U.S. Needs To Legalize Medical Marijuana

U.S. Needs To Legalize Medical Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on July 05, 2006 at 08:25:16 PT
By Martin Chilcutt 
Source: Kalamazoo Gazette
Michigan -- Two weeks ago, my congressman, U.S. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, wrote to tell me he thinks I should have been jailed for using the treatment that helped me survive cancer. Of course, he didn't put it that way, but it's the truth. When I was younger (I'm 72 now), I served in the Naval Air Force in air intelligence, and my duties were connected with testing nuclear weapons. The radiation exposure I experienced left me vulnerable to cancer, which I have experienced -- and survived -- three times. I've been in remission for 10 years, but you never know for sure if cancer will return.
That's a scary thought, not just because cancer is deadly and the drugs and radiation can be horrible, but because the treatment that got me through it in the past could land me in prison. And Rep. Upton thinks that's just fine. The treatment I'm talking about is medical marijuana. There is abundant evidence, acknowledged by the American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association and many other medical groups, that marijuana relieves nausea, vomiting and pain, and often does so when conventional medicines fail. Marijuana helped me stay alive, as it has done for many thousands of Americans. But federal law, and the laws of 39 states, still make use of medical marijuana a crime. Last month I stopped by Rep. Upton's district office and spoke to one of his aides about this issue, urging him to support a change in federal law. On June 9, the congressman wrote to me, acknowledging that people with cancer, AIDS and other illnesses have found relief from marijuana, but adding that he opposed changing the law. "I would note, however," he wrote, "that prescription drugs containing the active ingredient in marijuana are available for these uses. I am concerned that the push to legalize marijuana for medical purposes may be a first step in broader efforts to legalize marijuana use for any citizen and that legalizing it for medical uses blurs the fact that it can have negative health effects." The congressman is wrong, and his misunderstanding could put me in prison if my cancer ever recurs. First, it simply is not true that "the active ingredient" of marijuana is available in prescription form. A pill containing just one of marijuana's 66 active components, called cannabinoids, is available, but research has shown unequivocally that the other 65 play major roles in marijuana's therapeutic benefits. As for the notion that permitting medical use somehow opens the door to full legalization, that's plain ridiculous. For decades, physicians have been allowed to prescribe morphine, cocaine and even methamphetamine, but they all remain very much illegal for recreational use. There is no reason on earth marijuana should be any different. And as for "negative health effects" -- with all due respect, Mr. Upton, try enduring chemotherapy and then we can talk. The recently defeated Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment in Congress, a very modest proposal, would have told the Justice Department to keep its hands off of states that have chosen to legalize medical marijuana. It wouldn't have forced medical marijuana on any state that didn't want it, but would simply respect the democratic decisions of those that do. At this point, I don't expect Rep. Upton ever to vote for this sensible and humane proposal, but I hope he will reconsider. If he does, he will be joining the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ and a growing legion of ordinary Americans -- 78 percent according to a November 2005 Gallup poll -- who want our government's war on the sick to end. Please join us, congressman. If my cancer ever comes back, I don't want to go to prison. Note: Martin Chilcutt resides in Kalamazoo. Source: Kalamazoo Gazette (MI) Author: Martin Chilcutt Published: July 4, 2006Copyright: 2006 Kalamazoo Gazette Contact: Related Articles & Web Site:Michigan NORML OKs Medical Pot Prosecutions Presbyterian Church Votes To Support MMJ
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #43 posted by whig on July 08, 2006 at 19:58:49 PT
I think the rush to build a better biofuel right now is kind of similar to the rush to build a better paper when the hemp prohibition was being considered. The timber interests won that round, and the corn interests are going to go at us this round.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #42 posted by ekim on July 08, 2006 at 19:03:16 PT
google genencor and see what country b0ught it
where are the three years of tax payer payed 17 million in research into cellulose ethanol. this movie must have all the angles.Genencor Meets First Technical Milestone in Biomass to Ethanol Project Genencor Labs, Palo Alto, California 
Genencor International, Inc. announced that it has achieved its first technical milestone in its three-year contract with the U.S. Department of Energy Biofuels Program. Genencor developed and validated processes for improved cellulase enzymes that meet the intended objective at one-half the cost of currently available technologies. "Advances in molecular biology and functional genomics enable us to push the frontiers of commercial development and we're pleased to be making progress toward developing new enzyme systems to accomplish the goal of this project," said Michael Arbige, Ph.D, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer.
