Montana moves to repeal medical marijuana laws

[AmbulanceDriver]

PTK, I genuinely feel for you.  I can't imagine getting the only medication that works for your chronic pain potentially taken away from you.  It's a raw deal, and yeah, it sucks.

But here's my question.  Short of outright legalization (which I don't think is gonna happen in this political climate, and which I have mixed feelings about) how do you let the people that are genuinely sick get medicinal marijuana while keeping scumbags like Jason Christ at bay?

Oregon has a MM program.  One of the big pushers behind the law was NORML.  Their stated goal is legalization.  Working in EMS, I occasionally see the MM crowd, and the abusers of the system.  And I have to say that in my experience, only about 5% of the MM card holders in OR are genuine.  The rest are nothing more than junkies with a permission slip.

[Regolith]

But here's my question.  Short of outright legalization (which I don't think is gonna happen in this political climate, and which I have mixed feelings about) how do you let the people that are genuinely sick get medicinal marijuana while keeping scumbags like Jason Christ at bay?

Treat MM like you would any other Schedule II or III drug, and make the providers pass a licensing review board that would weed out (pardon the pun) people like Jason Christ and others who hand out illegitimate prescriptions.

Or you know, we could just fully legalize it.

[Tuco]

So, where exactly are they making a "mockery of pharmacology and medicine"?

http://www.medicalmarijuanalifestyle.com/
http://www.criminalattorney.com/marijuana/prescription/
http://www.webehigh.com/news/detail.php?choose_subject=1&newsId=331&CITYID=0

[quote...we'll fix you up(wink wink).../quote]
Criminal Defense Attorneys?  To get Medical Marijuana?!?!
Puh-leese

Cause, you know, it'd just be TERRIBLE if we let other people do things we don't approve of, instead of only holding them accountable for any actual violations of others' rights they might commit

Go right ahead and get stoned and be stupid for all I care.  I have no objection.  
The economy will suffer, except maybe pizza parlors.

You are, of course, invited to expand my knowledge if it is lacking, but AFAIK, the MM movement is RELYING on proven medical benefits in making their case.

I've watched the legalization movement groping for traction for thirty years.
As soon as these medical benefits became accepted, in the last 8 years or so,  every long-haired, maggot infested, FM type jumped on the "Medical" bandwagon.  
"It's medishun!!" just seems to resonate better than "Hemp is the natural, environmentally friendly fiber" or "Tune in, turn on, drop out"
 
To me, many "Medical Marijuana" advocates appear to be stoners looking for justification.
Well, they've got justification.  Let's see how they do with it.  

[dm1333]

From the webehigh website;

When you do go the see the doctor, you will most likely end up paying somewhere around $200 for the appointment. He will ask you a few questions about your condition. All you have to do is tell him that the problem is chronic and the current medication that you are using is not working.

To be safe, do some research to find out the possible side effects of any medication that you are currently taking for your medical condition. Almost any medication is going to have a list of possible negative side effects. Simply tell the doctor that you have been experiencing one or more of these side effects. The doctor will then most likely ask if you currently use medical marijuana to treat the condition. You should tell him that you are currently a marijuana user. Say that it relieves the symptoms of your condition and you do not experience any negative side effects from using marijuana.

Yes, the problem is chronic   

[PTK]

The economy will suffer, except maybe pizza parlors.

Yeah, like in CA, where MM is making the state over $100m in tax money every year.


Wait....

[zahc]

And I have to say that in my experience, only about 5% of the MM card holders in OR are genuine.  The rest are nothing more than junkies with a permission slip people who wish to use this harmless, pleasant substance legally and are doing so the only way the state has provided.

fixed

It's important to maintain perspective. If alcohol were in the same legal position, I wouldn't be calling these people "alcoholics with a permission slip". But there are those out there who think anyone who drinks is deviant. I just wish the cultural warfare would die out already, or at least, I wish our laws would stop choosing sides.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Yeah, like in CA, where MM is making the state over $100m in tax money every year.


Wait....

and yet in calif there is talk of rolling back the laws as well  wonder why?

[AmbulanceDriver]

The *only* reason I'm hesitant to say "just legalize it" is this:

There are too many people who will stone themselves into oblivion, and then expect you and I to pay for them to live.  Be it food stamps, housing, and any other kind of aid you can think of.  

Fix that, and I'll be glad to say ok to legalization.

This is *not* people in PTK's position, who genuinely *NEED* that help.  It's the system abusers. 

[erictank]

The *only* reason I'm hesitant to say "just legalize it" is this:

There are too many people who will stone themselves into oblivion, and then expect you and I to pay for them to live.  Be it food stamps, housing, and any other kind of aid you can think of.  

Fix that, and I'll be glad to say ok to legalization.

This is *not* people in PTK's position, who genuinely *NEED* that help.  It's the system abusers. 

And that is ***EXACTLY*** the argument being used against us law-abiding firearms owners and users.  "It's not YOU guys - it's those who abuse the system/their rights/whatever."

Does that change things at all?

[Tuco]

And that is ***EXACTLY*** the argument being used against us law-abiding firearms owners and users.  "It's not YOU guys - it's those who abuse the system/their rights/whatever."

Does that change things at all?

Ooops
2nd Amendment guarantee against infringement =/= Medical care choices

I am all for legalization.  Let the addicts lay around, listen to Pink Floyd, watch spongebob reruns and play frisbee when they can peel themselves out of the chair.
But legalize it for reasons of Liberty.
Scurrying to the shadows of legitimately ill people when their motives are questioned is reprehensible.

edited to add pretty colors

[kgbsquirrel]

Ooops
2nd Amendment guarantee against infringement =/= Medical care choices
...
But legalize it for reasons of Liberty.
Scurrying to the shadows of legitimately ill people when their motives are questioned is reprehensible.

The Constitution grants the federal government absolutely no powers to control, regulate or prohibit personally produced and consumed recreational chemicals (caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, THC, etc.). So why again was this ever illegal to start with?

[Jamisjockey]

The Constitution grants the federal government absolutely no powers to control, regulate or prohibit personally produced and consumed recreational chemicals (caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, THC, etc.). So why again was this ever illegal to start with?

This. 

We tried the (legal) prohibition route once.  That was a failure.  And the fail of alcohol prohibition pales in the face of the fail that is the prohibition on drugs. 

[PTK]

Odd, but the liberty train of thought seems to stop at firearms and such for about half the posters in this thread. To the rest of you, thank you very much. Emotional support means quite a bit - the very idea of a plant that helps me such enormous amounts and allows me to resume normal life being once again illicit? It felt like finding out that I'd "just have to get along without" oxygen, or water.

[Tuco]

It felt like finding out that I'd "just have to get along without" oxygen, or water.

Give
me
an
'effing
break!!!
 

I've been around stoners my whole life.
They are the best scammers I've known.  They make Nigerians look like my grandma.

I've said it before.  Legalize it.  Go right ahead.
But 10 million red-eyed hippies saying "Eeets good for asthma" isn't doing it.
Control it like the narcotic it is.  I've lost too many people to drugs.  The world would be a better place without junkies. 
Quit trying to play the sympathy card.
My back hurts, too.  Arthritis in my ankles. Get used to it. 
It get worse if you grow up  when you grow old.

[PTK]

Give
me
an
'effing
break!!!
 

I've been around stoners my whole life.
They are the best scammers I've known.  They make Nigerians look like my grandma.

I've said it before.  Legalize it.  Go right ahead.
But 10 million red-eyed hippies saying "Eeets good for asthma" isn't doing it.
Control it like the narcotic it is.  I've lost too many people to drugs.  The world would be a better place without junkies. 
Quit trying to play the sympathy card.
My back hurts, too.  Arthritis in my ankles. Get used to it. 
It get worse if you grow up  when you grow old.

Quite simply, you don't know me. You're doing the standard "judge before knowing" that anti-gunners use. Why, you're not a hunter, you just want guns and you're hiding behind legitimate hunters.

I've been diagnosed with spinal arthritis, chronic heart issues (currently, my heart functions at 40% of estimated average for my age), sciatic neuritis, and more things than I care to list. I've had four heart attacks, and I'm not yet 30. So, it's your opinion that I'm "just a stoner", a drug addict, don't really need to dull my pain, and/or that everyone is in pain and I should just suck it up, so on and so on.

I pray that you never get seriously injured. I doubt you'd be able to deal with what I have, based on your opinions of people in pain. :(

Right.

[Nick1911]

Odd, but the liberty train of thought seems to stop at firearms and such for about half the posters in this thread.

Well said.

What's your measure of success?  If we implements some system that increases GDP, improves the economy - but by it's nature reduces personal freedoms - is that a win?

What if the cost of increasing personal freedom is a hit to the economy?  What if it makes the US a more dangerous place to live?  Is it worth it?

There are too many people who will stone themselves into oblivion, and then expect you and I to pay for them to live.  Be it food stamps, housing, and any other kind of aid you can think of.

Philosophical argument aside: Newsflash: We already have a welfare state.  Losers who are otherwise capable but choose to get stoned and live off the system already do.  Highschool kids can already get weed easier then beer.  JUST LIKE the arguments against gun control, the ONLY people prohibition impacts is those of us who follow the law.  Which, in my estimation includes people who have a legitimate medical need, and those who would choose it as a recreational drug instead of alcohol.  I don't understand why would should have a war to keep weed from either of these groups.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Tuco, I considered sending this as a PM, but decided that it needs to be said publicly not only for you, but for others who frequent this forum.  A lot of people (Including Oleg Volk, the guy who owns this place, just in case you didn't know) know and will vouch for PTK's credibility, his health problems, and the fact that he is one of the Good Guys ^TM.  Attack the argument, politely, but seriously, please refrain from attacking PTK personally. 

[AmbulanceDriver]

Well said.
Philosophical argument aside: Newsflash: We already have a welfare state.  Losers who are otherwise capable but choose to get stoned and live off the system already do.  Highschool kids can already get weed easier then beer.  JUST LIKE the arguments against gun control, the ONLY people prohibition impacts is those of us who follow the law.  Which, in my estimation includes people who have a legitimate medical need, and those who would choose it as a recreational drug instead of alcohol.  I don't understand why would should have a war to keep weed from either of these groups.

