Medicinal Marijuana - Is Bush a moron for opposing it?

He can push for lawmakers to create laws, he can use influence, he can beg, he can plead, he can bribe, but the President does not have the power to create any laws.

Yeah, but what chance does the opposition have when this president claims he's following god's orders?

Of course medicinal marijuana should be legalized. If it reduces a terminal patient's suffering and doesn't effect anyone else, where is the problem? (I welcome answers to this question)

As far as "Marinol" being the active ingredient in pot, it's THC that's the active ingredient. Marinol is a brand-name for dronabinol, which is a synthentic version of THC. It's my understanding that it isn't as effective as pot in reducing pain.

It may be because there are so many ingredients in pot that THC isn't the only one that's doing something to the consumer.

I'm sure that the makers of marinol probably don't want medicinal marijuana legalized though - and I'd be willing to bet that they hold some influence in Washington.

Marinol Website

Thank you all for your kind comments here and in PM's. I appreciate every one. I'm going to stay at least for now.

In answer to Centroles's question, I think President Bush's personal aversion to medical marijuana is the fact that so many medical doctors have said there are legal drugs already on the market that do everything marijuana does for critically ill people and without the toxicity inherent in marijuana.

At the same time, President Bush is ambivalent on this issue and continues his 2000 campaign statements that he favors the states being able to decide this issue for themselves. He cannot, as president, favor the states breaking the law on this issue on their own initiative however. Everything I've read suggests that GWB would not oppose a change in the law allowing states to decide the matter for themselves. I don't believe he would support a federal law authorizing medical marijuana.
]
Consider the recent article in the ' April 2004 Marijuana News' in California though why it is quoting 1999 sources escapes me. There are many many links mostly pro medical use of marijuana, but it gives GWB a pass on the issue:

http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/gore_position_du_jour_on_medical.htm

Our Canadian friends have also had this debate. The series of articles in this link explains some of the reasons that all do not favor medical use of marijuana and some of these reasons are what the GOP headquarters here tells me are GWB's reasons/reluctance to come out personally in favor of the use of medical marijuana.

http://www.wednesday-night.com/Marijuana.asp

Me personally? I favor the states being allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to legalize medical marijuana.

Foxfyre,

You say "toxicity" of marijuana - doesn't that imply that marijuana can kill you?

Curious where the info's coming from.




[size=7]
edit: call changed to kill - too much multi-tasking [/size]

Can call you?

I think he meant kill McGentrix. There hasn't been a single documented case of anyone dying as a result of ingesting marijuana. No mechanism for that even exists.

In fact, it is a scientific fact that there is absolutely no evidence that marijuana is in anyway physically addictive.

Marijuana is in many ways safer than several over the counter medications that people can buy without so much as a prescription.

There is absolutely no justification why it's medical use shouldn't be allowed.



I'm glad you decided to stay foxfyre. We need a stronger conservative base here at a2k to balance things out.

About your defense of Bush though...

There is already a federal ban on the use of marijuana for all uses including medicinal ones. Bush opposed any attempts to amend the ban and authorize its use for medical purposes.

Bush has personally pushed states that aurthorized medicinal marijuana to reinstate the ban on it. This flies in the face of state's rights.

And I also have a problem with your claim that there are other drugs that do what marijuana do more effectively and with less harmful effects.

That's blatantly false and has been shown to be so by multiple studies. Marijuana is the most effective treatment, the most potent pain reliever and the least addictive/harmful treatment for various serious illnesses.

The American Medical Association (a union of all doctors in America) issued a statement (one that went largely ignored) to Bush to not push states to ban medicinal marijuana saying that it is the most effective treatment for various cancers, glaucoma and several other disorders.

I think at the very least, doctors should be the ones making the decision on what treatment to give their patients, not Bush.

Fox's quote, "At the same time, President Bush is ambivalent on this issue and continues his 2000 campaign statements that he favors the states being able to decide this issue for themselves. He cannot, as president, favor the states breaking the law on this issue on their own initiative however. Everything I've read suggests that GWB would not oppose a change in the law allowing states to decide the matter for themselves." California legalized medicinal marijuana, but the feds continue to arrest people. That not consistent with what you're saying. c.i. BTW, Glad to see you're gonna stick around - for awhile.

For the president to require states to obey the law is not the same as forbidding states rights. Some states have passed laws in direct conflict with federal law. The federal law has to be changed before the states can legally pass their own laws re medical use of marijuana.

Can you find any recent quote by GWB that supports that he is not in favor of the states having the right to decide for themselves in this matter? He can't just declare it by presidential decree, however. The law that exists has to be changed. That is not within the power of the president to do.

If Congress gets off the dime and puts the matter in the hands of the states, I think GWB will sign the bill. The ones you need to be mad at are the House and Senate on this issue, not the President.