The goal of the program is to develop new enzyme systems for the economic conversion of plant matter into ethanol and other valuable materials. DOE has determined that the cost of converting biomass into useable form is a critical stumbling block to producing biofuels and chemicals from renewable raw materials.Specifically, Genencor and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory are working to deliver enzyme systems enabling a 10-fold improvement in the economics of breaking down cellulosic material (plant matter) and other complex carbohydrates into fermentable sugars. "The United States is the world's leader in agriculture and biotechnology and the Department's biomass research and development efforts take advantage of that position," said David Garman, the U.S. Department of Energy's Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. "The President's Energy Policy promotes the development of renewable energy sources and we look to biomass for significant contributions to reducing America's dependence on foreign oil."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #41 posted by FoM on July 07, 2006 at 08:33:36 PT
I think that Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are very well respected. When we had a video store Stone's movie's were always my top rentals. People loved his movies. I didn't have a Moore movie so I don't know how it would have rented except that F/9/11 was excellent and made tons of money. Steven Spielberg is great too. I don't think there is sympathy for drug dealers particularly hard drug dealers with the general public. If the cannabis issue would be used as a theme it would be more acceptable to the general public. Hard drugs kill so they are shunned by society as a whole. Cannabis has never killed anyone.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #40 posted by Had Enough on July 07, 2006 at 08:23:40 PT
Lethal Weapons
Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Cris Rock, Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, Robin Williams, etc... There are many more, wish they would step forward.I believe the world would watch and listen.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #39 posted by afterburner on July 07, 2006 at 07:40:00 PT
An Indy Film in a Foreign Film Festival ...
Would Fill the Bill.Cheap equipment is available. Motivated volunteers are available worldwide. Organize!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #38 posted by whig on July 07, 2006 at 05:52:24 PT
As soon as a director or movie star or other celebrity took our side, they would cease to be listened to by the MSM.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #37 posted by Hope on July 06, 2006 at 21:32:55 PT
We need a Steven Speilberg.
The people we need to speak to wouldn't listen to Michael Moore or Oliver Stone.We need a Steven Speilberg or someone like him. We need people to join with us like Bill Gates. We need people who will be listened to and who will stand up for the people who are being killed, imprisoned, and persecuted in the name of the War on Drugs.Does anyone who will be listened to have the guts to stand up and stop this horror?I don't know anything about movies...but I know that there are surely some good people out there who know that something has to be done and have the ways and means to put the final axe blow to, to kill, this prohibition tree that is endangering so many and bearing such heinous and hideous fruits. They've killed innocent children, babies, even, along with all ages of people, in the name of the WoD. How many more will it take to satiate their desire to harm and kill?If I could smite it and thrash it out of existence...I would. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #36 posted by Wayne on July 06, 2006 at 20:51:00 PT
a TV movie... hmmm....
A documentary film would be a perfect idea for this. This is right up Michael Moore's alley. He might not be the best authority on the subject. But people would sure go to watch it, it would be compelling, and it would get plenty of press. And that's really what we need the most, isn't it?The problem is not just that the government propogates their fear and lies. It's also that after everything our country has been through in the last 5 years, the American public, in their infinite wisdom, still continues to trust their government. They lie to us and steal our money, and we hear about it every day, and the people still blindly believe in them.Talk about faith-based initiatives. Faith is known as the belief in something despite any lack of proof. The War on Drugs is the biggest faith-based initiative ever to come out of Washington.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by Had Enough on July 06, 2006 at 14:55:08 PT
afterburner #33
“Now, if and when we get a movie or TV drama to bring these stories to life for the misled masses who still don't get it, prohibition will fall like the empty-hearted monster that it has become.”Yep. That’s what we need.Make this the “Talk of the Kitchen Table”It is time."if and when", it's time is due.Thank you for that post.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by lombar on July 06, 2006 at 10:25:51 PT
Some things should never be...
