Sick people aren't even safe in Canada.

[shanek]

You'd think that someone like Steve Kubby, arrested, charged, and convicted for doing something completely legal under California law, would at least be safe in Canada where the same act is legal country-wide.

The "criminal" act? Taking medical marijuana to counteract lethal levels of adrenaline in his system due to a rare form of adrenal cancer. Doctors agree he has to smoke marijuana once an hour or be at a high risk for numerous complications, including potentially fatal heart attacks. Unless a new medical miracle is discovered, he will never again be able to breath air without part of it being marijuana smoke, never get a full night's sleep because of the regime, never really lead the lives many of us take for granted. But at least he gets to stay alive.

Unless, of course, the government gets their way. Solely because they didn't like the medicine he needed to stay alive, and they didn't like that he was helping others get the medicine they need as well, he was prosecuted and convicted, forcing him and his wife to flee to Canada as political refugees.

Now, Canada is threatening to deport them back home, for precisely the same reasons.

Does ANY of this make ANY sense to ANYONE???

http://www.austin360.com/aas/news/ap/ap_story.html/National/AP.V8629.AP-Pot-Refugee.html

[corplinx]

It doesn't make sense to me. Medicinal marijauna in cases where marijauna is only feasible solution just makes sense.

I do wish somehow that asthma-type inhaler could be used to deliver the proper dosage versus the traditional rolled-joint method. Raw leaves and rolling papers are soooooo cheech and chong. I heard some researchers got close to getting the chemical amounts and dilution right but then they started using the mixture and suddenly just wanted to sit around and eat cheetos all day.

[Thanz]

Well, it makes some sense to me.

I read the link that you provided, and it seems that you know more about the facts of the case than are provided for in that article. However, based on the article and your post, here is how I would state the events:

Kubby gets arrested and convicted for drug possession in California, and sentenced to 4 months in jail. It seems obvious that he did possess drugs, if he is taking them to live.

Instead of submitting to the sentence, he and his wife flee to Canada. Eventually they are arrested on an immigration warrant - presumably on a complaint from the U.S., who are seeking the deportation of the pair.

It seems that they are also charged as being drug dealers, for lack of a better term. Your post seems to indicate that they were selling to others for medical purposes. The article doesn't mention this, but while possession of marijuana for medical reasons may be legal, selling it to others is still a no-no (AFAIK).

Kubby claims political asylum. The U.S. is seeking him back. Canada is holding a hearing to determine whether he should be granted political asylum or not. They are letting him take joint breaks during the hearing. Presmably, that hearing will determine whether or not Kubby is deported.

Regardless of how one feels about the use of medical marijuana, it seems sort of reasonable to me (process wise). I have no idea what happened in his original trial such that he was convicted, if the drug use was medicinal and California allows for that.

Canada's actions also seem fair. It seems that he is being given a hearing, and they are accomodating his illness during the hearing. It would be outrageous if they kept charging him with offences every hour. But that is not what is happening.

What else would you have Canada do?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Kubby gets arrested and convicted for drug possession in California, and sentenced to 4 months in jail. It seems obvious that he did possess drugs, if he is taking them to live.

Except that that is perfectly legal in California under Proposition 216. The Federal government, in blatant disregard for the will of the people, usurped the state's authority in this matter and convicted him on Federal drug charges.

Instead of submitting to the sentence, he and his wife flee to Canada. Eventually they are arrested on an immigration warrant - presumably on a complaint from the U.S., who are seeking the deportation of the pair.

Apparently so.

It seems that they are also charged as being drug dealers, for lack of a better term. Your post seems to indicate that they were selling to others for medical purposes.

Again legal under Prop 216. I don't know if they were charging money for it, but regardless it was being given out only to people taking marijuana under a doctor's advice and supervision.

Kubby claims political asylum. The U.S. is seeking him back.

As most countries tend to do with refugees.

Regardless of how one feels about the use of medical marijuana, it seems sort of reasonable to me (process wise).

I'm not talking about the minutae of the process. I'm talking about the fact that a sick person is being put through all of this just for the medicine he needs to save his life.

I have no idea what happened in his original trial such that he was convicted, if the drug use was medicinal and California allows for that.

Because the Federal government doesn't recognize the state's decision here, in spite of the 10th Amendment.

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek


Except that that is perfectly legal in California under Proposition 216. The Federal government, in blatant disregard for the will of the people, usurped the state's authority in this matter and convicted him on Federal drug charges.




Although I agree with legalizing marijuana and support state's rights, the sad fact is, is that the precedent has been set by previous administrations for the federal gov. to usurp the authority concerning certain issues in state's affairs.

Off the top of my head, the specific issues I can think of are:

Abortion

The death penalty

2nd amendment rights

euthenasia (sp?)

medical weed and drug legalization

Anything else?

[Thanz]

Just a couple of points.

Originally posted by shanek


Except that that is perfectly legal in California under Proposition 216. The Federal government, in blatant disregard for the will of the people, usurped the state's authority in this matter and convicted him on Federal drug charges.

This was not made clear at all in the article. In Canada, criminal law is federal, so we don't have this jurisdictional issue.



Again legal under Prop 216. I don't know if they were charging money for it, but regardless it was being given out only to people taking marijuana under a doctor's advice and supervision.

As I read the article, they were charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in Canada. Of course, Prop 216 is of no relevance in Canada.


