Decriminalize pot, pit it under FDA regulations like ciggies and booze. Let the government tax it like ciggies and booze... instant cash cow.
Would put some corrupt DEA people out of business but hey, theres always Afghani opium fields.
The seeming cooperation of many different hostile factions in the current tsunami crisis got me to wondering what it would take for all of us here to present a united front?
What would it take for Sully & bribite to stand side by side?
Could you imagine GOPGeezer and bananajoe joining forces?
Is there ANYTHING that might cause MasterZed & funtime69 to be willing to take a bullet for each other?
What would it take? A natural disaster like the tsunami? Obviously not, its not global enough to affect EVERYBODY. An alien invasion? (remember Independence Day?) The End of The World? Armageddon?
Or is the reality that we are so fractured and polarized by our own arrogantly self-deluded beliefs that we have lost any chance at unity and peaceful coexistence and where even the most closely knit families are torn apart by petty differences?
Thanks for letting me rant. Its been a rough day.
A clear and present danger like muslim Terrorism. Except that we might seek differeing solutions...
... governments should quit making providers and hobbyists "outlaws"?
Drug laws as constituted today are a drain on law enforcement and the economy. Should we call it quits on the war on drugs?
Difficult as these decisions are, the government ought to stay out of private medical decisions unless there is a VERY compelling social interest. This would mean
-- no legislation on medical pot
-- no legislation criminalizing assisted suicide for terminally ill people
There are lots of things that probably need to be negotiated about abortion. I lean very strongly to the view that the government should never be involved. However, there are people with compelling arguments in the middle that need to be discussed.
-- Modified on 1/11/2005 8:41:21 AM
re: Medical Pot usage. A couple points I'd like clarified. Marijuana influences peopels behavior/thought patterns. Otherwise, why would it also be a recreational drug. That being said, (I personally find the smell of the stuff to be revolting), I would accept the argument that it is no more narcotic than alcohol in its effects.
We had the prohibition experiment, we took a legal substance and tried to make it illegal-that failed miserably. There are many who are trying to outlaw tobacco products-which is doomed to ulitmate failure as well. Both of these products are "supposed" to be controlled as to who has access and when people are supposed to use them. You're supposed to be over 16/18 to buy cigarettes-yet we see increasing numbers of teen smokers. You are supposed to be 18/21 to consume alcohol, and not operate a vehicle while under the influence-yet we have the problems with teen drinking and drunk driving accidents .
So my question, how can you possibly regulate medical pot usage to strictly medicinal needs? The answer is simple, you can't. The argument about personal business only holds up when people accept personal responsibility. We should have learned the lessons from cigarettes and booze, when it comes to personal pleasures people have no desire to act responsibly.
Decriminalize pot, pit it under FDA regulations like ciggies and booze. Let the government tax it like ciggies and booze... instant cash cow.
Would put some corrupt DEA people out of business but hey, theres always Afghani opium fields.
... Doctors could perscribe pot for side effects of Chemo. Apparently it works well. It certainly wouldn't stop other uses. It is an intermediate step to more legalization.
Tobacco can't be sold to children. People can't leagally drink and drive. I'm not concerned with those issues. I am concerned with laws about possession and sale of pot.
At one time, it was believed that tobacco and alcohol were harmless or even served some benefit. Now we learn the opposite. However, these have been legalized and are available. In an effort to minimize the negative effects/impact-laws have been passed to "protect" society. And the laws about underage smoking & drinking, as well as the ban on drinking & driving are beneficial to the majority of society. Consider the catastrophic damage that occurs from accidents caused by drunk drivers. The allegations of cancer caused by second hand smoke, etc........
Yet, even with the well intentioned legalities that attempt to REGULATE legal items, we still have drunk drivers, we still have underage drinkers and underage smokers.
Now the issue of "medical use" for pot. If we cannot control the illegal aspects of leagal substances (i.e.- stop drunk driving, stop the teen/pre-teen smoking, how about the prsecription drug abuse), how can you reasonably expect that medical pot will be restricted to strictly medicinal use. And if you put forward the argument that it doesn't matter, how stringent will the laws be about recreational use and driving under the influence, peopel who operate or work in safety environments who might "recreationally dabble" versus the long term effects?