Sometimes the facts are overlooked in the media. The drug war victim page is one of those pages you wish there was no need for becuase you know each and every one of them was an unjustifiable homicide that was wholly preventable. Walters et al may argue the potential for harm but the NEVER discuss the real harms caused by their 'solution' to the 'drug problem'. They always argue potentials, we have facts. They scare people with what might happen, we need to awaken people to what DOES happen.They kill us for 'our own good'...
Pot 0, Cops 1000s
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by afterburner on July 05, 2006 at 21:43:03 PT
Drug War Victims
Thanks for posting the link, lombar, and thanks Pete Guither of Drug WarRant for compiling the list. Now, if and when we get a movie or TV drama to bring these stories to life for the misled masses who still don't get it, prohibition will fall like the empty-hearted monster that it has become.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by Wayne on July 05, 2006 at 19:32:12 PT
Re: lombar #25
Lombar, that page with the Drug War victims literally made me sick to my stomach. All those people, of all ages, all colors, and all different situations. I've known that those sorts of cases existed, but the sheer number of postings definitely floored me.We should forward that to everyone we know, including our elected representatives. We need to spread this far and wide. I've seen and done a lot in my not-so-many years, and it takes a LOT for something to make me physically ill. If it had that effect on me, I wonder what it would do people who don't give the Drug War a second thought. Maybe, just maybe, after seeing something like this, they would.Morbid as it was, thank you for sharing. That's just the sort of ammo we need. The truth can be violent and sickening at times, and I tend to think that's when it works the best.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by whig on July 05, 2006 at 16:47:22 PT
Lies by omission.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by lombar on July 05, 2006 at 16:43:57 PT
Just proves...
Once again that the media is instrumental in continuing the drug war via junk science reports like that or the following...Marijuana-impaired driver gets 4 1/2 years for killing two driver sent to prison for deaths
"Court also heard Mcllwrick was taking three prescription drugs at the time: ativan, zyprexa and zithromax ." is an anti-biotic, apparently non-psychoactive.Those 2 link to the same story but the first one NEGLECTS to mention the other drugs and blames cannabis directly. The judge blamed both.. Driving impaired is never a good idea... but it must be the devil weed eh? 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by runderwo on July 05, 2006 at 16:04:08 PT
OK. But another, less politically charged, way to interpret                             those results is that prior cannabis use somehow reduces the                                effect of heroin. If a THC rat who tries heroin feels LESS                               of an effect per dose than one who did not get THC, why                              would he be MORE likely to repeat the experience and become                              dependent? That doesn't make sense. Also, what are we really concerned about here? Is it that we are concerned about people who are given heroin using MORE heroin, or about people who don't use heroin STARTING to use it? If we are trying to show that cannabis causes the latter, this experiment is badly constructed.This also leads me to the most important critique of this                              research - again, they are assuming that what a rat does                             that has a catheter in its d**k, with nothing to do but press a button or not press a button, somehow approximates                          what a normal human would do. Put a human in that same                             situation and what's he going to do for kicks? (We already know drug use is through the roof in prisons.) But then fill out the person with family, friends, job, possessions,                           hobbies, beliefs, goals, and suddenly the choice is about                             much more than pressing or not pressing a pleasure button.                             Man, I wouldn't be surprised if those rats were suffering                         from depression due to their circumstances. Or that
they were suffering from PTSD after a profoundly massive life alteration on continued massive doses of cannabis that were administered without their consent and through no choice of their own (a cardinal violation of the rules of responsible cannabis use), and now are self-medicating to deal with the mental trauma. Mental illness predicting drug use is a much more reasonable explanation given what we know. Unfortunately, the researchers are assuming that the rats are just as much automatons with no free will or preferences as they falsely assume humans to be.It's all about how we interpret and extrapolate those                           results. In this case, it is a HUGE stretch from experiment                         to policy implications for the real world. But Van Os does just that, predictably.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by mayan on July 05, 2006 at 15:02:08 PT
Sorry, Fred
This article will go a long way toward putting Fred Upton in the unemployment line!Cannabis prohibition (jail) is far more harmful than even the strongest cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by Sam Adams on July 05, 2006 at 14:24:24 PT
great job
One thing is for sure - U.S. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph and his staff were very unhappy to see this article in today's paper! Great job Martin.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by afterburner on July 05, 2006 at 13:42:46 PT
I sense that you all get my point
Safer yes! Harmless no! What is harmless, indeed? Safer is relative: we win. Safe is absolute: we lose. What is safe? Cannabis does not kill, but it is not perfect. The earth and all the creations are not perfect. [sarcasm on] Even the Federally-approved and loved pharmaceuticals are not perfect [sarcasm off]. A level playing field that's all I ask. Don't play the prohibitionist game by making unrealistic and unattainable claims for cannabis. Some of the so-called harms are indeed caused by the method of delivery. Vaporization is less harm than smoking. Eating is possibly less harm than vape, but most medical cannabis patients prefer smoke or vape because of the quicker delivery. And don't give me that synthetic Marinol, too strong, lacking other cannabinoids, especially CBD. Sativex has a nasty taste and irritates the throat.Peace, out!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by lombar on July 05, 2006 at 12:45:06 PT
Prohibition kills, pot does not.
