Supreme Court says "No" to Medical Marijuana

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Bradylama, Jun 11, 2005.

  1. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    I guess that the majority decision does have a point in that the states shouldn't be able to defy Federal legislation.

    In any case, however, this is just further evidence of the need for Controlled Substances reform. I mean, really, these people have horrible, life-debilitating diseases, and we're trying to make it harder or impossible for them to grow the medicine they need, that they could grow in their own backyard for free?

    Fuck that, seriously. I don't see how any anti-drug watchdog could insist that these people's lives should be made more painful because of their personal vendetta against the Demon Weed.
     
  2. Tempistfury

    Tempistfury It Wandered In From the Wastes

    143
    Apr 21, 2003
    IMO, its not the Gov't's place to interere with my medicine. If the doctor says that i need pot to get better, then im going to take my pot. If he says i need something else, i'll take it. The govt shouldnt beable to say "no you're not allowed access to X treatment even if you can pay for it"
     
  3. MSD

    MSD First time out of the vault

    26
    May 15, 2005
    IMHO for such people gov should give these drugs
    for free(they really need it), but growing such drugs in your backyard should be prohibited
     
  4. SimpleMinded

    SimpleMinded Vault Fossil

    Jun 17, 2003
    I agree with ya MSD. Once you allow people to grow their own Marijuana, it becomes pretty difficult to separate the medical motives from the pleasure. In addition, it makes it significantly harder to regulate if you allow the random sick feller to grow the drugs. While yes, he'll be using it for medical purposes, who knows what'll happen if he happens to "accidentally" grow extra.

    So while yes, the government shouldn't prevent patients who medically need marijuana from getting it, allowing them to grow it seems a little too over the top.
     
  5. welsh

    welsh This ghoul has seen it all

    Apr 5, 2003
    True, and think of all the over-the-counter drugs that get sold illegally.

    That said, a doctor prescribes medication and it has to be grown, so technically we are talking commerce, and commerce is under the Congress's power.

    But this also seems more like a local issue and an issue of social values.
     
  6. Silencer

    Silencer Night Watchman Staff Member Admin

    Nov 7, 2003
    ...so that the folks in question can get high and forget how horribly screwed they are? :lol: Damn, I think I'm getting chronically sick... :look:

    Seriously, though, I support MSD and SimpleMinded; If someone is going to grow extra, then it's likely that extra finds itself in underground trafficking, and if it does, it may as well elave the state.
    And if it leaves the state, then the government is right to prohibit it, beacuse I can't imagine effectively controlling and regulating the matter (that is to say, people growing MJ in their yards)
     
  7. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    Yeah, because all of your underground drug syndicates get their pot from certified growers.

    Nigga please.

    I mean, liquor store owners could sell liquor to children, but we still have wet counties. I find it seriously hard to believe that people who are more than likely on a government list are in danger of excacerbating the "drug problem."
     
  8. Silencer

    Silencer Night Watchman Staff Member Admin

    Nov 7, 2003
    Not all. But certainly some would, at least a portion.

    Oh. We're talking certified growers? I was under the impression we're talking every Tom, Dick and Harry and their greenhouses which would be too copious for the government officials to numerate, let alone control. It's just damn easier to control it, if the production and distribution is state-owned.

    Not totally, though, but quite easier.

    Yeah. However, if there were no liquor stores, there'd be no one to sell to children, that's the logic behind my reasoning.* Same goes for growing pot, if there are no private cultivations, there's no pot that could be spirited away from them.

    Then again, I doubt anyone is going to ban liquor stroes to protect the children, but I guess it's because liqor has got a longer and better estabilished history or legal recreational use than marijuana.

    *of course, there's probably be a black market, but this is not the issue here, as no degree of control over official cultivations and liquor stores will eliminate the black market.
     
  9. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    Why? Why risk yourself, propositioning a law abiding citizen to grow some marijuana for you on the side, when you can simply grow it yourself?

    Dealers already have a stranglehold on the market because they're the only providers. It doesn't matter how much pot they grow or can provide, they're still in a position to determine the price how they see fit because they lack local competition, and aren't subject to market regulations. How can they be? Their practice is illegal.

    So what is the issue, then? If the black market isn't the issue, then why not let sick people grow their own marijuana?