I don't want to get into a mass transit (plane, bus, train, etc.) and wonder if the person driving/flying was "toking up" the night before.
Prove that the effects are comparable to Nitrous Oxide, and you can have it.
... uses of these substances. I suspect you agree with that.
Recreational Drugs are hardly new and their effects (medically) are pretty well understood. I wouldn't want people to drive cars or planes while high and this can be caught by medical tests.
Are you saying something here that isn't countered by the argument above?
and the "responsible" adult population could use these as they do their other vices like booze & cigs. I mean really, the medical use of dope is the baby step certain groups of people want the country to take. Once this is established, they will demand one more step toward the egde, then another and so on. What the hell, open the gates right now and decriminalize everything! I'm not kidding. The only catch, if you fuck yourself and ruin your life, you lose...no safety net, no handouts. Buy them a one way ticket to Amsterdam or Montreal.
... things evryone would agree on to follow the original thread.
Wow- an cogent post!!!!??!! Credit where it is due.
Treating all this stuff like medical issues is the only way that makes sense. The regulatory taxes etc. would pay off- as would the ability of cops to go after real crime. Although the GOP would be introuble as the actual prosecution of white collar crime might put too high a percentage of its supporters in the pokey!
I take less issue with this one, because I've had terminally ill family members and I can relate to the pain.
However, I ask this:
who decides what qualifies as a terminal illness and who decides when to pull the plug?
Consider the case of the woman in Florida - she's comatose, alleged to be vegetative. Her husband wants to pull the plug, but you have to wonder about his real motives-since he's been playing around on the side. Her parents want to keep her alive.
Is she suffering from a terminal illness? Before you say yes because she is incapable of caring for herself, consider two other people - Christopher Reeves and Dr. Stephen Hawking. Neither of them are/were self caring, yet they made significant contributions in their respective fields.
Both Reeves and Hawking were/are mentally fully aware, functional and (with technological aid) able to communicate their thoughts to others. The tragic case of the woman in Florida is different because she is in a vegetative comatose state. She's brain dead.
... I have my own opinions on this (especially the case in Fl). There I think the law was very clear before the gov decided to step in (husband made the medical decisions). Neither Hawkings or Reeves expressed any wish to die. They certainly could have, and accomplished it.
who establishes the baseline criteria?
I accept that someone who has an incurable and painfull disease (like cancer or some of the neuro-muscular stuff, etc) yet is in full possesion of their mental capacities should be allowed the choice.
My point with the other three was that they all suffered from seriously debilitating accidents/injuries/diseases and at some point were unable to make rational decisions. Either through unconsciousness or until they learned alternative methods of communication. Specifically:
In FL, we only have some assurances form the husband that his wife wanted to die. We also have her parents saying otherwise. Look at motivatiosn, the husband's credibility is suspect (another woman, a chld by that woman). Yet he might very well be correct. The woman is comatose, although there have been rare occasions when people have recovered (I suspect not in this case).
Chris Reeves, immediately after the accident, when they had him on life support, WAS HE able to make a reasonable decision about life or death? My understanding is that for several months post accident, he was seriously depressed and DID attempt suicide. Later, he found a new purpose and beagn to relish life again.
Dr. Hawking-has suffered since birth. Had his parents decided to "spare him any pain", we would have lost a brilliant mind.
The argument about assisted suicide should not be about morality of the act, all debate should center around how the decision is made and who sets the rules.
... there were a long series of posts about the Fl Case. I was very involved. I'm reasonably sure you don't have all your facts straight on the husband. In any case, the Florida law up to that point was clear on who gets to make medical decisions --- it's the husband.
Regardless of how uncomfortable it makes me feel (I assume it makes you uncomfortable too), I hesitate to grant the state ANY right to get between a patient and his caregivers about end of life decisions. If there are differences in the family and hard questions, that is what courts are for.
I certainly respect your points however.