I'm not talking about the minutae of the process. I'm talking about the fact that a sick person is being put through all of this just for the medicine he needs to save his life.

I'd agree with you about medical marijuana. It's a shame that only marijuana will treat certain conditions effectively. The "War on Drugs" wrt marijuana is ridiculous as well. When was the last time you heard of two stoned guys getting in a fight (unlike drunks)?

The title of your thread seemed to indicate that the guy was getting jobbed by the Canadians. I just don't see what else Canada can do at this point.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek
The "criminal" act? Taking medical marijuana to counteract lethal levels of adrenaline in his system due to a rare form of adrenal cancer. Doctors agree he has to smoke marijuana once an hour or be at a high risk for numerous complications, including potentially fatal heart attacks.

Ok, a little off topic....

If he needs to smoke marijuana every hour, how does he sleep at night? Does he have to wake up regularly? If so, I think the sleep deprivation would probably kill him before the cancer did.

Anyone have any medical knowledge to back this up? What is it about his condition that can't be controlled by standard meds? What is the active ingredient in the marijuana that he needs, and can it be provided in a method that doesn't require smoking?

(One problem I have with the 'medicinal marijuana' thing is that the dosage is not as well controlled as it would be if it were provided in pill form.)

[subgenius]

It only makes sense if you're making money off the criminal justice system and want to increase your job security. Cops, prosecutors, judges, prison officials.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Segnosaur



(One problem I have with the 'medicinal marijuana' thing is that the dosage is not as well controlled as it would be if it were provided in pill form.)

...which would be relevant if the "medical marijuana" movement were actually more interested in "medicine" than just being able to get high. That's why you see no effort put toward a non-intoxicating painkiller form of the drug.

It's not rocket science to see through that agenda.

[DrBenway]

I haven't followed the medical marijuana debate. Sorry if I'm totally missing something.

On occasion, I've prescribed Marinol, which is the active ingredient in marijuana. This drug has been around for many years.

When people argue that they're being denied life saving marijuana, I wonder why they're not on Marinol. Unlike the stuff you smoke, the pill form provides a predictable dose. Plus you won't get emphysema from it.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrBenway
Plus you won't get emphysema from it.

Unfortunately, many people who have to resort to medicinal pot are beyond the point of worrying about getting _another_ terminal disease.

[Victor Danilchenko]

DrBenway

On occasion, I've prescribed Marinol, which is the active ingredient in marijuana. This drug has been around for many years.

When people argue that they're being denied life saving marijuana, I wonder why they're not on Marinol. Unlike the stuff you smoke, the pill form provides a predictable dose. Plus you won't get emphysema from it.See http://www.ardpark.org/reference/marinol.htm . Apparently, it has two shortcomings -- it acts slowly (which won't help our guy here -- he needs a rapidly absorbed form), and it can be hard to hold down for those who already have nausea, which is what many of the pro-marijuana people are, such as the famous Peter McWilliams, who couldn't hold down his AIDS medication without it ("couldn't", because he died).

of course, the whole thing shouldn't even be an issue -- people shouldn't have to justify to the government their use of marijuana in the first place, or any other drug for that matter.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Jocko

...which would be relevant if the "medical marijuana" movement were actually more interested in "medicine" than just being able to get high. That's why you see no effort put toward a non-intoxicating painkiller form of the drug.The calming effect of THC is the very effect that is intoxicating. Until we synthesize a radically different drug that doesn't have any other effects of THC, you gotta take the whole neurochemical package. Getting "non-intoxicating THC" is kinda like having "non-addictive morphine" as a painkiller.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
DrBenway
Apparently, it has two shortcomings -- it acts slowly (which won't help our guy here -- he needs a rapidly absorbed form), and it can be hard to hold down for those who already have nausea
Again, I'm not a doctor... and I can't comment on the nausea. (I don't think the article mentioned he has nausea at all.)

But the slow acting part should not be a problem for him, especially if he has to take it so frequently. (The regular doses should make sure his body always has a regular supply.)

[DrBenway]

Thanks for the link. It does seem the smoked form has some advantages. My experience in treating nausea is limited and out of date.

Working with HIV patients during my internship, I remember that nausea was often a stubborn problem very difficult to treat. We used a range of medicines; some worked better than others in certain patients, but no medicine stood out as a miracle treatment.

If you're not a smoker to begin with, it isn't easy smoking MJ for the first time.

I don't have a problem giving patients anything that will help relieve their suffering, so long as the risks don't outweigh the benefits.


people shouldn't have to justify to the government their use of marijuana in the first place, or any other drug for that matter

Medical school helps teach people the rational reasons for chosing a particular medicine for a particular problem. You seem to be arguing that this expertise isn't important. The average Joe ought to be entrusted with the same decision making ability.

[Victor Danilchenko]

DrBenway

Medical school helps teach people the rational reasons for chosing a particular medicine for a particular problem. You seem to be arguing that this expertise isn't important. The average Joe ought to be entrusted with the same decision making ability.Not at all. What I am arguing is that we should not use the force of law to punish people for making their own medical choices. People should most certainly consult doctors, but the government should not be regulating what the patients can and cannot do or take.

Which is to say, self-medication should not be a crime -- and it currently is in certain circumstances. Self-medication may often be a bad and stupid idea, but it should never be a crime.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
of course, the whole thing shouldn't even be an issue -- people shouldn't have to justify to the government their use of marijuana in the first place, or any other drug for that matter.

