[Wiseacre]

I don't like Mitt Romney for a lot of reasons, and was disgusted by this clip: http://gloob.tv/news/romney_confront...t?article=1976 of him explaining to a wheelchair-bound lifelong muscular dystrophy sufferer that he would indeed arrest him for his "crime" (I live in California, where taking medicine that a doctor recommends isn't a crime).

[katonca]

I'm not going to say Mitt disgusts me (as a matter of fact I'd vote for him over most Demo candidates) but I disagree with this stance on medical pot.

It's because the drug cannot be patiented and mass produced by the money makers

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by katonca

I'm not going to say Mitt disgusts me (as a matter of fact I'd vote for him over most Demo candidates) but I disagree with this stance on medical pot.

It's because the drug cannot be patiented and mass produced by the money makers

Actually, back in the 70's when Cawta was POTUS, most of the tobacco companies copyrighted the names, "Acapulco Gold", "Jamacan Red", "Columbian" and many other nicknames of pot from various regions because they thought that it would be legalized and they were going to make a bundle from it. It is one of the only times that I can remember where big money and big companies were rebuffed by Congress and the POTUS.

[WarC]

Originally Posted by Wiseacre

I don't like Mitt Romney for a lot of reasons, and was disgusted by this clip: http://gloob.tv/news/romney_confront...t?article=1976 of him explaining to a wheelchair-bound lifelong muscular dystrophy sufferer that he would indeed arrest him for his "crime" (I live in California, where taking medicine that a doctor recommends isn't a crime).

It's not a crime in California according to the State, but it IS a crime according to the Federal government!

Medical Marijuana could therefore be seen as a State's rights issue as well as the other issues that surround it.

[katonca]

Originally Posted by TooBad

Actually, back in the 70's when Cawta was POTUS, most of the tobacco companies copyrighted the names, "Acapulco Gold", "Jamacan Red", "Columbian" and many other nicknames of pot from various regions because they thought that it would be legalized and they were going to make a bundle from it. It is one of the only times that I can remember where big money and big companies were rebuffed by Congress and the POTUS.

I didn't know that. I thought the pet names for the different pot grown was thought up by smokers.

I figured if pot was legalized for whatever the reason recreational or medical, folks would grow their own and profits would go up in smoke

[ChrisJones]

I think he comes off quite poorly from this, not from his position, he's entitled to that. He comes off very bad by just walking away and introducing himself to others while the guy was still talking to him. Very rude IMO.

However I also have to say that the guys question was loaded why not just ask "Sir, are you in favor of medical marijuana?" instead of "Will you arrest me?", that migt have led onto a healthy discussion about the pros/cons of medical pot, and might have told us Romney's reason for not wanting it legalised. It left romney with two bad options, say no he wouldn't arrest him, and then appear to be "soft" on drugs to the republican right wingers. Say yes, he would have him arrested and come across as a heartless {insert expletive of choice}.

He was clearly broadsided by the question and didn't have an answer, but that's no reason to blank the guy. He's just come off as very rude.

For what it's worth, I am in favor of legalising pot of medicinal use, though certainly not for general use, though it does beg the question is pot any better or worse than alcohol??? There is evidence that pot can cause psycological problems and lung cancer but is this any worse than the psycological problems and liver disease that come with alcohol??

IMO, what needs to happen before a full medical program is pot needs to be decriminalised for medical use, that is it's not explcitly legal but people won't be charged as a criminal if thay can prove it was for a specific medical condition, a list of "allowed" medical conditions would have to be drawn up of course. Once people become used to treating illnesses with pot that could pav the way for it to be grown officially by pharmacutical companies and for it to be taxed, monitored and metered appropriately.

Just my two cents....

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by ChrisJones

I think he comes off quite poorly from this, not from his position, he's entitled to that. He comes off very bad by just walking away and introducing himself to others while the guy was still talking to him. Very rude IMO.

However I also have to say that the guys question was loaded why not just ask "Sir, are you in favor of medical marijuana?" instead of "Will you arrest me?", that migt have led onto a healthy discussion about the pros/cons of medical pot, and might have told us Romney's reason for not wanting it legalised. It left romney with two bad options, say no he wouldn't arrest him, and then appear to be "soft" on drugs to the republican right wingers. Say yes, he would have him arrested and come across as a heartless {insert expletive of choice}.

He was clearly broadsided by the question and didn't have an answer, but that's no reason to blank the guy. He's just come off as very rude.

For what it's worth, I am in favor of legalising pot of medicinal use, though certainly not for general use, though it does beg the question is pot any better or worse than alcohol??? There is evidence that pot can cause psycological problems and lung cancer but is this any worse than the psycological problems and liver disease that come with alcohol??

IMO, what needs to happen before a full medical program is pot needs to be decriminalised for medical use, that is it's not explcitly legal but people won't be charged as a criminal if thay can prove it was for a specific medical condition, a list of "allowed" medical conditions would have to be drawn up of course. Once people become used to treating illnesses with pot that could pav the way for it to be grown officially by pharmacutical companies and for it to be taxed, monitored and metered appropriately.

Just my two cents....

Very good, Chris!

I am actually for legalizing it altogether as it is not a narcotic, it is a weed that grows wild all by itself. It is not processed, unless you call drying processing. The harmful effects haven't been studied in decades because the government won't fund any studies as they don't want it known that the previous studies were of the same quality that the current AGW studies are. That is there is no real science going on.

And before you jump to conclusions about peyote, mushrooms (psilicibic sp?) and coca leaves, I would not have any criminalization of them either unless processed to create a more potent narcotic effect. Of course sensible restrictions on minors that are the same as alcohol and tobacco should be enforced. But the hypocracy of the government deciding which drugs (or plants) we can consume for our own enjoyment/escapism while pushing Ritalin, among others, on our children is pathetic.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by Wiseacre

I don't like Mitt Romney for a lot of reasons, and was disgusted by this clip: http://gloob.tv/news/romney_confront...t?article=1976 of him explaining to a wheelchair-bound lifelong muscular dystrophy sufferer that he would indeed arrest him for his "crime" (I live in California, where taking medicine that a doctor recommends isn't a crime).

Not a good move. Thoughtless!

[ChrisJones]

Originally Posted by TooBad

Very good, Chris!

I am actually for legalizing it altogether as it is not a narcotic, it is a weed that grows wild all by itself. It is not processed, unless you call drying processing. The harmful effects haven't been studied in decades because the government won't fund any studies as they don't want it known that the previous studies were of the same quality that the current AGW studies are. That is there is no real science going on.

And before you jump to conclusions about peyote, mushrooms (psilicibic sp?) and coca leaves, I would not have any criminalization of them either unless processed to create a more potent narcotic effect. Of course sensible restrictions on minors that are the same as alcohol and tobacco should be enforced. But the hypocracy of the government deciding which drugs (or plants) we can consume for our own enjoyment/escapism while pushing Ritalin, among others, on our children is pathetic.

There was a very good documentary on TV over here last year that dealt with that very issue, i.e. legalising all drugs. It made some very strong arguments in favor and raised some very interesting points. I'm undecided on the whole legalising all drugs issue. I can see and agree with some of the arguments on both sides.

[linskyjack]

What can you say about a kook who thinks that Jesus frolicked in the woods of New York with the native Americans---He and his are totally whacky.

[lizard]

Hello, good to meet you.
Hello, good to meet you.
Hello, I don't have MS.
Hello, good to meet you.
Hello, good to meet you.

Originally Posted by linskyjack

What can you say about a kook who thinks that Jesus frolicked in the woods of New York with the native Americans---He and his are totally whacky.

HELLO??? __ ...and he's a candidate for something? I hope it's not something important.