Good point. I find the medical uses highly suspect. There is nothing IMO that the natural version doesn't do that a pill most likely won't do better - except Pharm makes no money from that.
Originally Posted by FranklyNever did the Eagle lose so much time as the day he submitted to learn from the Crow.
My grandmother is in her late 80s now, and has chronic pain from arthritis. She gets crippling joint problems regularly. She has been rotating through different types of heavy painkillers for several years now. Percocet, codine, oxycontin, and many others. The problem is that the drugs all have side effects that are really scary. Loss of appetite, severe confusion, nausea, are all things that she has to deal with to get rid of her pain. We've taken my grandma to several doctors now, and they have all indicated that medicinal marijuana would likely be a better painkiller with fewer side effects for her. She'll likely start out on it soon.
If allowing medical marijuana helps one old lady deal with pain, I could care less about the numbers of people who are abusing the system to get high. It's still doing net good. I completely support medicinal marijuana.
Think about this: IT IS A PLANT THAT GROWS IN THE GROUND
Saying it doesn't hurt other people than the users, is wrong. Like alcohol, you can't drive a straight line while on it. You can't make right decisions easily while on it. Not to mention almost all the sellers/growers are on it themselves. They sell to anyone with money. I see kids from local elementary schools getting to it easy. 3 sides of my property are facing large, well developed farms. The one behind me has an underground growing area so they can regulate the temperature. Cancer patients who need an appetite, however, should be allowed to have it. Con.
Did I mention that IT IS A PLANT THAT GROWS IN THE GROUND?
Awesome idea to legislate that.
While I don't use it myself, I have no problem with recreational marijuana use in and of itself. I draw no distinction between it and the recreational uses of other drugs like alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine (to avoid comment on the levels of health risk and impairment from using any of those substances; a scale in which THC falls somewhere in between).
The thing that prohibition taught us is that people are going to get ****ed up whether it is legal or not. It doesn't take a genius to apply that fact to rise and fall of crime vis a vis the presence of said prohibition.
The one legitimate obstacle I see in front of the legalization movement is the lack of timely and adequate testing of impairment, like we have for alcohol impairment at, say, a traffic stop. If you get pulled over on suspicion of impaired driving, there is no reliable test that the police officer can give you to prove that you are, at that moment, high.
If there was a THC equivalent to a breathalyzer test, I think law enforcement would be more likely to endorse the revision of marijuana legislation.
Marijuana is a valuable medicine. It has helped many cancer patients cope with both the effects of chemotherapy and the effects of cancer itself.
Calling it Medical Marijuana is a step towards getting it re-legalized. I'm all for it.
I've known some people who probably smoke to much herb, but I don't know anyone who has actually been harmed by marijuana - and I know some who definitely have been helped.
Louis Armstrong smoked it almost every day. Still wailed on that trumpet. He saw it in a totally positive light.
Marijuana is a completely different story.
If I did that with marijuana, it would be illegal.
Tobacco is not legislated with regard to whether it's legal or not.
It's age restricted, and taxed to hell, none of which I like, but I understand at least.
I think the U.S. Congress should approach marijuana the same way - "we can decide to age restrict this, or tax the hell out of it, but it is simply not our place to tell citizens that they cannot consume something that grows in the ground."
Lumbering dinosaur (what's a master volume control?)