are probably dealing other things as well. Nor are local cops likely to go after anyone with a dime bag when they have bigger fish to catch. My point was the state law was null and void until the federal laws change. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fritz

Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Location: Florida
|
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Fu*k the Feds.They eat shit anyway.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
IRiSHMaFIA Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
|
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
fritz wrote: | Fu*k the Feds.They eat shit anyway.  |
Oh my I love it when you talk dirty  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eefanincan Admin

Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
fritz wrote: | Fu*k the Feds.They eat shit anyway.  |
You always hit the nail on the head!  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|