But haven't they consented to do so? :D

[Victor Danilchenko]

WMT1

But haven't they consented to do so? :Dhas the right to pursue happiness been amended out of Constitution? No? Didn't think so.

moron...

P.S. Compare and contrast with Constitutional grant of power of taxation to Congress.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

Which is to say, self-medication should not be a crime -- and it currently is in certain circumstances. Self-medication may often be a bad and stupid idea, but it should never be a crime.
What about parents deciding what meds to give their kids? No limits on that? Anything in the PDR is ok?

Frequently, patients tell me they decided to take some over-the-counter medication or food suppliment, because some influential person in their life recommended it. Everyone seems to have an opinion about what you're supposed to take to get better.

I get this a lot: a patient says his therapist wants him on an antidepressant. Never mind that my patient in bipolar, and the risk of inducing rapid cycling is around 70% with an antidepressant.

Everyone has an opinion about the right med to take. These opinions are based on advertisements, anecdotes, articles in magazines, etc.

Doctors have to go to school for many years in order to develop the knowlege base and expertise necessary to make these decisions rationally. Even then, medical knowlege advances so quickly it's difficult to stay current.

I really dislike the idea of giving the power to prescribe to the average Joe. He just doesn't know what he doesn't know.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
Although I agree with legalizing marijuana and support state's rights, the sad fact is, is that the precedent has been set by previous administrations for the federal gov. to usurp the authority concerning certain issues in state's affairs.

Oh, I know. And so do Steve Kubby, Ed Rosenthal, etc.

The death penalty

Educate me on this: When has the Federal government said anything about the death penalty for anything other than Federal crimes?

Anything else?

Probably way too many to go into here. The public school system, medicine, transportation, your toilet...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
As I read the article, they were charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in Canada.

And again, this "trafficking" (i.e., giving medicine to sick people under the advice and supervision of a doctor) was legal under Prop 216.

Of course, Prop 216 is of no relevance in Canada.

Well, the "trafficking" didn't take place in Canada.

The title of your thread seemed to indicate that the guy was getting jobbed by the Canadians. I just don't see what else Canada can do at this point.

Well, I would hope that they would stand up for the guy's rights. But there's what I hope, and what will realistically happen.

I mean, come on—as many times as people here have said, "If you don't like it, leave," and this guy leaves to save his life, then what hope is there for anyone else?

I'm sorry, but this is no different than a Jew fleeing from the Nazis.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Ok, a little off topic....

If he needs to smoke marijuana every hour, how does he sleep at night?

He doesn't. He has to take catnaps throughout the day. And unless there's a new medical innovation, he will have to continue doing this for the rest of his life. It's a miserable existence, but it beats death. His solution was to go into business for himself, but the Feds siezed his computer equipment without compensation and bankrupted his business.

Of course, if marijuana were legal, I'm sure some pharmaceutical company would come up with some sort of time-release capsule that will release the dose every hour all night, or some kind of mask he can wear that would automatically give him the dose every hour. Or something. But since it's illegal, no such technology is forthcoming.

Does he have to wake up regularly? If so, I think the sleep deprivation would probably kill him before the cancer did.

I suspect he probably mostly sleeps at night and just has an alarm wake him for his hourly regime, but I don't know that specifically.

Anyone have any medical knowledge to back this up? What is it about his condition that can't be controlled by standard meds?

According to his doctors, it's the lethal levels of adrenaline in his system.

(One problem I have with the 'medicinal marijuana' thing is that the dosage is not as well controlled as it would be if it were provided in pill form.)

Yeah, well, when it's illegal to make a pill...

[subgenius]

All of this has been thoroughly debated elsewhere to my satisfaction.
But here's maybe a new wrinkle: What about the terminally ill? Shouldn't they be able to do whatever the hell they want medication wise?
How about those in excrutiating intractable pain? You know the kind of pain you would blow your brains out if it won't stop, and is resistant to treatment.

I have a condition (Ekbom's disease aka Restless Legs Syndrome) that produces symptoms which if are not relieved are unbearable to the extent that I know I would end my life if I got no relief. I take the same medication as prescribed for Parkinson's (Mirapex) and have cycled through other dopaminergics (like Parkinson's its a dopamine deficiency problem) but eventually they all become ineffective. Even when they are effective they are not effective 100% of the time. The only thing that would work when all else fails (other than coma inducing addictive opiates)is marijuana.
I have been sentenced to 2 years mandatory minimum (never had even a parking ticket before) for growing it because I had no idea where to buy it. I'm out on appeal right now, with no real hope for overturning the decision and may have to start my sentence in a month or so. I have lost everything I own. And cannot smoke it because of court supervision, so I'm in agony on frequent occasions.
Do you know what I say to anyone who thinks I or anyone in my position should be in jail?
You are all psychic enough to read my mind.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DrBenway
When people argue that they're being denied life saving marijuana, I wonder why they're not on Marinol. Unlike the stuff you smoke, the pill form provides a predictable dose. Plus you won't get emphysema from it.

I'm neither a doctor nor a pharmacologist, but my understanding is that Marinol is a synthetic and that's how they got around the laws. But apparently, it isn't as effective in many cases as natural marijuana, and the side effects are more severe. In this case, I don't think Kubby can wait the hours that it takes for Marinol to be delivered through the blood stream.

