Video: Mitt walks away from man in wheelchair over medical marijuana
posted at 8:50 pm on October 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
He’s staring down the barrel of an Absolute Moral Authority bazooka here, and … he does not handle it well. The man’s entitled to his position; no one expects him to change it on the spur of the moment just to wriggle out of a tough spot. But a simple “I’m so sorry you have to deal with this and I promise I’ll give the issue another look” would have gone a long way.
Easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say, I know, but he sure is in a hurry to get out of there. Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Perhaps the ideology of prohibition is antiquated (I’m not sure where I come down on it), but if you’re going to be making the medical argument, the FDA has to ascertain its safety and effectiveness. As far as I know, the FDA has stated (correctly) that synthetic substitutes are just as good. The reason why people such as the guy in the above video might experience some trouble (although I’m sure it’s vastly exaggerated)really has nothing to do with the chemicals involved and everything to do with dosing. Smoking is a very effective delivery method (see also: crack vs. powder cocaine), and allows the patient to maintain what they believe to be an “effective” dose themselves, since any loss in effect just requires another drag off a joint. Pills don’t provide the same flexibility, although adjustable pumps (like the insulin pumps diabetics can get) would be just as good as smoking it, albeit more expensive. If politicians are not willing to compromise on decriminalization/legalization, this last option strikes me as a very good one.
Big S on October 9, 2007 at 1:08 AM
Wow! You haven’t made up your mind yet about prohibition yet? Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re a Rudy supporter, aren’t you? Somehow I’m not surprised.
FloatingRock on October 9, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Did any of your hear the media POS in the background houding Romney about “walking away from a guy in a wheelchair” ? A Clinton Plant, with several stooges in the Sh+t-Bird media alerted and ready for action.
Does the media do this to The Pantsuit or the Messaih or Silky Pony?
Janos Hunyadi on October 9, 2007 at 1:21 AM
No it wasn’t.
Ugly on October 9, 2007 at 1:27 AM
If the government taxes it as you suggest, then there will be a black market for cartel drugs. There will be a black market to service the underage user anyway. They have all the distribution pipelines in place and import it with impunity.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 1:33 AM
Lots and lots. Just ask NASCAR where their roots are.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Again I ask what chaos dose my smoking put on society.
Oh you all know the fed gov still dispenses pot.
So I guess it has some benefit.
You think the FDA would rather have a pharmaceutical that they can regulate and make money off then perhaps a weed that anyone with a little practice could grow on there own. And then it would be under the control of the USDA not the FDA because it is not a pharmaceutical but an agricultural crop.
Mojack420 on October 9, 2007 at 1:36 AM
The drug companies will be cut out of the profits unless a synthetic use is approved. You cannot patent an herb, so there would be no profit in medical marijuana for them. That leaves plowing under corn in favor of pot, or outsourcing it to the cheapest bidder. That would mean it would be grown out of the country by the people who are best at growing it. Then the government taxes it and criminalize domestic products to protect the tax base. And if they tax it sufficiently, there will be a black market for those who cannot afford it.
They do it with cigarettes already. Heck, you can’t even sell across state lines unless you add the taxes that state charges.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 1:42 AM
A few people in this thread have mentioned the possibility that this guy in a wheelchair was a “plant”. Isn’t everybody that goes to a debate or town meeting intending to ask a question on a specific issue a “plant” in a manner of speaking? Isn’t the real issue the motivation behind the question and how a given politician answers it? In this case the question was legit. It wasn’t about an anti-American conspiracy or comprised of an attack from an apposition party, it was a legitimate question regarding policy, which is of interest to many conservatives as evidenced by the many comments of support in this thread.
Really, the issue is whether or not the politician in question is real or fake. If the politician is real then they answer the question honestly. If they are a fake, they don’t take the risk because it might hinder their quest for power.
Or, are the people condescendingly claiming that the guy in a wheelchair was a “plant” saying that we should all ignore the opinions of people asking questions whom represent an interest group, such as the NRA for example?
FloatingRock on October 9, 2007 at 1:42 AM
I’m sure at this point the aliens from Alpha Centuri are on the liberals side. These kinds of situations are all left-wing conspiracy implants. Are we absolutely sure Rove hasn’t flipped sides?
Griz on October 9, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Sorry, I missed that one.
It isn’t a single persons use, it is the floodgate of abuse that will be opened by legalization. We all know that drugs a re destructive to society. This is why companies do drug testing. A drug abuser doesn’t care that their abuse that causes them to miss work costs the company money. It is wrong for the drug user to make the company lose money because they engage in destructive behavior.
Extrapolate that out to traffic accidents and the like, and you have an entire segment of drug abusers engaging in destructive behavior and then expecting society to foot the bill.