Nick, trust me, I know all too well the welfare state we live in.  I deal with it on a daily basis at work.  Frankly, I think we should cut about 95% of all public assistance.  Just like the MM crowd here that I've seen, in my experience only about 5% of the people on all the various forms of welfare actually NEED it.  Those that do need it, *REALLY* do need it.  The problem is rampant though.  Cutting it back will be (metaphorically) bloody.  And really messy.  To extend the metaphor a bit, it's kinda like necrotizing fasciitis (flesh eating bacteria).  IF you catch it early, you can cut off the affected part with little more than a scalpel and some local anesthetic. To mix metaphors, we've not only got NF, but the affected arm is trapped under a boulder, and the only tool we have is the camp axe.  It's not gonna be pretty, and it's gonna hurt like hell, but we've gotta cut it off before it kills us. 

[Jamisjockey]

Odd, but the liberty train of thought seems to stop at firearms and such for about half the posters in this thread.

This is why I've given up on the GOP and most Republicans.  Freedom isn't some abstract.  It is a real and tangible thing.  However, as long as people get what they want out of freedom, they're happy to keep others from enjoying the freedoms they'd like to enjoy. 

[dm1333]

There are too many people who will stone themselves into oblivion, and then expect you and I to pay for them to live.  Be it food stamps, housing, and any other kind of aid you can think of. 

Odd, but the liberty train of thought seems to stop at firearms and such for about half the posters in this thread.

My liberty train of thought is one of those ones that stops short of legalizing MJ.  It isn't on a whim or some misguided perception of reefer madness.  Living north of San Francisco in the heart of the emerald triangle gives me a different perspective on all of this and changed my views on the war on drugs.  This has nothing to do with PTK and every thing to do with seeing the social cost of MJ up close and personal.  So please don't color all of us with that same "liberty train of thought" brush.

[PTK]

My liberty train of thought is one of those ones that stops short of legalizing MJ.  It isn't on a whim or some misguided perception of reefer madness.  Living north of San Francisco in the heart of the emerald triangle gives me a different perspective on all of this and changed my views on the war on drugs.  This has nothing to do with PTK and every thing to do with seeing the social cost of MJ up close and personal.  So please don't color all of us with that same "liberty train of thought" brush.

You just said that your idea of liberty stops short, and give personal reasons similar to those given earlier. You want conditional liberty - I say, you are one and the same with the others. You may not like it, you most likely don't like being lumped in with them, but alas, you have similar views, similar reasons for those views, and want similar conditional liberty.

You are, indeed, the same as those others. Don't think yourself above being painted with the same brush.

EDIT: In discussing my frustrations over pro-firearms anti-drug folks thinking themselves pro-liberty, I came up with an appropriate way of phrasing this.

Liberty is not a salad bar of freedoms, nor a buffet of choices. You either accept that liberty is for all free members of society and is present in all aspects of life, or you are stating that you have no issues whatsoever about trampling some freedoms, as long as you still get your choice of freedoms. The latter choice, of course, is no different than entirely removing all freedoms. This is absolutely no different than those who don't care what happens to most firearms freedoms as long as they can hunt once a year with a bolt-action. Similarly, anti-gun/pro-drug folks who say that drugs are harmless but guns are the bane of society have everything in common with you folks - keep what you agree with, ban the rest.

The phrase "we must hang together or we will surely hang separately" comes to mind.

Can anyone, at all, point to any letters between Founders or books from the 1770s, or a relevant section of the Constitution that allows the Federal government to ban substances to be ingested? Until then, I say this - those of you who wish to continue a ban on drugs are no different than anti-gunners, those against freedom of religion, or those who would turn these United States into a police state.

As a good friend of mine puts it, personal liberty ends only when it causes physical or financial harm to another person. Emotion is not part of the equation.

[Jamisjockey]

As a good friend of mine puts it, personal liberty ends only when it causes physical or financial harm to another person. Emotion is not part of the equation.

Lovin it!

[PTK]

I hear you, I love his worldview too! BTW, that's from "kgbsquirrel" on here. Known him for... oh... three or four years now. Great guy. :)

[kgbsquirrel]

... Great guy. :)

Dude, stop futzing with my rep!  *randomly shanks another board member to get his rep back up*

[makattak]

Can anyone, at all, point to any letters between Founders or books from the 1770s, or a relevant section of the Constitution that allows the Federal government to ban substances to be ingested? Until then, I say this - those of you who wish to continue a ban on drugs are no different than anti-gunners, those against freedom of religion, or those who would turn these United States into a police state.

As a good friend of mine puts it, personal liberty ends only when it causes physical or financial harm to another person. Emotion is not part of the equation.

I'm one of your "anti-freedom" gun lovers. I think drugs should be banned.

I am, however, completely on-board with the fact that it is not within the federal government's defined powers. The states (or localities) should do the banning.

I'm a federalist and a conservative, not a libertarian. Government has a place, I just prefer that government be as small and local as possible.