I Googled around for a couple of authoritative sources, and didn't find any by skimming the first page, so until I can come up with a better source please take the above with the appropriate dosage of NaCl. :)

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
But haven't they consented to do so? :D

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
has the right to pursue happiness been amended out of Constitution? No? Didn't think so.
moron...

First, lighten the hell up, moron.

Second, moron, the joke was well founded, as it was a shot at your own moronic ideas about consent being defined by simply remaining in the country. If you missed the point, then you don't have any business referring to anyone else as a "moron".

P.S. Compare and contrast with Constitutional grant of power of taxation to Congress.

Which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the point, since your moronic ideas about consent were not based on the Constitution until your other arguments failed you. If, however, that is the story you want to start going with, then we can simply add your name to the list of people who are incapable of formulating arguments about how things should be without referring to what's written down somewhere.

Incidentally, can I take it you would be just fine with the war on drugs if an amendment were passed making it Constitutional?

(*crickets*)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Again, I'm not a doctor... and I can't comment on the nausea. (I don't think the article mentioned he has nausea at all.)

I don't think he does. Victor was referring to Peter McWilliams, who needed marijuana to hold down his cocktail of medicine that he took for AIDS and non-hodgkins lymphoma. When the Feds took away his marijuana, he was dead within a year, having choked on his own vomit.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DrBenway
Medical school helps teach people the rational reasons for chosing a particular medicine for a particular problem. You seem to be arguing that this expertise isn't important. The average Joe ought to be entrusted with the same decision making ability.

He said government, not doctors. Since when are politicians experts in medicine? We're talking about people taking medical marijuana under the advice and supervision of their physicians.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
WMT1

has the right to pursue happiness been amended out of Constitution? No? Didn't think so.

moron...

Uh, I think he was being sarcastic.

[shanek]

Originally posted by subgenius
But here's maybe a new wrinkle: What about the terminally ill? Shouldn't they be able to do whatever the hell they want medication wise?

From the reception I got in the FDA thread awhile back, when I brought up the case of Mrs. Edie Bacon, whose only hope of surviving the next year is an experimental drug, the response was overwhelmingly that they'd rather let her die and leave her four kids motherless than let her use a drug that hasn't been approved by the FDA.

In other words, apparently not. :(

The only thing that would work when all else fails (other than coma inducing addictive opiates)is marijuana.

Out of curiosity, did you try the Marinol drug mentioned above?

I have been sentenced to 2 years mandatory minimum (never had even a parking ticket before) for growing it because I had no idea where to buy it. I'm out on appeal right now, with no real hope for overturning the decision and may have to start my sentence in a month or so. I have lost everything I own. And cannot smoke it because of court supervision, so I'm in agony on frequent occasions.

You have my sympathies. What state are you in?

Do you know what I say to anyone who thinks I or anyone in my position should be in jail?

Maybe the same thing that these people (www.LP.org/av/mmad2.wmv) say. (WARNING: Really really big WMV file.)

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, I know. And so do Steve Kubby, Ed Rosenthal, etc.



Im not familiar with them.

Educate me on this: When has the Federal government said anything about the death penalty for anything other than Federal crimes?

Correct me if I am wrong, this was before my time. Didnt the Supreme Court put a moratorium on the death panalty in the 60's and 70's?

[a_unique_person]

This could also be another example of the US bullying it's allies into toeing the 'tough on drugs' line. Australia has tried to change it's laws in the past to be more tolerant of drug use, only to find that US 'pressure' is being applied to keep them in line with the american model.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by shanek


Out of curiosity, did you try the Marinol drug mentioned above?



You have my sympathies. What state are you in?
Marinol is an illusion. Can't get it, doesn't work. When you need relief you need it NOW. Doctor's won't prescribe it because its too much hassle with the Feds, and they make their own judgement about who needs it: virtually nobody or they wouldn't be prosecuting people and overriding state laws.
Oakland County Michigan. The prosecutor and sheriff are both corrupt and my judge let a guy who ran over and killed 2 little old ladies out on a $5,000 bond. Mine was $75,000.
I really don't want to go into more detail because its too depressing. It gets worse.
Not looking for sympathy, that just increases the depression.
As Michael J. Fox said, "Pity is one step away from abuse."
Imagine visiting a person with terminal cancer and telling them how horrible that must be.
Joey Ramone, dying of lymphoma, said, and wrote a song, "Don't Worry About Me." When you know people worry about you, its a burden and not helpful.
Get his album. He also does the old Louis Armstrong song, "Its a Wonderful World."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
Im not familiar with them.

Steve Kubby's the guy we're talking about.

Ed Rosenthal was recently convicted as a drug dealer when he was officially sanctioned by the City of Oakland, under the terms of Prop 216, to distribute starter plants to patients needing medical marijuana. The Feds arrested him and put him on trial, saying he was a drug kingpin, and the defense was barred from saying why he was growing the marijuana, who he was giving it to, who he was working for, and that it was perfectly legal under CA law. The jury convicted him, and got really mad when they reentered the real world and found out the truth. They said had they known the truth they would never have convicted him, that they were lied to by the prosecutors and the judge, and that they were used as pawns in a political game. They felt it was not a fair trial at all and the conviction should be overturned.

A Google News search for the "Ed Rosenthal" should turn up all of this for you.

Correct me if I am wrong, this was before my time. Didnt the Supreme Court put a moratorium on the death panalty in the 60's and 70's?