Did cannabis killTroy Davis25 years old
North Richland Hills, Texas
December, 1999
During a no-knock raid to find some marijuana plants he was growing, he was shot to death in his living room. There are disputed accounts regarding whether he had a gun. Patrick Dorismond26 years old
New York, New York
March, 2000
Patrick was a security guard who wanted to become a policeman. He was off-duty and unarmed when he went out with friends. Standing on the street looking for a taxi, he was approached by undercover police who asked to buy some marijuana from him. Patrick was offended by the request (he didn't use drugs), and a scuffle ensued. Dorismond was then shot to death by the police. Clayton Helriggle23 years old
Eaton, Ohio
September, 2002
Clayton was shot to death while coming down the stairs during a suprise raid. He was carrying either a gun or a plastic cup, depending on the report. Less than an ounce of marijuana was found. ...There was a local kid here, about 10-15 years ago now, in a nearby community who was shot to death in a raid over a report of an ounce of cannabis. Apparently the cops gung-ho'd through the door when he was shooting a pellet gun. I can't remember the name. 16 years old or so.
Drug War Victims
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by global_warming on July 05, 2006 at 12:35:21 PT
Life is
100 % realand the prisons are realbecause of Cannabis Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by whig on July 05, 2006 at 12:27:41 PT
Harmless or Far safer
Good points, all.Nothing is harmless. Life is 100% fatal.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by Max Flowers on July 05, 2006 at 12:16:39 PT
Far safer
That says it in a very direct manner. I'd even go for "far, far safer." The idea we're trying to communicate is that cannabis is to other drugs and alcohol as a butter knife is to a chainsaw. As a peashooter is to a .44 magnum. Or maybe a peashooter to a 44-inch naval seige gun.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by lombar on July 05, 2006 at 12:09:59 PT
Red Herring.
Nothing is harmless, arguing safety with people who are prejudiced towards believe there is a harm is pointless. We are 2/3rds water yet it can kill us. Our brains are a few ounces of fat yet that too can kill us... the standard by which cannabis is held to is far and beyond that of even potato chips. The prohibitionists have set the idea that something must be harmless for the state to allow it ... but only when it comes to cannabis. Pollution, DU,...CO2...toxins, pesticides, herbicides, cleaning solvents, glue, paint thinner, pharmas, they are all ok despite the harms they may cause.The underlying framing is in error. If the prohibs insist cannabis must be harmless to be legal then they have a far bigger list of things to be about banning so they better get to it if they are not hypocrites. So if you ever find yourself arguing about 'relative safety' we have that sewn up, they have no real evidence, just the illusion caused by demonizination and constant comparison to alcohol, a truly and widely known intoxicating drug.Apirin claims about 100 people per year in the USA, cannabis , 0. Aspirin is deemed safe to be sold without a prescription, cannabis is schedule 1. Arguing safety people who cannot see the dichotomy there is pointless, reason cannot prevail.So what is 'harmless'?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by global_warming on July 05, 2006 at 12:06:28 PT
18 safe = harmless
For thousands of years Cannabis has been used,It is this cultural mindset Which has chosen cops, lawyers and JudgesCongressional Schedules of DrugsPrisons and Daily CommercialsThat point out these same thoughtsThank you ab,It is time Awakening
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by afterburner on July 05, 2006 at 12:06:11 PT
It's not totally authoritarian yet:CN BC: Inspections to Target Grow-Ops
Wed, 28 Jun 2006.
