Why would you be against the Medical Marijuana prop? (crime, colleges)

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Good words Valley Native.

Barry Goldwater would be in favor of the Medical Marijuana referendum in Arizona if he was alive today. Yes, he was the last of the true Republicans. And if you call him a real conservative, then I am a conservative and the modern Republicans are certainly not.

In the past, the Goldwater types simply meant they wanted to conserve individual liberty and oppose government interference in our wallets, in our bodies, and in our bedrooms.

Now "conservative" reallly means to conserve big government. By that definition, Obama is a Conservative as well as George W. Bush and John McCain. Huckabee is for even more government. Note in 2008 he came out against a lot of free market ideas, and he also is a Pat Robertson social conservative activist against our civil liberties.

I was just talking about this with a friend on election day. Barry Goldwater must be virtually spinning in his grave over what constitutes a "conservative" today. The modern Republicans, or their base, anyway, are truly nothing like the "Goldwater conservatives" of old. The Republican party, and our divisive, polarizing political system, would be better off if there were millions more like him. Alas, there are not.

[amatrine]

I was for it even though I do not smoke pot. My husband voted against it because he was against what else was written in the bill . The fact that you can not discriminate against pot smokers who rent from etc . He said that is a personal choice not a government one The truth is over half the people that have the card will not really have a medical condition, and just want to get baked and he would not want to be forced to rent to them. He said it should just be legal, not controlled ( not gonna happen).

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

It will pass. All the polls show strong support for it.

I hope at this point that you have a knife & fork close by in preparation to eat those words.
()

Originally Posted by observer53

I was just talking about this with a friend on election day. Barry Goldwater must be virtually spinning in his grave over what constitutes a "conservative" today. The modern Republicans, or their base, anyway, are truly nothing like the "Goldwater conservatives" of old. The Republican party, and our divisive, polarizing political system, would be better off if there were millions more like him. Alas, there are not.

How true. If Goldwater were alive today, he would definitely be a Libertarian. He was even shunned by a lot of Republicans in the 1980s & 1990s when he defended planned parenthood & gays serving in the military, and stood up against people like Jerry Falwell. And to think that when he ran for President in 1964, he was slammed by the Democrats for being "too conservative". Dirty politics apparently haven't changed.

Originally Posted by amatrine

I was for it even though I do not smoke pot. My husband voted against it because he was against what else was written in the bill . The fact that you can not discriminate against pot smokers who rent from etc . He said that is a personal choice not a government one The truth is over half the people that have the card will not really have a medical condition, and just want to get baked and he would not want to be forced to rent to them. He said it should just be legal, not controlled ( not gonna happen).

If there was that additional wording in the initiative, I can somewhat understand why it's going down. Still, I think the strong opposition from both Brewer & Goddard played a part in the downfall ... as well as the fact that the strong "tea party" movement and a GOP sweep might have hurt the initiative. I agree with much of the basic principles of the tea party, but many people in that movement tend to be older and more conservative on the social issues (even though marijuana is not an agenda item for them).

[jimj]

I was watching the news last night and during the interview of a state senator the pot law came up. His opinion was it had nothing to do with medicinal use but was strictly a legalize drug use bill. He stated even the Glaucoma Society was against this bill for the same reason, just a legalize drug use bill. You'd think if anyone would be for a medical pot bill it'd be them if it was truly a medical one.

I guess you can draw your own conclusions from their stance.

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by jimj

I was watching the news last night and during the interview of a state senator the pot law came up. His opinion was it had nothing to do with medicinal use but was strictly a legalize drug use bill. He stated even the Glaucoma Society was against this bill for the same reason, just a legalize drug use bill. You'd think if anyone would be for a medical pot bill it'd be them if it was truly a medical one.

I guess you can draw your own conclusions from their stance.

Well, you can't really draw any conclusions until you actually read their reasoning behind not recommending it.