I'm not sure...if they did, it's obviously no longer in effect. Maybe it was overturned as being unconstitutional?

[shanek]

Originally posted by subgenius
I really don't want to go into more detail because its too depressing. It gets worse.
Not looking for sympathy, that just increases the depression.
As Michael J. Fox said, "Pity is one step away from abuse."
Imagine visiting a person with terminal cancer and telling them how horrible that must be.

I'm not about to comment on what you must be going through with your illness because I have absolutely no idea what that must be like. But I will continue in my strongest voice to speak out for people who need medicine that the government won't let them have, if for no other reason, because that might be me someday.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by shanek
From the reception I got in the FDA thread awhile back, when I brought up the case of Mrs. Edie Bacon, whose only hope of surviving the next year is an experimental drug, the response was overwhelmingly that they'd rather let her die and leave her four kids motherless than let her use a drug that hasn't been approved by the FDA.That thread was a while back, but I seem to recall that most people pointed out that there is a policy in place for drug companies to allow compassionate use and there was little evidence one way or the other on why the drug company had not agreed to provide the woman with it. In addition, I believe she was also on medication for her condition and the new medication had not yet been determined to be more effective (though I'm a bit hazy on that part... been a looong week).

But really, the FDA vs. the FBI is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison anyway.

As to the medical use, well, I have little to say one way or the other. I do not know beyond anecdotes that there are conditions that can only be treated by smoking marijuana, I do not know beyond anecdotes that there is no research being done on a non-smoking version. It's not an area that I have significant knowledge of, not having an aforementioned illness nor wishing to use pot recreationally.

However, I do feel the hypocrisy in allowing alcohol but banning pot is a bit ridiculous. That a guy who flees to Canada to escape a drug conviction might be brought back is not ridiculous given the current state of laws; it's the laws themselves that seem rather absurd.

My view is that you can screw with your personal chemistry as much as you want so long as you don't endanger anyone else (driving etc.) but once you demonstrate your inability to do so responsibly you should be shot. Would save lots of money on prisons. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
That thread was a while back, but I seem to recall that most people pointed out that there is a policy in place for drug companies to allow compassionate use

Actually, I was the one who pointed that out (although the others pretended to point it out as if I hadn't). That was the big stickler for me: According to the law, she had a legal right to the medicine, and she was still denied it.

[shanek]

Here's a link to a rebuttal of a column (a link to the original column is on the site) about the Kubby situation that provides more information about it.

http://www.libertyforall.net/nthedrgwar.html

[Nie Trink Wasser]

there is a prescription medication that comes in pill form and does eactly what marijuana does.

I'll try and post the name of the drug, but you should look into it.

it's delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol ..........

the only reason IMHO for the debate for medical marijauna is purely political. A prescribed form has been available since 1985.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
there is a prescription medication that comes in pill form and does eactly what marijuana does.

I'll try and post the name of the drug, but you should look into it.

it's delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol ..........

the only reason IMHO for the debate for medical marijauna is purely political. A prescribed form has been available since 1985.


Not true. Get sick. Be poor and see.

[Victor Danilchenko]

DrBenway

Remember, this started as a thread about medical value of marijuana. Keep that in mind.

What about parents deciding what meds to give their kids? No limits on that?yes, limits on that. Are you done trying to demonize the opposition?

Kids are separate persons with their own rights. their rights are partially delegated to the parents -- but the parents have to excercise due caution and judgement in administering their children's lives, and the parents don't have complete control of their children. A parent should have a right to arbitrarily self-medicate, but not to do the same to their kid -- just as they should have a right to refuse themselves a life-saving blood transfusion, but not to do so for the child.

That stupidity behind us, let's move on...

Frequently, patients tell me they decided to take some over-the-counter medication or food suppliment, because some influential person in their life recommended it. Everyone seems to have an opinion about what you're supposed to take to get better.As i said, self-medication is often a bad idea; but would you haul self-medicator to jail? That's what I am arguing against -- self-medication, even with illegal drugs (like pot -- remember what this thread is about!), should not be a crime.

Furthermore, what about the real point of this thread -- when both the doctor and the patient agrees, but the government criminalizes the prescribed drug use anyway? I only brought up self-medication because it's even more extreme, and still should be legal -- if you can legally self-medicate, then you can certainly legally take prescription drugs.

I really dislike the idea of giving the power to prescribe to the average Joe. He just doesn't know what he doesn't know.Who said anything about the power to prescribe? Are you talking to me, or to some ridiculous strawman of your nightmares?

What I am saying -- all I am saying (all I was saying, until you introduced the child angle) is that self-medication should never be a crime. Doesn't mean that the pharmacy should dispence drugs to Joe Schmoe without a doctor's prescription -- but if Joe does get his hands on some drugs, any drugs, and takes them, that act should not be a crime.

[Victor Danilchenko]

WMT1

Which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the point, since your moronic ideas about consent were not based on the Constitution until your other arguments failed you.I used the notion of implicit consent in the context of consent to social contract, and Constitution is our social contract. So yes, by remaining in USA, I consent to US social contract -- but US social contract hardly permits such infringement of pursuit to happiness as War on Drugs.

If, however, that is the story you want to start going with, then we can simply add your name to the list of people who are incapable of formulating arguments about how things should be without referring to what's written down somewhere.How about we add your name to the list of people who have no clue about what "should be" means?

Incidentally, can I take it you would be just fine with the war on drugs if an amendment were passed making it Constitutional?No. However, that would make War on Drugs be legitimate -- a really stupid idea, but a legitimate part of social contract. I would join the movement trying to kill that amendment (the way prohibition got killed); and if that failed, I would probably leave US, since such a change in US social contract would be yet another step away from the kind of society I want to live in.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
there is a prescription medication that comes in pill form and does eactly what marijuana does.

I'll try and post the name of the drug, but you should look into it.

it's delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol ..........

the only reason IMHO for the debate for medical marijauna is purely political. A prescribed form has been available since 1985.



delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol is the active ingredient in marijuana, it is not the prescription form of it that you are thinking of. I believe you are thinking of Marinol, which has been commented on already.

[Alaric]

As a canadian, im afraid I dont agree with everyones "right" to self medicate. Self Medicate means the state pays for your moronic acts when your medicines conflict or cause bizarre life threatening side effects(i saw a commercial for an asthma medication whose side effects included rectal bleeding.....dear frikkin god). Take a look at what damage the existance of American pharmaceutical adds are doing here. Everyone assumes they know best-and then expects the government to clean up after them. If you beleive in the concept of socialized medacine, self medication becomes ugly and more expensive.

As for deportation, lets see what happens-if they actually deport him its a problem. As it stands right now, Canadian-American relations are NOT at a high point. Our government does not hide its disdain for the Dubya admin well(as the press so often points out).
We need to look at the realities of this situation. America is REALLY pushing the "War on Drugs". Hiow much can our country do againt that? Longest undefended border....US using military against whom it chooses...our relationship with Cuba....
Im not sure Canada needs yet another strike against it in Bush's eyes

[NullPointerException]

Self Medication is ridiculous, we have enough problems with irresponsible doctors without malpractice suits against pharmacies for not "warning" patients enough not to OD on two types of pill that contain the same chemical. No one in their right mind would advocate allowing people to self medicate anything that is currently a perscription drug. As for druggies, I say remove all illegal things and at the same time regulate and tax the drugs and make it clear that the government isn't responsible for rehab or drug related deaths and that by using drugs you acknowledge that the police can shoot you on sight if you go crazy.

[shanek]

I don't see any reason why pharmacies wouldn't voluntarily agree to a prescription standard. It would be a good way to cover themselves legally, as the prescription could serve as a waiver putting the responsibility on the hands of the doctor and not the pharmacy. I just have a big problem with all of this being controlled by government. The government says what drugs we can buy, the government says who's a doctor and who isn't...

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the point, since your moronic ideas about consent were not based on the Constitution until your other arguments failed you.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I used the notion of implicit consent in the context of consent to social contract,

Yeah, and I pointed out to you (more than once, I think) that you were confusing "implicit" with assumed, which is sort of inconsistent with the whole idea of actual contracts, and certainly with the idea of actual consent. I'm pretty sure this is one of the areas you dodged several questions about.



and Constitution is our social contract.

Well, it's not clear who "our" is supposed to be, but it is certainly the "social contract" of whoever has agreed to it. I'm pretty sure I haven't disputed that.



So yes, by remaining in USA, I consent to US social contract

Well, maybe you do, but your choice to allow your own consent to be inferred from such inaction does not equate to others being bound by that same ridiculously low standard. In any case, thanks for continuing to demonstrate your moronic notions about consent.



but US social contract hardly permits such infringement of pursuit to happiness as War on Drugs.

What about that whole "general welfare" thing? That's been used to justify all kinds of nonsense that's not allowed for elsewhere, so why not drug prohibition?

And while we're on this point, earlier you said ...

has the right to pursue happiness been amended out of Constitution? No? Didn't think so.

Well, that's not entirely true. See sixteenth amendment - no less an interference with the right to pursue happiness than the prohibition of certain drugs.



If, however, that is the story you want to start going with, then we can simply add your name to the list of people who are incapable of formulating arguments about how things should be without referring to what's written down somewhere.

How about we add your name to the list of people who have no clue about what "should be" means?

Sure, as soon as you can establish any such cluelessness in any of my statements. (I understand that, in the absence of an actual point here, you're just lashing out, and, in typical Victor fashion, grasping to create the impression of a valid criticism. But if you're going to try to use my own "add your name to the list" comment against me, you ought to at least try to use it some way that actually applies to something I've said.)



Incidentally, can I take it you would be just fine with the war on drugs if an amendment were passed making it Constitutional?

No. However, that would make War on Drugs be legitimate -- a really stupid idea, but a legitimate part of social contract. I would join the movement trying to kill that amendment (the way prohibition got killed);

But what arguments could you possibly make as part of such a movement? Couldn't anyone just trump them by pointing out "but it's in the implicit social contract"? And if you don't think that qualifies as legitimate rebuttal to anyone arguing for change, then why have you relied so heavily on it?

Or do you finally understand that merely proclaiming that something is in the "social contract" is worthless as an argument for the merit of that something, since it could actually be something stupid?

[Victor Danilchenko]

WMT1

Yeah, and I pointed out to you (more than once, I think) that you were confusing "implicit" with assumed, which is sort of inconsistent with the whole idea of actual contractsDo you sign a contract when you walk into a "2 drinks minimum" bar? Do you sign a contract when your parents die, leaving you a condo? No?.. :rolleyes:

Well, that's not entirely true. See sixteenth amendment - no less an interference with the right to pursue happiness than the prohibition of certain drugs.First of all, apparently the US congress had the right to impose income tax all along, as income tax is not a direct tax. but for the sake of argument, let's say that it took 16th amendment to grant the congress the power to impose income tax.

So what? it's legit because it's an amendment -- our social contract, in this scenario, has been legitimately amended in accordance with the procedures specified therein. This is why it's legitimate. if you don't like it, you can agitate against it or move out of US (compare to my hypothetical response to Drug Amendment), but you cannot complain about it being illegitimate or unconstitutional etc. -- not without appearing a moron at least.

Sure, as soon as you can establish any such cluelessness in any of my statements. (I understand that, in the absence of an actual point here, you're just lashing out, and, in typical Victor fashion, grasping to create the impression of a valid criticism. But if you're going to try to use my own "add your name to the list" comment against me, you ought to at least try to use it some way that actually applies to something I've said.)What was clueless about your statement? The fact that you apparently have no idea how normatives are constructed; that you seem to believe, in a Randian fashion, that normatives can be simply discovered the way factuals can (which is not even strictly true for factuals, but that's a different story). This is why your statement decrying my "incapable of formulating arguments about how things should be without referring to what's written down somewhere" was idiotic -- because the said "written down somewhere", or more broadly, social construction, to a large extent define what should and should not be. Normatives by their very nature require a value framework to give them meaning, and the societal value framework, as expressed in "what's written down somewhere", is an excellent place to start, and in fact the only place to start that's necessarily common to both parties (even if you don't accept the social values, you are at least aware of them).

Note: I don't really expect you to be able to understand that paragraph, as you have already shown yourself to be profoudly lacking in the necessary intellectual capacity. However, there it is -- the answer you requested.

But what arguments could you possibly make as part of such a movement? Couldn't anyone just trump them by pointing out "but it's in the implicit social contract"? And if you don't think that qualifies as legitimate rebuttal to anyone arguing for change, then why have you relied so heavily on it?Do you not understand the difference between "legitimate" and "good"? Free clue: it's akin to the difference between "legal" and "good".

The argument I would make against such a hypothetical drug amendment is that it's a Bad Idea, and that it shouldn't be legitimate, despite being so.

Or do you finally understand that merely proclaiming that something is in the "social contract" is worthless as an argument for the merit of that something, since it could actually be something stupid?:rolleyes: let me know when your brain catches up with your ass.

The difference between "legitimate" and "good" has never been confused by me; rather, you confused it, by claiming that taxation is not legitimate (remember your "taxation is like theft" idiocy?), that it cannot be a part of social contract, etc. It seems that you now wish to backpedal and claim that you meant to argue that "it's legitimate but bad" all along -- but such would have been a drastically different argument from the one you made (or pathetically tried to make, to be more accurate). Instead of concentrating on the demerits of taxation, you *********** retard, you kept hammering away at its legitimacy and at the legitimacy of the very notion of social contract -- once again, the manifestation of your oft-noted inability to see the 'big picture' and to discern what is relevant and what is not.

Why do I even bother talking to you...

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Yeah, and I pointed out to you (more than once, I think) that you were confusing "implicit" with assumed, which is sort of inconsistent with the whole idea of actual contracts

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Do you sign a contract when you walk into a "2 drinks minimum" bar?

Who said anything about signing? If you take action to walk into a bar (someone else's property) that's got a sign up notifying you of the two drink minimum, that's close enough to qualify as consenting to abide by the rules of the property owner.



Do you sign a contract when your parents die, leaving you a condo? No?.. :rolleyes:

Well, actually, that would be yes - that is, if there are any conditions attached to assumption of ownership. I'm surprised even you didn't know this.



has the right to pursue happiness been amended out of Constitution? No? Didn't think so.

Well, that's not entirely true. See sixteenth amendment - no less an interference with the right to pursue happiness than the prohibition of certain drugs.

First of all, apparently the US congress had the right to impose income tax all along, as income tax is not a direct tax. but for the sake of argument, let's say that it took 16th amendment to grant the congress the power to impose income tax.

So what? it's legit because it's an amendment -- our social contract, in this scenario, has been legitimately amended in accordance with the procedures specified therein. This is why it's legitimate. if you don't like it, you can agitate against it or move out of US (compare to my hypothetical response to Drug Amendment), but you cannot complain about it being illegitimate or unconstitutional etc. -- not without appearing a moron at least.

That's all nice, but if you'll review the exchanges carefully, you might actually notice that you seem to be addressing something other than the comment that preceded your response. That comment was about the "pursuit of happiness", something you brought up, remember? (What were you saying about "appearing a moron"?) Moreover, I'm definitely not in the habit of basing my complaints about the stuff I disagree with on whether it's unconstitutional. Maybe you have me confused with someone else?



If, however, that is the story you want to start going with, then we can simply add your name to the list of people who are incapable of formulating arguments about how things should be without referring to what's written down somewhere.

How about we add your name to the list of people who have no clue about what "should be" means?

Sure, as soon as you can establish any such cluelessness in any of my statements. (I understand that, in the absence of an actual point here, you're just lashing out, and, in typical Victor fashion, grasping to create the impression of a valid criticism. But if you're going to try to use my own "add your name to the list" comment against me, you ought to at least try to use it some way that actually applies to something I've said.)

What was clueless about your statement? The fact that you apparently have no idea how normatives are constructed; that you seem to believe, in a Randian fashion, that normatives can be simply discovered the way factuals can (which is not even strictly true for factuals, but that's a different story). This is why your statement decrying my "incapable of formulating arguments about how things should be without referring to what's written down somewhere" was idiotic -- because the said "written down somewhere", or more broadly, social construction, to a large extent define what should and should not be. Normatives by their very nature require a value framework to give them meaning, and the societal value framework, as expressed in "what's written down somewhere", is an excellent place to start, and in fact the only place to start that's necessarily common to both parties (even if you don't accept the social values, you are at least aware of them).

Note: I don't really expect you to be able to understand that paragraph,

You mean that argument against independent thinking, dressed up to sound like something more reasonable?



as you have already shown yourself to be profoudly lacking in the necessary intellectual capacity.

Then you must be particularly embarrassed that someone so "lacking" has been so effective at picking your arguments to shreds.



However, there it is -- the answer you requested.

Well, actually, no it isn't. You failed to actually establish any cluelessness about any of my statements, you just went off on some irrelevant, ********-laden rant about "normatives", to try and spin independent thought as something worthy of criticism.



Incidentally, can I take it you would be just fine with the war on drugs if an amendment were passed making it Constitutional?

No. However, that would make War on Drugs be legitimate -- a really stupid idea, but a legitimate part of social contract. I would join the movement trying to kill that amendment (the way prohibition got killed);

But what arguments could you possibly make as part of such a movement? Couldn't anyone just trump them by pointing out "but it's in the implicit social contract"? And if you don't think that qualifies as legitimate rebuttal to anyone arguing for change, then why have you relied so heavily on it?

Do you not understand the difference between "legitimate" and "good"? Free clue: it's akin to the difference between "legal" and "good".

Do you not understand that some words have multiple meanings? Can I get you on record stating that there is no valid, or commonly accepted, use of the word "legitimate", other than "legal"? Or that if something is legal, that automatically makes it legitimate?

And if so, you could have replaced every reference to "legit" or "legitimate" in your earlier commentary about the sixteenth amendment with "legal", and since we have no disagreement as to its legal status, I guess that makes all that commentary kind of pointless and irrelevant, huh?



Or do you finally understand that merely proclaiming that something is in the "social contract" is worthless as an argument for the merit of that something, since it could actually be something stupid?

:rolleyes: let me know when your brain catches up with your ass.

:rolleyes: let me know when you're going to stop relying on insults like this to foster the impression of superiority, and to cover for your failures, like your inability to answer the above question in a straightforward manner.



The difference between "legitimate" and "good" has never been confused by me; rather, you confused it, by claiming that taxation is not legitimate

I understand your need to manufacture insults wherever you think you can, since you've got nothing else, but rather than basing such a point on your own paraphrasing, it would help if you would identify which of my statements you're talking about. And as soon as you do, if it contains the word "legitimate", I'll be more than happy to provide you with a definition that will no doubt make it clear that your "confused" characterization is misplaced.



(remember your "taxation is like theft" idiocy?),

Uh, no. Somewhere along the line, I probably did point out the similarities between taxation and theft, or more likely, taxation and extortion, but I certainly don't remember any "idiocy". Your use of such an unflattering word to characterize that view appears to be an attempt to compensate for the absence of any actual arguments against it. If anything, a word like "idiocy" would be far more appropriate to describe views (like all that social contract stuff) that don't withstand much scrutiny. And I'm almost positive this is another one of those areas where you left some unanswered questions on the table.



that it cannot be a part of social contract, etc.

I'm pretty sure this is another bungled attempt to paraphrase what I actually said, to try to make a point that wouldn't otherwise be there. Any chance you could identify what the hell you're talking about, so that if I'm going to defend my statements, I can actually defend my statements?



It seems that you now wish to backpedal and claim that you meant to argue that "it's legitimate but bad" all along -- but such would have been a drastically different argument from the one you made (or pathetically tried to make, to be more accurate).

:rolleyes: Good grief. Notice how you repeatedly have to use your own paraphrasing to come up with these phony criticisms, rather than basing them on anything I've actually said? Where the hell does the "it's legitimate but bad" thing come from??? Is there any chance you can cite even one statement I've made, in my own words, to support either the "backpedal" characterization, or your use of the word "pathetically"? Yeah, that's what I thought. As long as you have a chance at creating the impression you want, why let accuracy get in the way, right?



Instead of concentrating on the demerits of taxation, you *********** retard,

I have concentrated on the demerits of taxation, you *********** retard, the greatest of which is its similarity to theft and/or extortion. Your inability to see that as a demerit is your failure.



you kept hammering away at its legitimacy and at the legitimacy of the very notion of social contract --

Since you've apparently decided to confine the definition of "legitimate" to "legal" now, this is not what I did. Again, get back to me when you can come up with something I've actually said to base your criticisms on.



once again, the manifestation of your oft-noted inability to see the 'big picture' and to discern what is relevant and what is not.

Yeah, you've used this "big picture" thing before too. It would be so refreshing if you could manage to come up with some criticisms of my posts that actually make sense, and are, you know, based on things I've actually said. (How many times does this make now, in this one post?)



Why do I even bother talking to you...

Given the degree to which you respond to things I haven't actually said, and to which you avoid responding to things I have said (or asked about), I'm kind of wondering that myself.