Maple Ridge News (CN BC)
 On relatively harmless:CN BC: PUB LTE: Don't Lie to Our Kids About Dangers of Drugs
Sun, 02 Jul 2006.
Province, The (CN BC)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by afterburner on July 05, 2006 at 11:54:07 PT
global_warming #15
safe = harmless. These are absolute, impossible to prove.safer is relative, like life in this physical, emotional, mental, spiritual reality we share.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by FoM on July 05, 2006 at 11:53:59 PT
Maybe afterburner went to work or he would have answered you I'm sure.I can think of one harmful effect.If a person smokes inferior cannabis for many years they might have some respiratory problems but it could be because of mold not cannabis. I can't think of anything else though.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by afterburner on July 05, 2006 at 11:46:32 PT
whig #11
The so-called true harms of cannabis are trivial for most consumers: dry mouth, possible bronchitis, etc. Increased blood flow in some people may overload their compromised physical systems. Not all that over-blown government-sponsored propaganda BS. Some people with a genetic or cultural tendency toward mental illness *may* have a negative experience with cannabis. I do not feel that this has been proven scientifically yet, and maybe it will be refuted by serious and honest research. Driving under the influence of cannabis by novice drivers and/or novice consumers, beyond a certain blood-THC concentration, presents a hazard to other drivers. (I do not mean THC-metabolites either: that issue is a huge red herring.)My main objection is that prohibitionists use this *marijuana* *is* *harmless* argument against us, like the guns you oppose. Just be more careful. We don't want to give the antis more ammunition against us.In summary, cannabis is safer than most medications, safer than most "intoxicating" beverages, safer than the culturally-dominant legal smokables, safer than many common foods. Not harmless. Even water or oxygen can be harmful in sufficient quantities. That does not mean we should avoid them.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by global_warming on July 05, 2006 at 11:46:25 PT
not sure what
afterburner was saying,safe, harmless, either is more benign to this current prison mentality, there is nothing safe or harmless in this universe,This universe stands before our eyes and and our innocent souls, it is "we those people, who must learn to craft a relationship with Eternity.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by whig on July 05, 2006 at 11:36:13 PT
But afterburner says that if I say cannabis is harmless, that will play into the prohibitionists hands. I don't know of any reason this should be true unless cannabis can be shown to cause some harm directly. And it's been in use for enough thousands of years that I don't think we need to "wait for the data" any longer. The burden of proof is on them to show some harm already. If it isn't fair to say cannabis is harmless, can we call anything harmless?So why should we hedge our statements and how does it help the prohibitionist if we don't?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by global_warming on July 05, 2006 at 11:26:22 PT
you cannot argue
with a frightened and hungry shrew,they will die for their dieing empire,yet all the social customssalute and fair thee welleither except marinolor take your place in prisonalso known as this place on earth
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by global_warming on July 05, 2006 at 11:03:18 PT
hey whig
to answer your question, there is nothing, that is, Cannabis on its own has never killed any human being, yet most of the studies deliver amounts of thc to a little animal, and the study doctors/scientists watch that little 'creature die.The article above, is not about studies, it is about some human being who has fought cancer and is working to change the laws against Cannabis.You can bet the drug warriors are beating their drums, and most people are either to lazy, stupid or taking a piss between commercials.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by whig on July 05, 2006 at 10:54:40 PT
Okay, if not harmless, what harm or harms are now demonstrably caused by cannabis?I'm excluding the incidental harms caused by mixing cannabis with some other inherently harmful or risky substance or activity. Those are not harms due to cannabis itself.I'm serious, is there anything?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by FoM on July 05, 2006 at 10:33:20 PT
I see what you mean. Heroin isn't safe at all but cannabis is safer then a substance that can cause serious withdrawal if taken for a length of time. A person can stop using cannabis and they won't go through painful withdrawal. That cannot be said about heroin.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by lombar on July 05, 2006 at 10:30:34 PT
Low doses?