For example, they believe it may only be effective for 3 or 4 hours after treatment, so they take issue with paients having to medicate that frequently - which is curious because there are lots of pain medications that say you may redose every 3 or 4 hours.

They also cite the inability for patients to be able to operate machinery, or drive - this is again curious because many medications have warnings about operating machinery or driving, yet they are often sold over the counter.

They are concerned about the side effects of smoking as a delivery method - although there are proven and effective alternatives, which they don't comment on.

They also expressed concern about mental impairment, but they either don't know, or have not realized that, a patient's goal is not to get high, but to eliminate or reduce pain, so a patient does not have to use so much that they become mentally impaired.

The legal synthetic marinol says as a warning to be aware of how marinol affects you before operating machinery or driving, but it does not say you shouldn't do it at all, which is surprising.

You should also know that the medications they do approve of have a long list of side effects that sound pretty serious from rashes to frequent urination, burning, blurry vision, and many others.

You have to wonder if there isn't another agenda operating in the organization rather than just pure science and good patient care.

[JAinAZ]

Originally Posted by jimj

I was watching the news last night and during the interview of a state senator the pot law came up. His opinion was it had nothing to do with medicinal use but was strictly a legalize drug use bill. He stated even the Glaucoma Society was against this bill for the same reason, just a legalize drug use bill. You'd think if anyone would be for a medical pot bill it'd be them if it was truly a medical one.

I guess you can draw your own conclusions from their stance.

The pot bill has come up several times in my college classes, and NOT ONCE have I heard the ones advocating for the bill describe it as a bill to legalize MEDICAL pot. They always say something like, "yeah, we need to legalize pot because it's not bad for you like tobacco or alchohol". They have never said it should be legalized for it'd medicinal value. They clearly are looking at this as a bill that will allow them to toke up legally.

[Ritchie_az]

I was watching the news last night and during the interview of a state senator the pot law came up. His opinion was it had nothing to do with medicinal use but was strictly a legalize drug use bill. He stated even the Glaucoma Society was against this bill for the same reason, just a legalize drug use bill. You'd think if anyone would be for a medical pot bill it'd be them if it was truly a medical one.

One (of several) problem I have with it is who is behind it: Marijuana Policy Project. Their expressed purpose is to legalize pot. Mission Statement They know that only a small percentage of those who will "benefit" from the new law, should it pass, will have a legitimate medical need. Like the California law and the Montana law (and others), it is an easier way to access pot and a step closer to legalizing it altogether.
If one is for the bill because they want pot legalized, I can understand and respect (although disagree with) that. But, as I have said before and others (including, apparently, The Glaucoma Society), this bill has very little to do with the word "medical".

[LongIslandEddie]

Originally Posted by JAinAZ

The pot bill has come up several times in my college classes, and NOT ONCE have I heard the ones advocating for the bill describe it as a bill to legalize MEDICAL pot. They always say something like, "yeah, we need to legalize pot because it's not bad for you like tobacco or alchohol". They have never said it should be legalized for it'd medicinal value. They clearly are looking at this as a bill that will allow them to toke up legally.

JA-

California Ballot Proposition 215 -- Approved Nov. 5, 1996 by 56% of voters
Effective: Nov. 6, 1996 14 Legal Medical Marijuana States and DC - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org

Perhaps your fellow students are already aware of the fact that MEDICAL pot does not have to be described nor advocated for here in 2010 ,
because this bridge was crossed 14 years ago. Arizona has been "half-stepping" the issue for as many years. I would want to believe that any student
in college, who takes a position on the merit ,or lack thereof, in legalizing marijuana, would be fully appraised of every consideration involved within the
scope of this issue. I would also think that some of the brighter students have not encompassed the question of legality on the basis of it's medical value,
simply because these brighter students have investigated the conditions by which marijuana was classified by the federal government, as a schedule one,
"narcotic", a classification that places greater penalties upon marijuana use, traffic and possession, than both heroin and cocaine. I suspect that, among your
fellow students, there are marijuana users, those who know the truth and have not swallowed the great myth which has been propagated by our government.