    The only reason that all of the arguments come back to is a personal vendetta against marijuana.

    But what's the point?
     
  10. Silencer

    Silencer Night Watchman Staff Member Admin

    Nov 7, 2003
    If you've got a doctor's recommendation. Although I doubt it'd be very hard to get for anyone, doctors have to eat too.

    Also, imagine: How much can you grow without drawing attention? But proposition to one upright citizen, two, a dozen... see my point?

    Hm, I may see your point, but flooding the market with enough "legal" pot to weaken their "market position" and put them out of business would probably create issues - and surely it goes beyond the scope of medical use of MJ.

    Unfortunately, the answer here is not to create competition, especially since the market is so voracious.

    No, you missed my point. It is an issue - it's just that I'm not naive enough to believe that prohibiting "sick people" from growing weed wil deal a substantial blow to it.

    Letting them, on the other hand, would bolster it for sure.

    Now where did I say that? STFU before i moderate you for getting ..."personal" :D (j/k)

    Joking aside, I don't have a personal vendetta against weed yet, although I see how it can be harmful and I'd rather not see more of it drifting around than it has to, just like I'd rather not see 13-year-olds drinking wine.

    The point is it's always harder to enforce restrictions on a privately owned enterprise than a state-owned enterprise; And even by allowing your sick to grow MJ, you're not ready to lift all the restrictions, are you?

    (Poles: I think distilling your own booze should be legal, who's with me?;))
     
  11. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    Well shit, we can't trust doctors now? It's not like they're prescribing marijuana for colds, these are people with life-debilitating diseases. And how are they going to be making money prescribing a medication for a free substance?

    How would they even know who these people are? And wouldn't you be afraid that people able to grow marijuana would be monitored periodically? How much risk are you willing to take?

    It's not like they're creating competition. Selling marijuana is still illegal, you see. People get all of their drugs usually through one dealer that they trust. When you've got a loyal customer base, you can pretty much charge whatever the Hell you like. If somebody (Grannie May) encroaches on their business, they'll take out the competition through violent means. They're already operating outside the bounds of the law, you think they're going to play nice?

    On what grounds? The good it would do to the drug community would be a minimal contribution to an already minimal problem. Christ, though, we can't trust adults to administer their medication responsibly. That's why we only let them take it where they can be observed, right? Right? Right?

    Then it is a personal problem that you're arguing on. You're essentially saying that we should make it harder for people to get the medicine they need to live, because you don't like marijuana.

    Enterprise? This isn't a business, these are people growing medicine in greenhouses. It's as much an enterprise as your grandma growing a vegetable garden.

    I am, but that's besides the point. :)
     
  12. Silencer

    Silencer Night Watchman Staff Member Admin

    Nov 7, 2003
    Of coure we can't. Did I ever tell you about the ambulance from Lodz? :D

    Still, they're quite a bit better than *gulp* lawyers.

    Uhm... bribes? :roll:

    Believe me, there are a lot of perfectly healthy people out there who'd like to have a perming for growing MJ ;)

    How many monitors are you willing to employ? For your tax money?

    I hope you're specifically meaning the drug black market, as it would contradict what limited knowledge I have of any other market.

    Does this have anything to do with the issue? I'm not talking about what's already ouside the law, I'm talking about what should be and how could it trickle from the legal traffic into the gray zone.

    Drug abuse is a minimal problem in the US? Lucky you :D

    Wow. So now you need marijuana to live? Then how come I get by without it? ;)

    Joking aside, I'm not saying <s>we</s> you should make it harder, I'm saying <s>we</s> you should have it controlled.

    I couldn't care less about what transpiers in California's druga market, but it is important you get my message right ;)

    I also not like pork, but I'm not going to avocate restricting the production and distribution of pork.

    But yes, I'd hate to see my tax money spent on addiction clinics and detox, only because the amount of drugs on the market skyrocketed and everyone wants to try it, whatever the cause might be.

    Everything's an enterprise, in a way. Besides, I was making an observation as to who controls it.
    Who's making a personal issue now? ;)

    Meh, that's why I don't get into political debates, usually... need to get sleep.....
     
  13. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    This isn't fucking Poland we're talking about here. A doctor can't diagnose you with something like Thyroid cancer from a checkup.