The new scientist reports the rats were given low doses at 5mg/Kg so I tried to find what kind of levels of THC actually show a measurable effect. I found a driving study... those rats were far more 'blasted' on THC than they are indicating.The lack of separate control groups has been circumvented by the use of a 'culpability index'. This index is the ratio of the percentage of drivers with detectable drug levels and deemed responsible for a traffic accident to that of drug-free drivers from the same sample who were likewise culpable. But results from this approach have not been consistent: three studies yielded a culpability index of about 1.7 (Warren et al. 1981, Terhune 1982, Donelson et al. 1985), two other studies failed to find a significantly elevated culpability index for marijuana users (Williams et al. 1985, Terhune et al. 1992). For this and other reasons given above, the independent contribution of THC to accidents remains exceedingly obscure. Several literature reviews, the most recent by Robbe (1994), have shown that the results from driving simulator and closed-course tests indicate that THC in inhaled doses up to 250 µg/kg has relatively minor effects on driving performance, certainly less than blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) in the range 0.08-0.10 g%. In contrast to this, laboratory studies have repeatedly shown performance impairment occurring after inhaled doses as low as about 40 µg/kg. These became large and persistent after 100-200 µg/kg doses. Tracking, divided attention and vigilance test performance were particularly vulnerable to THC's effects. Assuming that both sets of results are valid for the particular circumstances under which they were obtained, they demonstrate that performance decrements obtained under the artificial and non-life threatening conditions in the laboratory do not automatically predict similar decrements in driving simulations that are closer to real-world driving. These conflicting results led, however, to opposing opinions regarding marijuana's effects on driving performance. Real-world driving studies were therefore warranted.Those are microgram/kilogram ranges. 1 mg = 1000 micrograms. Rats in study were getting 5000 micrograms/Kg, the driving study claims noticable imapairment at .2 mg/Kg = 200 micrograms/Kg. Thats 50 times the level needed for impairment? Try that with herioin or even alcohol and its lights out...I thought preventing children from accessing drugs is a given?
Google Cache
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by FoM on July 05, 2006 at 10:29:25 PT
I agree that heroin is harmful and cannabis isn't. I have noticed that the younger a person starts experimenting with any substance the more of a possibility they might move on to hard drugs. Young minds don't need to be using drugs. They should get involved in sports or some activity they enjoy. Drugs and youth can become a dead end street in my opinion.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by afterburner on July 05, 2006 at 10:27:55 PT
'harmless', whig?
Careful, whig, this plays into the prohibitionists' propaganda. Cannabis, Safer, yes. Harmless, too strong a statement!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by whig on July 05, 2006 at 10:20:37 PT
Let's get this message out
Cannabis is harmless. Heroin is not.This needs to be said, and clearly. People don't know the truth until they find out for themselves, and when they find out that they have been lied to about cannabis, they think that heroin might not be so bad.Heroin is not harmless. Cannabis is.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by whig on July 05, 2006 at 10:18:31 PT
Funny they don't test to see whether alcohol presensitizes to opium. Or tobacco for that matter.No, the gateway theory is always about cannabis. Wonder why.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on July 05, 2006 at 09:56:38 PT
Why Teenagers Should Steer Clear of Cannabis
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by FoM on July 05, 2006 at 09:50:21 PT
That is beautiful. We watched New York's fireworks display and the Boston Fireworks display. They both were excellent. They had fireworks going back up into the sky and that was awesome. The one in Washington, DC wasn't very good though but maybe I just have a hard time seeing beauty coming from anything in DC. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by whig on July 05, 2006 at 09:38:37 PT
4th July picture
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by lombar on July 05, 2006 at 09:07:57 PT
Actually, there is...
For decades, physicians have been allowed to prescribe morphine, cocaine and even methamphetamine, but they all remain very much illegal for recreational use. There is no reason on earth marijuana should be any different./Cannabis is not comparable to Cocaine, meth, herion, in effect, addictiveness, or danger. The only reason they keep getting thrown together is because of the nonsensical scheduling of cannabis. Its non-toxic with an impossibly high LD50. It should not be 'treated' by the state at all. The drug laws are state interference in life, access to agriculture, and economics. If cannabis is completely legalized, all the nonsense(price,risk, strain selection, availability) falls away for medical users, the research opens up. To try and control it like other medications will not work now after MILLIONS have used it recreationally to no ill effect. 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment