Text 2265, 92 rader
Skriven 2006-06-09 20:50:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2711.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <1e3k82t95gon9vlqafru3d8bdt62fp7nus@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-0F6E4E.15301405062006@news.west.earthlink.net>
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 22:41:25 +0000 (UTC), Kurt Ullman
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <0bqh82lrsb9upu32pocp7ecpgrep767dpi@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Amusing, isn't it, how conservatives drop their "states' rights"
>> pretence every time something comes along that they don't like,
>> whether it's Terri Schiavo or gay marriage or medical marijuana, and
>> adopt it again the moment liberals propose something?
>
>   Have to agree on Terri. Gay marriage is not really a state's right 
>issue because of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution 
>means that technically Massachusetts (say) could force its will on the 
>other states by legalizing gay marriage. Although there are ways around 
>that.  

Haven't heard that one. I thought states were passing laws that didn't
recognize gay marriage in other states.

>           Medical MJ is pretty much the same since the Feds (through 
>FDA) has LONG pre-empted the field of deciding what medication can or 
>cannot be used in the US.

Doesn't make it even remotely constitutional, because the Federal
authority to regulate drugs is presumably based on the commerce
clause. Marijuana grown and consumed within a state isn't subject to
Federal oversight because it doesn't constitute interstate commerce.

>I find it at least as amusing that the 
>liberals want Pfizer et al to go through MORE hoops for their 
>medications, but want MMJ to be approved with MUCH less information on 
>efficacy, let alone safety. If you want internal consistency in the 
>conservatives, it only fair to ask the same for the liberals (g).  

Well, yeah, except that the effects and liabilities of marijuana have
at this point been studied to death, and to the extent that they
haven't, it's because the government makes it practically impossible
to conduct research. I for one think that medical marijuana is a
crock, in that there have to be safer and more controllable means of
delivering the active substances. But until the research is done to
find those means, I'll be damned if I'm going to put the opinions of
some overzealous drug czar or pandering politician ahead of the
testimony of cancer victims, doubly so since I learned long ago that
the establishment (been many years since I reached for /that/ word!)
frequently lies through its teeth when it comes to the hazards of
recreational narcotics.

So until it's shown otherwise, from my perspective, the liberal
position is of not wanting unscrupulous businessmen to sell
ineffectual or dangerous remedies to sick people who don't know
better, while the conservative position is not wanting sick people to
have access to a drug that can help them. Which would be pretty
typical.

>> Me, I favor decriminalizing pretty much everything except Heroin,
>> crack, and crystal meth, drugs which for the most part can't be used
>> casually and cause harm not just to the person using them but to
>> society. Among other things, that would allow us to stop wasting money
>> and law enforcement resources on drugs that for the most part are no
>> more harmful (and in the case of marijuana probably less harmful) than
>> tobacco and alcohol, and that we're never going to be able to control
>> anyway. I wouldn't /quite/ make them legal, though, because if you did
>> that, big business would start making and promoting them the way they
>> do cigarettes and booze, and what with Congress being as corrupt as it
>> is we'd have no chance of stopping that.
>
>   In other words as long as no actually makes any money (or at least 
>enough to piss you off) it is okay. At least you are consistent...

You're telling me that not wanting to encourage the consumption of PCP
is the same as not wanting anyone to make any money? Just how /do/ you
make your money, anyway? And are our children so unimportant to you by
comparison to profit that you would want to add billboard ads for
ecstasy and LSD to the already harmful ads for cigarettes and alcohol?

-- 
Josh

"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
                                                                               
                             
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)