When they say: "yeah, we need to legalize pot because it's not bad for you like tobacco or alcohol", they are speaking intelligently and do not need to be
concerned with the aspect of medicinal value, they already KNOW of its validity in that respect. Perhaps there are other considerations which they see as more
important than qualifying marijuana as a medicine, issues like civil liberty, as intended in our constitution, to give it's citizens the right to a pursuit of happiness,
which neither encumbers, nor harms or infringes upon the rights and liberties of another individual, like the concept of "toking-up" legally. Maybe there are those
within your college classroom who sincerely care about personal liberty and the sad fact that if we as a society are willing to relinquish one civil liberty, well, what
will come to be when the government and our misguided administrators decide to step into our bedrooms, our houses and our lives to a point where they have
total control over us? I'm surprised that the mandatory curriculum among all colleges does not include a reading of, George Orwell's illustrative novel, 1984.

I can only recommend that you or ANY student , become appraised of the real issue surrounding marijuana, it's history here in America as well as it's place in
the world since the beginning of time. Investigate the good of it as a resource, as avariciously as you are willing to underscore the detrimental effects of legalizing
it and putting the issue of personal choice within a fair and balanced picture. I exhort you to be the kind of citizen who is unwilling to subscribe to mandates and
policies, that have not been carefully reviewed and clearly understood by the individual who is affected by these policies. If you should consider "digging-deeper"
into the issue and to arm yourself with historical and sound information on the long history of marijuana, I believe that you will better qualify yourself to uphold
or support whatever position that you may decide to take, and make or present your argument in the the framework of knowledge rather than personal feeling
or falsely derived logic which has been largely based upon myth.

My biological clock is ticking down and chances are great that I won't be here when legalization of marijuana occurs in America. That day will come for your
generation, and society will be only what the people of your generation make of it. The responsibility is in your hands and your ability to bring about a better
society, than that which you have inherited from my generation, will largely depend upon your understanding of every contemporary issue of that day, as well as
every sad mistake of the previous generation which bequeathed that legacy they've handed down to you. Although I don't know you, it is my grandchildren who
will be counting on you to do the right thing and I can only hope that you'll take the opportunity of being in college and getting the educational background,
to make a better America possible.

[LongIslandEddie]

Originally Posted by jimj

I was watching the news last night and during the interview of a state senator the pot law came up. His opinion was it had nothing to do with medicinal use but was strictly a legalize drug use bill. He stated even the Glaucoma Society was against this bill for the same reason, just a legalize drug use bill. You'd think if anyone would be for a medical pot bill it'd be them if it was truly a medical one.

I guess you can draw your own conclusions from their stance.

Opinions are like butt-holes, everyone has one, and our laws shouldn't be guided by political opinion rather than the sound and logical review of
cause and effect of these laws upon society. It's simply a matter of their thinking over our thinking and the saddest commentary is, that it has been
their thinking, that has gotten America into the mess that it is in today.

[JAinAZ]

Originally Posted by LongIslandEddie

JA-

My biological clock is ticking down and chances are great that I won't be here when legalization of marijuana occurs in America. That day will come for your
generation, and society will be only what the people of your generation make of it. The responsibility is in your hands and your ability to bring about a better
society, than that which you have inherited from my generation, will largely depend upon your understanding of every contemporary issue of that day, as well as
every sad mistake of the previous generation which bequeathed that legacy they've handed down to you. Although I don't know you, it is my grandchildren who
will be counting on you to do the right thing and I can only hope that you'll take the opportunity of being in college and getting the educational background,
to make a better America possible.

Laughed my butt off at this one. I am a 41 year old college student, not some 18 year old impressionable kid. Libertarianism has many good points, but it needs to be mixed with common sense about what we need to say "NO" to. This country was set up to be free, but not a free for all.