In answer to Jer, no toxicity does not imply that something is fatal, but implies that it is or can be harmful. For instance some drugs like prednisone prescribed for arthritis are more toxic (can have bad side effects) than others like ibuprophen prescribed for arthritis. There are valid reasons to prescribe prednisone nevertheless.

Marijuana is highly toxic to some animals (dogs, horses, etc.) in dried form, less so in green form. It can make them pretty sick though it is rarely fatal. The medical studies re toxicity in humans have been far less conclusive with the majority coming down on the side of marijuana not being as toxic as claimed by some.

Smoking marijuana ( the preferred delivery method) is more dangerous to your health than smoking cigarettes.

However, if you are already fighting cancer, do you care?

McG,

Smoking marijuana at the same rate as cigs would prove to be more harmful than cigarettes (more tar & no filter) I don't believe there are too many people who smoke that much dope though. Generally a 1 joint to 20 cigs or 1 joint to 100 cigs or 1 joint to 1000 cigs kind of ratio I think.

Agreed with the terminal illness thing - I'm sure that other drugs given to terminal patients to make them comfortable are probably harmful to their health as well.

actually that's not true McGentrix.

And no doctor who has prescriped marijuana suggests that the patient smoke it.

For medicinal purposes, it is taken orally, and this has no dangerous side effects.

If it was legal, it could be made into a pill that doctors could prescripe.

There is a federal ban on marijuana.

Congress has on multiple occasions tried to amend the bill to authorize medicinal use.

Bush has on all these occasions asked his fellow republicans to table the bill essentially killing it.

If he backed the bill and asked his fellow republicans to do the same, I don't think even you would argue that it wouldn't pass almost immediatley.

Jer, I think I read someplace that filtered cigs are not any more safe than unfiltered ones.

Jer, I found this on a web search. http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/10/suppl_1/i1

CI,

I hadn't intended to get into a debate about filtered/unfiltered cigs here...but one thing in that article you sent me stuck out:



Smokers changed their smoking behaviour to get more nicotine out of lighter cigarettes (inhaled more deeply or smoked more often) which negated any positive effects of less nicotine/tar in the cigs.

With a joint, it is generally smoked in the same manner regardless of whether or not you've got a filter: you breathe it in as deeply as you can and then hold it for a few seconds.

What I was saying to McG was that it's hard to compare marijuana to cigarettes because the rate of consumption is vastly different.

Someone who smokes 1 cigarette a week is at extremely low risk of any negative health problems related to smoking. The same way that someone who were to smoke 1 joint a week is at low risk for any smoking related health problems.

At risk of repeating myself here, the president will not support a universal law allowing medical marijuana anywhere. He respects the wishes of those states who do not want it. If Congress would stop trying to make it a universal law mandated by the Feds, and would present a law passing the choice to the states, Bush will sign it. Then those states that want this provision can go right ahead and get it done.

"At the same time, President Bush is ambivalent on this issue and continues his 2000 campaign statements that he favors the states being able to decide this issue for themselves." foxfrye

<sigh>

How many times are you going to post this sentence?

I checked the Bush for 2004' site and it isn't there. Do you have a special "in" with Bush, or are you just putting words in his mouth?

firstly, there is already a federal ban on it foxfyre that overrides state laws.

this is why some one in california can be arrested for it by the feds even though the state legalized it.

bush stopped attempts to repeal this ban and let states pass their own laws as to whether or not it's legal.

second, shouldn't doctors be the ones deciding whether or not to prescribe medicinal marijuana to a certain patient.

shouldn't the terminally ill patient suffering from cancer and excrutiating pain be the ones to make the decision?

what medical qualifications do politicians have to make this decision either at the federal or the state level?

Marijuana is illegal under federal law. What the states choose to do is irrelevant unless that law is changed.

If California wants medicinal marijuana to be legal it makes no difference, the FBI can still arrest them.

And they have.

So I don't see how Bush can support the right of the states to decide on this without also supporting a change in the federal law.

Many politicians use the sovereignty of state as a scapegoat in a pinch. You see Democrats using this now to deal with the polemy that is gay marriage. They are opposing a constitutional amendment and saying that they want the states to decide.

In reality they are mostly against the ban but because of the prevalence of homophobia and negetive reactions to gay marriage they are using the sovereignty of state as a fall back. This way they don't have to advocate allowing the marriages and use local determination as the reason to block the constitutional amendment.

Bush's policy is little different. What he says is irrelevant, as the status quo is that states can't decide for themselves.

If Bush wants states to be able to decide, he needs to push for a change in federal law. As it stands the states decision will not protect the individual and in California individuals who had the saction of state and local law enforcement were raided by the federal government.

Well I disagree that any law has been tabled re states rights on this issue, or if it has, I have seen no evidence that GWB had anything to do with it.

Do you disagree that the federal and/or state governments should be regulating the manufacture and dispensing of any potentially toxic substances for human ingestion, i.e. tobacco, alcohol, other prescription drugs, etc.? What would make marijuana any different?