That is horse$hit.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 1:48 AM
I don’t know the first thing about NASCAR so I’m not exactly sure what “Lots and lots” refers to? If it refers to the number of bootleggers after the end of prohibition, I realize that even today there are still a few, but they are not a force of change in our society like they were during prohibition. Not only are they now marginalized but they aren’t even a factor. They don’t even exist in the Pacific NW where I live.
FloatingRock on October 9, 2007 at 1:50 AM
I bet dollars to donuts…
mmmmmm, donuts. Yeah. And funions.
Umm, what were we talking about?
Cuffy Meigs on October 9, 2007 at 1:55 AM
what did you just say ???
Yes plants can hold patent, many do and the patent last for 17 years. As to your statement that it will be grown out of country. Why would anyone do that, it just like any other crop it needs to be grown by those who know how. Dropping a seed in the ground gets you a low grade product and if you’re growing it for the benefits it would be just like any other agricultural commodity. And as for plowing under corn if you’re talking about the mid west or the east you have other problems such as summer rains and humidity, which is just begging for mold issues.
Mojack420 on October 9, 2007 at 1:56 AM
Somewhere between caffeine and alcohol. However, if you’re a Mormon then both ends of the spectrum are apparently out of bounds.
FloatingRock on October 9, 2007 at 1:57 AM
Yes, well, I can see that you aren’t being sincere. I may be wrong but I’m thinking that you essentially agree with the majority of commentators here but are committed to your candidate and are trying to invent ways to leap to his defense.
FloatingRock on October 9, 2007 at 2:02 AM
I still don’t understand how my smoking affects society one little bit.
I am a responsible adult {for the most part}
Then again I drink coffee and beer so I guess I am just the scourge of society.
Mojack420 on October 9, 2007 at 2:05 AM
NASCAR has it roots in boot legging after prohibition was lifted.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 2:08 AM
By that logic alcohol should be outlawed.
Mojack420 on October 9, 2007 at 2:17 AM
That would explain why they drive round and round in circles. :)
FloatingRock on October 9, 2007 at 2:17 AM
I don’t know what others in this thread meant by it, but I say the guy was a plant in the sense that he was deliberately staging a “gotcha” moment in front of the camera. I would not be at all surprised to learn that at minimum CNN had been notified in advance, or even that he coordinated it with them.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, the question had been already asked by representatives from this group and that Mitt answered at length in other events.
Laura on October 9, 2007 at 2:25 AM
yeppers it was a total gotcha type question. just a way to play it on the main stage. But now I would really like to know where mitt stands on state rights actually i want to know where they all stand on that issue.
Mojack420 on October 9, 2007 at 2:29 AM
So then Mitt only answers a given question once? He’s just too important to be bothered to answer a question twice during a journey as repetitive as the campaign trail for the POTUS? As much as I dislike Chris Mathews I certainly hope that he asks Mitt a question on this topic in tomorrows debate. I can’t wait to see Mitt refuse to answer it on principle that the question is beneath him. Hopefully they will plan ahead and have the same guy in the same wheelchair ask the same question of Mitt Romney. It will be an excellent opportunity for Mitt to stand on his principles, whatever they are.
FloatingRock on October 9, 2007 at 2:39 AM
Tell that to Harvard law.
Or these guys.
It’s all about economics. Labor costs are cheaper in third world countries. The people who are already producing it will make it cheaper and better than a company who is new to the product. As soon as Americans start growing pot, the unions and the government gets involved. That increases costs and then add the taxes into it and you have a more expensive product than what can be grown out of country. Either way, the private grower is still prohibited from growing his own because the government needs to protect the tax base.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 2:39 AM
It must be late. You lost me there.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 2:41 AM
It’s probably the alcohol and restaurant industries that opposes legalizing MJ. It’s all about money.
jaime on October 9, 2007 at 2:43 AM
And it makes sense to you that we should add rampant drug abuse to that problem? The alcohol genie is out of the bottle. There is no rational reason to let the drug genie out by legalizing all drugs.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 2:45 AM
Actually it is the pharmaceutical companies too. They can’t patent a plant so there is no profit. They can patent a pill, so there is money in that.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 2:46 AM
You stated, “The drug companies will be cut out of the profits unless a synthetic use is approved. You cannot patent an herb, so there would be no profit in medical marijuana for them.”
By that logic Basil should only be approved for use if it’s patented by some corporation.
I could go on, but there’s no need.
FloatingRock on October 9, 2007 at 2:48 AM
Yep, good point.
jaime on October 9, 2007 at 2:48 AM
Don’t blog while stoned. I made it clear what the issue was and you ignore it by claiming you are a responsible adult. Do you speak for every drug abuser out there? Will you vouch for every person who wants to engage in destructive behavior?
