[zigzag]

The Justice Department, presumably at the direction of Bush/Ashcroft, has appealed a federal court decision holding that federal controlled-substance laws do not give the federal government the power to revoke the licenses of physicians who participate in Oregon's assisted suicide law.

Now, there may be some legal or political argument that justifies the administration's position, although I can't think of one. It seems clear to me that, taken together with the efforts to suppress the medical marijuana laws, Bush and Ashcroft are simply on a campaign to impose their personal morality on the states, irrespective of the law, irrespective of the principle of states' rights (supposedly an important conservative value), and irrespective of the principle of individual liberty (also supposedly an important conservative value). It doesn't surprise me, but it really pisses me off. It is one reason why I didn't vote for Bush, and one reason why I probably could never vote for him.

And no, I'm not accusing Bush et al. of being more hypocritical than Clinton et al. They're all hypocrites. This is simply an issue that has affected my family directly and that I feel particularly strongly about. IMO it is unforgivable for one person, much less a bureaucrat, to tell a dying person in intractable pain that they cannot seek relief in any way they choose. To tell such a person that they can't even smoke a bit of pot to relieve their suffering is, IMO, downright evil.

[Zimphire]

Then why the obviously trollish knee jerk topic?

How silly.

For one, I have YET to see a Pres FOR the legalization of Pot,

For two, Pot doesn't or wont save these people's lives.

having said that, I think the Gov shouldnt be able to tell a person what he can or cannot injest on his or her personal time.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Then why the obviously trollish knee jerk topic?

How silly.

For one, I have YET to see a Pres FOR the legalization of Pot,

For two, Pot doesn't or wont save these people's lives.

having said that, I think the Gov shouldnt be able to tell a person what he can or cannot injest on his or her personal time.

Can you try, for once, to reply to a post that you don't agree with without patronising or insulting the poster? Maybe enter a civilised discussion between adults without name calling or using the words "knee jerk" in a disparaging manner? You are becoming more and more like the people you so publicly despise.

[BRussell]

Yes, this was bound to come to this after that "Cannabis growers" USSC decision last year. It's a tricky federalism question, because some states clearly have said it's legal, and yet the feds say it's illegal. Maybe there'll be a new civil war over it?

I disagree with you on the issue, zigzag, and that's rare. I think it shouldn't be legal, at least not to sell. The state vs. federal issue I'm a little more torn on. I'd have to read more on it. (hmmm, maybe I'll go and actually read that SC decision I linked to)

zimphire - so he uses a little attention-getting language in the title. Calm down.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Then why the obviously trollish knee jerk topic?

How silly.

(1) If you have never started an "obviously trollish knee-jerk topic", then you have earned the right to call me silly.

(2) As I said, I feel very strongly about the assisted suicide issue. I readily admit that I am easily impassioned by it. If my thread title is overly inflammatory, I apologize to the board. I would change it but for some reason that edit function doesn't work for me. I invite one of the moderators to change it to "Administration appeals assisted-suicide case" or some such.

For one, I have YET to see a Pres FOR the legalization of Pot,

I didn't say there were any. My concern arises from the fact that this administration has taken an especially aggressive stance against both medical marijuana and assisted suicide, despite the traditional conservative values of states' rights and individual liberty. That is the administration's prerogative, but I vehemently disagree with it. I attribute it mostly to religious values that I don't subscribe to. This isn't to say that those values are invalid, only that I don't subscribe to them and don't want them imposed on me.

For two, Pot doesn't or wont save these people's lives.

I never said or even implied that it would.

having said that, I think the Gov shouldnt be able to tell a person what he can or cannot injest on his or her personal time.

I appreciate that. I'm not arguing for general legalization here, just more humane treatment of the sick and dying. IMO, we treat dying animals better than we treat dying people.

[Millennium]

Um, given that this is an assisted-suicide law being affected negatively, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that they told them "don't drop dead"?

In all seriousness, medical marijuana is BS. There are other painkillers out there, and they've been available for a long time. Not to mention they're likely less expensive. There is no real need for a medical marijuana law.

Hmm. An agreement triangle has been reached here. BRussell and zigzag, who normally agree, don't. And on that same issue BRussell and myself, who normally disagree, agree. Talk about odd twists and strange bedfellows...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yes, this was bound to come to this after that "Cannabis growers" USSC decision last year. It's a tricky federalism question, because some states clearly have said it's legal, and yet the feds say it's illegal. Maybe there'll be a new civil war over it?

Wow, that would be something. Instead of the Blue and Gray we would have the Tie-Dyed and Gray.

I disagree with you on the issue, zigzag, and that's rare.

Not a problem. I often disagree with me.

I think it shouldn't be legal, at least not to sell. The state vs. federal issue I'm a little more torn on. I'd have to read more on it. (hmmm, maybe I'll go and actually read that SC decision I linked to)

I'm not an authority on federalism etc., I just think that there's a notable disconnect between these particular policies and the conservative values of states' rights and individual liberty (and, just to placate Bush loyalists, I recognize that liberal politicians engage in their share of hypocrisy as well).