    Yes, that would be what I am talking about. Context? What is that?

    None. But there are people like you that insist on making it difficult for others, so I'd rather take the tax hit monitoring sickies than have state-controlled distribution.

    I've already pretty much just illustrated how rediculous that is. If marijuana is getting from the hands of law abiding citizens to the crime-inals, criminals, then they wouldn't be abiding the law, would they?

    Of course, the alternative is that people would be stealing the pot. However, why would they need to acquire more of a substance they have an unlimited price window for?

    By controlling substance distribution you're already making it inherently harder for people to acquire it.

    Inventory is not an issue. Drug dealers only need enough drugs to satisfy their current customer base, and to provide a hook for prospective buyers. It's not like demand is going to skyrocket because all of a sudden there's more pot being grown somewhere.
     
  14. tEd

    tEd Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    344
    Mar 29, 2005
    Wouldn't it be easier for everyone to just allow people to grow their own marijuana? If there is no demand, there will be no weed dealers (I'm not talking about other drugs here, just herb). It would be pointless for anyone to grow mass amounts of MJ (unless you're setting up a personal stash) since no one would pay for it.

    Using and growing marijuana in the privacy of your home shouldn't be illegal IMO. Personally, I grow my own MJ, so that I do not have to spend my bucks on black market products. At least I know I'm consuming something healthy, and I'm not paying for it.
     
  15. MSD

    MSD First time out of the vault

    26
    May 15, 2005
    Nope. Its like saying "lets legalise killing, these pricks will shoot themselves and there will be no more mass murderers"

    you just can't fight black market dealers by making mj legal, cause then a lot of people will smoke mj and will say like " oh well mj is not a drug - its legal and not harmful, but LSD is a drug,yeah , its illegal , but its cooler then mj, so still gonna test it some day" - so thats the best adv for drug dealers-)
     
  16. Silencer

    Silencer Night Watchman Staff Member Admin

    Nov 7, 2003
    I'm sure all of your physicians out there are saints. What a joyous country! :lol:


    Translation: "Ever more and fucking more".

    Come back and we'll talk after you've learned some basic economics, especially the issues of price, supply and demand relationships.
     
  17. Bradylama

    Bradylama Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 22, 2003
    Demand isn't generated by the availability of a product, it's generated by individual want. It's not like Dealers can launch ad campaigns and BLOW OUT PRICES (tell a friend). If people wanted to try marijuana there's not a whole lot stopping them, other than connections. Why do you think dealers give free samples? Once they've got you hooked, they've got you, and they can charge any exhorbitant amount they want because they have no competition.

    That is why inventory isn't an issue. It's a simple process to grow or receive enough drugs to satisfy your customers, and so long as you have enough for them, you can charge whatever the fuck you want.

    Keep in mind the context of the situation. We are not talking about a capitalist, regulation-controlled market, this is the Black Market. Anything goes.

    I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's harder than you think. Our doctors actually get payed, you see. You'd have to have some deep pocket change to bribe your way to a prescription, and chances are if you already have that kind of cash, you're getting drugs grown from outside the country.
     
  18. WaterGirl

    WaterGirl Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    469
    Feb 13, 2004
    One of the biggest problems with legalizing marijuana, whether for medical or recreational use, is that it's a Class I controlled substance. Controlled substances are those that have an abuse potential. There are five different Classes, with Class I being the most restricted, with the highest abuse potential and no medical use.

    In order to make marijuana legal, they would have to move it from a Class I to a Class II, which they don't want to do. Ironically, cocaine is a Class II controlled substance. I guess it's used as an anesthetic in the eyes, nose and throat, because it provides the anesthesia and prevents bleeding.

    Controlled Substance Schedule
     
  19. PhoenixRising

    PhoenixRising First time out of the vault

    32
    Jun 9, 2005
    we should march on Washington to legalize Marijuana.

    Here's our Slogan

    "Marijuana: Hey, at least it's not Jet!"
     
  20. Josan

    Josan Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    366
    Oct 23, 2003
    Medical marijuana is allowed in Canada. Funny thing was (think it was about a year, year and a half ago) that the people receiving the weed from the government's grow house complained that it was the worst weed ever, chopped up stalks and all. They actually asked for a refund saying they could get better weed on the street from a stranger.