Social science - medical marijuana

[Queso]

i just read an article:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050607/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_medical_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]

i just read an article:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050607/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_medical_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 :hyper:

[C1ay]

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]

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? :hyper:

[C1ay]

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.

 

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

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]

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.

 

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]

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.

 

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]

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.

 

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. :hyper:

[Biochemist]

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.

[C1ay]

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.

I disagree. Amendment X states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

IMO the Constitution already grants the state the right to make such a law since the Constitution does not specifically delegate such power to the United States. As long as it doesn't cross state lines I don't believe it is a federal issue. This is the foundation of the dissenting opinion filed by O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas with whom I concur.

[Biochemist]

...IMO the Constitution already grants the state the right to make such a law since the Constitution does not specifically delegate such power to the United States. As long as it doesn't cross state lines I don't believe it is a federal issue...

C1ay- I wasn't making any philosophical point, other than we have a long list of court precedent. If a federal law exists, the states can make a law more stringent, but not less so. The proponents of medical marijuana could have argued that the federal law was onconstitutional (which is your argument) but I don't think they did that. If the case was made and accepted that the federal law has a basis (that is, is is for the common good) then the court is obligated by precedent to rule infavor of the more strict law.

 

I was only saying this is not a court issue. They are going by the rule of law and precedent. The federal congress could fix this, but I suspect we all have retired before that happens.

[C1ay]

The federal congress could fix this, but I suspect we all have retired before that happens.

I believe that might require that some statesmen actually get elected to congress, something the congress has not seen in a long, long time :hyper:

[UncleAl]

If you smoke marijuana you will get high and stupid. This enrages the State that views both as its privilege to withhold and impress, respectively. Smoking marijuana wil get you star chamber proceedings, mandatory sentencing, and recurrent homosexual rape during incarceration. The dangers of using marijuana are evident.

 

Take psychomeds. It's pretty much the same price/dose for cumulative crippling effects.

[Fishteacher73]

We have had previous experience here in the states with a "drug war" of sorts. We saw how well the 18th amendment worked. Basically it fueled the growth and stronghold of organized crime in the states. At least at that point the gov't realized they screwed up and repealed it.

 

The drug war has done nothing but fueled the black market, filled our criminal courts and prisons with non-violent offenders, and been applied in a financially and racially biased manner.

 

As C1ay has stated, it seems that as Americans have grown ignorant of their Constitutional rights, they have continually allowed the gov't to strip their rights under the guise of their own safety.

[bumab]

As C1ay has stated, it seems that as Americans have grown ignorant of their Constitutional rights, they have continually allowed the gov't to strip their rights under the guise of their own safety.

 

The right to take drugs is really only half the issue. To many, it's stripped under the guise of protecting citizens from drug takers, who are all crazy maniacs bent on getting their next fix and will kill you and your children for your jewelry.

 

The simplistic thinking that leads to the "outlaw it, that will make it go away" is the heart of the issue. Legalization would make the price drop, reducing the need for criminal activity to get the next fix (if such a need exists at all). Legalization would reduce the seductive aura that drugs have for young folk, reducing the number of people trying out drugs. There would be a spike at the beginning as people suddenly used their new freedoms, but drug use would inevitably curtail.

[Biochemist]

I believe that might require that some statesmen actually get elected to congress, something the congress has not seen in a long, long time :hyper:

Agreed. I think John Quincy Adams might have been the last one.