On Mar 29, 3:43=A0am, John Graeme <jdgra...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:26 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 9:52 am, John Graeme <jdgra...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On Mar 27, 3:15 pm, M_P <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 26, 10:30 pm, ChrisT <microm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:52:31 -0700 (PDT), M_P
<m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >"Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they
are=
> > > > > >unwise, when the choices involved have no effect on the rights
of=
> > > > > >others, is not appropriate in a free society," said Frank.
>
> > > > > >It sure isn't. To impose archaic drug laws on recreational,
at-ho=
me
> > > > > >marijuana smokers is a waste of all kinds of things, including
ti=
me
> > > > > >and money and gas for whatever urban assault vehicles are used
to=
> > > > > >reach the designated drug den.
>
> > > > > >One of the best things about what Frank is proposing is that it
w=
ould
> > > > > >lift the ridiculous threat of arrest from those who take their
> > > > > >marijuana for pain. For even though Rhode Island and other
places=
have
> > > > > >had the compassion and good sense to approve the use of medical
> > > > > >marijuana, federal laws do not allow for it.
>
> > > > > >A multiple sclerosis sufferer could, for example, buy marijuana
u=
nder
> > > > > >the state law, then walk down the street and get busted by the
fe=
ds.
>
> > > > > >It's not likely to happen, but it is an example of what a silly
m=
uddle
> > > > > >marijuana is in.
>
> > > > > >Barney Frank is trying to make it a little less silly.
>
> > > > > =A0 =A0 What is really stupid is allowing doctors to get you
hooke=
d on
> > > > > morphine and other narcotics but can't prescribe a harmless
herb.
>
> > > > Well, marijuana isn't "harmless" (hardly anything is), and
narcotics=
> > > > don't always lead to addiction ... but if doctors can prescribe
> > > > narcotics they should be allowed to prescribe marijuana, without a
> > > > doubt.
>
> > > A prescription shouldn't be needed for either marijuana or
narcotics.
> > > What a person puts into his or her own body is no one else's
business
>
> > Unless of course, use of the substance has implications for the safe
> > operation of equipment in a workplace, the roads etc. Equally, it
> > should not be a defence to a crime or a tort that one's judgement was
> > affected by a substance that one freely used, unless one can argue
> > that the harms resulting could not have been foreseen prior to use.
>
> What do you mean by "implications"? =A0Many activities are not
> appropriate for the workplace, when driving, etc. =A0That says nothing
> about whether they are appropriate in other situations.-
True, what's your point?
Fran
|