As for legalization, I'm for it but I'm not trying to argue general legalization here. Just for medical purposes, for the terminally ill at least. I think it's fundamentally inhumane to deprive them of such a simple form of relief if they want it.

I'm reminded of a story about my grandmother. She was in a nursing home, on her last legs, and somebody snuck a candy bar into her. A nurse found it and went berserk. We pointed out that she only had a few days or weeks to live (we were right), and that the candy bar was her only remaining pleasure in life. I don't blame the nurse for wanting to stick to protocol, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Unfortunately, the events (involving another member of my family) that led me to feel passionately about pain treatment and assisted suicide are not so humorous.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Millennium:


In all seriousness, medical marijuana is BS. There are other painkillers out there, and they've been available for a long time. Not to mention they're likely less expensive. There is no real need for a medical marijuana law.

Medical marijuana is not BS. The other painkillers have adverse side effects and they are often quite addictive. And often pot is used by AIDS patients to induce an appetite because they can't eat. Other painkillers are far more expensive, and pot would be uber-cheap if the government grew it and allowed farmers to grow it. There is a need for a medical marijuana law as well as reassesment of the current casual-marijuana law.

Do a Google search for "medical marijuana" if you want sources. There are many.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Um, given that this is an assisted-suicide law being affected negatively, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that they told them "don't drop dead"?

You may be right, but I was in an emotional state when I wrote it. It should have said "We don't respect your right to choose, even in death."

In all seriousness, medical marijuana is BS. There are other painkillers out there, and they've been available for a long time. Not to mention they're likely less expensive. There is no real need for a medical marijuana law.

I'd like to see you say this to some terminally-ill cancer patients. I recommend that you wear a helmet.

Even if the benefits were purely psychosomatic, why would you deprive a terminally-ill person in intractable pain of the perceived benefit? What are the risks? It strikes me as non-sensical as well as inhumane.

We've been through this debate before, so you don't have to respond. I'm just feeling very grouchy about the whole subject.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Even if the benefits were purely psychosomatic, why would you deprive a terminally-ill person in intractable pain of the perceived benefit? What are the risks? It strikes me as non-sensical as well as inhumane.

I know it sounds cold in this context, but people aren't allowed to choose what drugs to take. Doctors diagnose and prescribe, and what doctors can prescribe is determined by FDA regulations, which are guided by science. You can't just say "I want this drug because I think it'll work for me." Do we really want to get rid of FDA approval of drugs? I know I don't. Why have an exception to that process for marijuana?

And I don't think the rules should be any different for the terminally ill. Should doctors be able to do anything they want - experimental treatments, potentially harmful medications, etc. - just because you're gonna die soon anyway? I don't think so.

I don't think someone should be prosecuted if they simply grow their own and smoke it and don't sell any. But once you get into profiting from it by selling it to sick people as a treatment for their condition, I'm against it unless it's legal and has been approved for use.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I know it sounds cold in this context, but people aren't allowed to choose what drugs to take. Doctors diagnose and prescribe, and what doctors can prescribe is determined by FDA regulations, which are guided by science. You can't just say "I want this drug because I think it'll work for me." Do we really want to get rid of FDA approval of drugs? I know I don't. Why have an exception to that process for marijuana?

And I don't think the rules should be any different for the terminally ill. Should doctors be able to do anything they want - experimental treatments, potentially harmful medications, etc. - just because you're gonna die soon anyway? I don't think so.

I don't think someone should be prosecuted if they simply grow their own and smoke it and don't sell any. But once you get into profiting from it by selling it to sick people as a treatment for their condition, I'm against it unless it's legal and has been approved for use.

Points well-taken, but I wasn't assuming that a terminally-ill patient would require a doctor's permission, much less the government's, to smoke a bit of pot. Nor would I suggest that it's a cure for anything - it's just a palliative. Not every adult is in a position to decide whether to use a given pharmaceutical, but every adult I know is qualified to discern whether a bit of pot makes them feel better, just as they can discern whether a cup of coffee or an aspirin makes them feel better. A doctor, of course, could advise them that it's contra-indicated, but I see no need for government interference. It's not that dangerous a substance. If we're at a point where an adult, much less a dying adult, can't be trusted to make such a decision for himself, then we're at an absurd point, IMO. Whether they're growing it themselves or buying it from someone else is, IMO, irrelevant.

I've often expressed my regard for scientific method in these fora, but this is one case where I think science (and common sense) has been hijacked and/or impeded by politics, which often happens. I don't need laboratory studies to tell me that a bit of pot makes me feel better or helps my appetite - there is ample empirical evidence. And I know that I'm not just talking out of my rear end - a friend of mine is a research M.D. at NIH and is even more adamant about it than I am. Of course, he's not free to say so say so in public.

I appreciate your thoughtful input.