[orbsycli]

i just read an article:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ical_marijuana

so does this mean that the cannabis clubs are going to get raided? is this the government trying to act big and bad because it's completely lost the war on personal freedom...oops i mean war on drugs.

is this a pretty big deal in this history of drugs and government?

[Chacmool]

Does personal freedom include the right to ruin your life through irresponsible drug use?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by orbsycli

i just read an article:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ical_marijuana

so does this mean that the cannabis clubs are going to get raided? is this the government trying to act big and bad because it's completely lost the war on personal freedom...oops i mean war on drugs.

is this a pretty big deal in this history of drugs and government?

Yes, it means they could get raided. The gestapo now has a green light to throw it's weight around

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Chacmool

Does personal freedom include the right to ruin your life through irresponsible drug use?

Yes. Personal freedom should allow anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Once you are old enough to decide for yourself you should be allowed to do just that.

Then again, I don't particularly think that it's irresponsible for a chemo patient to use whatever helps to relieve them of their nausea, especially when a doctor has advised it. I also don't think it's particularly irresponsible for the glaucoma to try to relief the eye pressure that cause them such pain, especially when a doctor has advised it. I wonder which medical school those justices graduated from. They seem to think they know more about medicine than the doctors writing the prescriptions.

[Chacmool]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Yes. Personal freedom should allow anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Once you are old enough to decide for yourself you should be allowed to do just that.

Then again, I don't particularly think that it's irresponsible for a chemo patient to use whatever helps to relieve them of their nausea, especially when a doctor has advised it. I also don't think it's particularly irresponsible for the glaucoma to try to relief the eye pressure that cause them such pain, especially when a doctor has advised it. I wonder which medical school those justices graduated from. They seem to think they know more about medicine than the doctors writing the prescriptions.

Of course I don't want a cancer patient to suffer unnecessarily, but aren't there alternative painkillers that aren't addictive and illegal? Should all drugs be legalised if a useful medicinal application for them is found?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Chacmool

Of course I don't want a cancer patient to suffer unnecessarily, but aren't there alternative painkillers that aren't addictive and illegal?

In most, if not all cases, alternatives have been exhausted in an attempt to find something effective for these patients. Doctors usually suggest hemp as a last resort in the search for effective relief. If judges think they know better then they should open their own appointment books to see these patients. IMO, the court should not practice medicine.

Originally Posted by Chacmool

Should all drugs be legalised if a useful medicinal application for them is found?

IMO, yes. The war on drugs is a war that cannot and will not ever be won. It costs thousands fold to fight the war than what it would cost to just treat the abusers. All drugs should be legalized and the DEA should be shut down. It's simply throwing good money after bad.

[Chacmool]

Originally Posted by C1ay

In most, if not all cases, alternatives have been exhausted in an attempt to find something effective for these patients. Doctors usually suggest hemp as a last resort in the search for effective relief. If judges think they know better then they should open their own appointment books to see these patients. IMO, the court should not practice medicine.

It is the duty of the court to protect the interests and well-being of the citizens, and that includes medical cases as well. Also, there is a difference between using marijuana for medicinal and recreational purposes.

Originally Posted by C1ay

IMO, yes. The war on drugs is a war that cannot and will not ever be won. It costs thousands fold to fight the war than what it would cost to just treat the abusers. All drugs should be legalized and the DEA should be shut down. It's simply throwing good money after bad.

I disagree completely. The worldwide drug trade has far-reaching effects, and governments should continue their battle against it relentlessly. Drugs don't only affect the users directly; they also affect the lives of the people around them (I'm talking from experience here).

In addition, the money made from drugs can often be linked to illegal arms deals, which form the basis of many wars around the globe. The income generated through drug trafficking also makes some very evil people very powerful. And what about the social problems (prostitution, unwanted pregnancies, abandoned children, etc.) caused by drugs?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Chacmool

It is the duty of the court to protect the interests and well-being of the citizens, and that includes medical cases as well. Also, there is a difference between using marijuana for medicinal and recreational purposes.

Since when is a judge more qualified than a doctor to decide what is in the best interest of a patient medically? Many of the patients on chemo are specially advised and prescribed marijuana to help with their nausea and to increase their appetite for the sake of nutrition. IMO, any judge that circumvents a doctors treatment should be vulnerable to medical malpractice.

Originally Posted by Chacmool

In addition, the money made from drugs can often be linked to illegal arms deals, which form the basis of many wars around the globe. The income generated through drug trafficking also makes some very evil people very powerful. And what about the social problems (prostitution, unwanted pregnancies, abandoned children, etc.) caused by drugs?

In a legalized scenario there is no money trail from the drug trade. Prices would plummet as the black market dried up. This would effectively remove it as a source of income for those that would use that money for other illicit activities.

[Chacmool]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Since when is a judge more qualified than a doctor to decide what is in the best interest of a patient medically? Many of the patients on chemo are specially advised and prescribed marijuana to help with their nausea and to increase their appetite for the sake of nutrition. IMO, any judge that circumvents a doctors treatment should be vulnerable to medical malpractice.

OK, point taken. Maybe more formal research should be dedicated to the medicinal use of marijuana, since experience seems to demonstrate its effectiveness. It raises the questions whether governments (and major pharmaceutical companies) aren't perhaps opposed to the medicinal use of cannabis because it is cheap and easy to cultivate, i.e. no revenue for the corporates, and no taxes for the government.

Originally Posted by C1ay

In a legalized scenario there is no money trail from the drug trade. Prices would plummet as the black market dried up. This would effectively remove it as a source of income for those that would use that money for other illicit activities.

I'm not convinced this is a viable option. The druglords are extremely powerful, and I don't see how they will simply relinquish all their power without a huge fight. Also, I don't think it will be possible to regulate an industry that has always operated underground.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

In most, if not all cases, alternatives have been exhausted in an attempt to find something effective for these patients. Doctors usually suggest hemp as a last resort in the search for effective relief. If judges think they know better then they should open their own appointment books to see these patients. IMO, the court should not practice medicine....

Marijuana is a useful antinauseant. but I don't think that is the issue here.

1) The vast majority of legally "prescribed" users in California go to a licensed doctor and get a bogus prescription. This is widely reported in the media. It is a classic example of legislation gone bad.

2) The legal issue is the jurisdiction of enforcement in cases of federal versus state jurisdiction. The Supreme Court probably had no precedent where federal law did not override state law when they are in conflict.

3) For a state law to stand, the federal congress would have to pass a law allowing states to make such laws, otherwise the feds win. Don't blame the courts on this. They were just applying accepted rules to existing law. The federal congress could solve this, but they probably won't.