Tigermike 3,036 Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Oregon Ponders New Pot LawWednesday, July 07, 2004 PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon ballot measure expected to qualify this week would make it legal for medical marijuana users to possess one pound of pot, create state dispensaries and allow nurse practitioners and naturopaths to prescribe it. If passed, a patient could possess six pounds of marijuana legally — spread out, it would be enough to fill two grocery carts. The medical marijuana law on the books there now limits legal possession to three ounces. Backers of the initiative say the current law isn't working for many of the 9,000 cardholders because they're running out of cannabis before they can line up a new supply. Opponents of the measures — which include the Bush administration — argue that these initiatives are less about helping sick people than about legalizing marijuana, especially since only 7 percent of the cardholders in the state are suffering from cancer, glaucoma or AIDS . And many in law enforcement say it would create a financial incentive for government to get people hooked on what they insist is a gateway drug. Eight states currently have medical marijuana laws. If Oregon voters pass the initiative, it would be, by far, the most liberal pot law in the United States. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 As usual, there is a middle ground to take that no one seems willing to consider. If the benefits to cancer, glaucoma, and MS patients are real and marijuana could be effective in treating their symptoms, why don't we figure out some way to classify it as a prescription medicine? Doctors could prescribe it for certain medical conditions. In that sense, how would it be any more of a gateway drug than certain addictive painkillers are now? I'm not sold on it being legal in the sense that alcohol is. But I think it would be reasonable to treat it as a prescription medication just as we do OxyContin and similar controlled substances. We see legitimate medicinal purposes for it, but don't allow it to be used as a recreational drug either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Marijuana should, at a minimum, be decriminalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keoson7 28 Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 WOW Al, we finally agree. decriminalization would be a big step in the right direction, If it was taxed and sold like cigs. There would be plenty of money for the Dems to spread to all the poor. But of course it would be used to buy weed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaTiger 0 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 legalizing pot would also probably create a whole new industry for people to castigate and deride when people harm themselves & others while using pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 WOW Al, we finally agree. decriminalization would be a big step in the right direction, If it was taxed and sold like cigs. There would be plenty of money for the Dems to spread to all the poor. But of course it would be used to buy weed. Well, you've actually gone past decriminalization and straight to legalization, so we don't fully agree yet. What to do with taxes and lawsuits aside, non-violent pot users would no longer be...criminals, thereby freeing up jail and prison space for actual criminals. The money, time and effort spent arresting, detaining, prosecuting and imprisoning them could be better spent in other areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keoson7 28 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Yep but then the court system would lose $$$$$$ and, well the lawyers/lawmakers won't have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texaubie 0 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 As usual, there is a middle ground to take that no one seems willing to consider. If the benefits to cancer, glaucoma, and MS patients are real and marijuana could be effective in treating their symptoms, why don't we figure out some way to classify it as a prescription medicine? Doctors could prescribe it for certain medical conditions. In that sense, how would it be any more of a gateway drug than certain addictive painkillers are now? I'm not sold on it being legal in the sense that alcohol is. But I think it would be reasonable to treat it as a prescription medication just as we do OxyContin and similar controlled substances. We see legitimate medicinal purposes for it, but don't allow it to be used as a recreational drug either. The difference between prescription drugs and pot is that you can't grow OxyContin in your back yard. The majority of pharmaceutical drugs are processed and highly refined. I would not want to use the drug industry as a form of control for a natural growing substance. In the end, people would continue to get it the way they always have instead of paying a pharmacy some high price for it. I'm not sure I would support full legalization but I do agree with Al on decriminalization. JMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,327 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 WOW Al, we finally agree. decriminalization would be a big step in the right direction, If it was taxed and sold like cigs. There would be plenty of money for the Dems to spread to all the poor. But of course it would be used to buy weed. Well, you've actually gone past decriminalization and straight to legalization, so we don't fully agree yet. What to do with taxes and lawsuits aside, non-violent pot users would no longer be...criminals, thereby freeing up jail and prison space for actual criminals. The money, time and effort spent arresting, detaining, prosecuting and imprisoning them could be better spent in other areas. Well, well. Hell hath gotten colder. I a... ag....agre.. I can't even bring myself to say it. The rapists are loose but we are safe from the potsmokers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texaubie 0 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 The rapists are loose but we are safe from the potsmokers! Those potsmokers are pretty dangerous. You have to watch out for them. Sometimes they actually get off the couch and call for a pizza and if you are between that couch and the phone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 There are some things in this country that people had better wise up to. One of them is the percentage of the population that is in jail. Last thing I heard we had passed russia several years ago and we were #1 afa the % of a countries population that is in jail. I have heard estimates that by the year 2020 or 2030 3.3% of our population will be ex cons. Thats strictly people who have done "hard time". Prison is a place of corruption and very very few who enter leave as bad off or better off than they were when they went in, they are worse off. We should really look at how we are punishing certain victimless crimes such as marijuana possession. I am all for medical marijuana . It is great for stress and nausea relief. If it weren't for the $$$$$ of the paper companies years ago it might STILL be legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChattanoogaTiger 0 Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Marijuana is legal as a prescription drug in a much safer form than the inhaled weed. The active ingredient is tetrahydocannibinol which causes the sedative, anti nausea and appetite stimulant effects. Smoking marijuana is actually more toxic for the lungs than tobacco and I can't support this method of delivery. Many of our current medications are from a botanical source. In case you are interested, here is a link. http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/botany/chemtab.html "Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) was first isolated from hemp in 1965. THC's intoxicating and medicinal properties have been touted for thousands of years; however, use of the substance is highly controlled in the U.S. and in some other countries. Delta-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol, in capsule form more commonly known as dronabinol and sold as Marinol by Roxane Laboratories, is federally recognized as an appetite stimulant and anti-nausea/vomiting (antiemetic) agent (though some research indicates it is useful as an anti-glaucoma agent as well). It is available only through special prescription to treat persons suffering from chemotherapy- or radiation-related nausea, and to treat people suffering from AIDS-related anorexia. The FDA approved it for use as an antiemetic for chemotherapy patients in 1985 and as an appetite stimulant for AIDS patients in 1992." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Marijuana is legal as a prescription drug in a much safer form than the inhaled weed. The active ingredient is tetrahydocannibinol which causes the sedative, anti nausea and appetite stimulant effects. Smoking marijuana is actually more toxic for the lungs than tobacco and I can't support this method of delivery. Many of our current medications are from a botanical source. In case you are interested, here is a link. http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/botany/chemtab.html "Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) was first isolated from hemp in 1965. THC's intoxicating and medicinal properties have been touted for thousands of years; however, use of the substance is highly controlled in the U.S. and in some other countries. Delta-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol, in capsule form more commonly known as dronabinol and sold as Marinol by Roxane Laboratories, is federally recognized as an appetite stimulant and anti-nausea/vomiting (antiemetic) agent (though some research indicates it is useful as an anti-glaucoma agent as well). It is available only through special prescription to treat persons suffering from chemotherapy- or radiation-related nausea, and to treat people suffering from AIDS-related anorexia. The FDA approved it for use as an antiemetic for chemotherapy patients in 1985 and as an appetite stimulant for AIDS patients in 1992." Yeah, but those little pills are hard as hell to keep lit!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChattanoogaTiger 0 Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Yeah, but those little pills are hard as hell to keep lit!!! LOL I just have a strong bias against smoking as second smoke (tobacco and non tobacco) has a adverse effect on young lungs. At least half the kids I take care of come from smoking homes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.