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 2:49 AM
Go read the links I provided. One of them is from Harvard law. They ought to know what they are talking about.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 2:50 AM
I suspect it wasn’t an MSM reporter, but rather one of the pro-medicinal marijuana folks there with him. Yes, it was a “gotcha” moment, but no, Mitt didn’t handle it well. Not surprising considering that he’s not exactly a “man of the people”.
Hollowpoint on October 9, 2007 at 2:50 AM
OK that’s it for me. L8R.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 2:51 AM
that’s pretty ironic since it was outlawed in the late 1930’s by the government, on the suggestion of William Randolph Hearst as a way to get rid of the illegal Mexicans.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 3:03 AM
Instead of deferring to somebody else not party to this conversation, why don’t you respond to my point? Why should an herb only be legal if, for example, it’s patented? How ‘bout if it’s just another herb that’s been around for thousands of years and wasn’t engendered by a corporation? For example, lets say it turns out that X amount of Garlic a day cures cancer. Should Garlic be declared illegal until it can be patented and marketed by a corporation so that somebody can make a profit?
FloatingRock on October 9, 2007 at 3:05 AM
Yes Mitt screwed that up. It did look like a set up but Mitt should have handled it better. Mitts wife has relapsing remitting MS not 1st or 2nd progressive. I’m not saying she does not have pain or could not benefit from the use of marijuana, depending on the symptom, she could, for sure! Marijuana is used for a lot more than just nausea. Marinol, (The Pills) work on some symptoms but they do not get you high they knock you out and who wants to be knocked out? I personally do not smoke marijuana, I have in the past but I do take marinol for pain and muscle spasms some times at night before bed, and yes I have a plethora of other drugs but they can be much worse. I personally think it needs to be legal for the sick and maybe even the public, it is far less harmful than alcohol. It just needs to be controlled much better so minors don’t get it. I have secondary multiple sclerosis and dream of the days when it was only relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. I read the thread and many of you , I’m sorry to say are misinformed, as ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 9:56 PM said “your government has been lying to you about drugs for a long long time.”
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 3:06 AM
As linked above, asked and answered.
When it’s a BS question where the point is to “get” him, then he would be foolish to keep feeding the trolls. They have the right to follow him around to events and repeat themselves, but that’s no reason for him to waste time on people who are being disingenuous, pretending to want an answer they have already received. They already know what he thinks about it. Now they want to embarrass him over it, which is their right – but there’s no reason for him to play along and he did the right thing to walk away.
Laura on October 9, 2007 at 3:07 AM
It’s rare that I bother to make a correction, but the word “engendered” should read, “engineered”.
FloatingRock on October 9, 2007 at 3:10 AM
That should say “I’m sorry to say many of you are misinformed”
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 3:15 AM
Nobody has refuted the states’ rights issue; there is no legal refutation.
Just like abortion, legalizing pot is one of those rights not constitutionally enumerated and therefore left to each state to determine its legality. We can stand around and whine about its impact on society and phony allegations of funding terrorism. But it’s all hypocrisy.
Try taking wine from housewives, beer from football fans and the hard stuff from our elected officials. Watch how quickly they start calling for medicinal liquor.
As far as needing the feds to grow medicinal marijuana, that is a red herring. California dispensaries purchase their pot from “caregivers,” co-ops and run-of-the-mill drug dealers. Most of the quality pot is grown domestically. Unless you go to Amsterdam, California has the best pot in the world. Furthermore, pot is very easy to cultivate in nearly every region of the US.
Although the feds have no reason to rebuild an infrastructure already put in place by stoners and dealers across america, they might be tempted to do just that. The profit margin as a producer far outweighs the potential revenues earned from merely taxing the product.
Our government has tweaked many agricultural markets by subsidizing or regulating them.
Wickard v Filburn
The Race Card on October 9, 2007 at 3:46 AM
Mojack420 on October 9, 2007 at 1:36 AM
The FDA is not in the moneymaking business. Also, if marijuana is going to be used for “medical” purposes, with licensed doctors prescribing or recommending it, it’ll have to pass safety and efficacy standards just like any other drug. There are many reasons for this, not least of which are concerns about the liability of doctors if anything goes wrong.
Mostly, I’m against the use of marijuana smoke as a medication, since the delivery system is disruptive and can’t be administered individually in many locations. As soon as it is legalized for that purpose, somebody’s going to sue demanding accommodation of their smoking habits for medical reasons. Bad idea. Stick to the pills or other medications.
Big S on October 9, 2007 at 7:50 AM
Ask the drug companies. I was merely pointed out that was one of the reasons it wasn’t legal as a medicinal drug already.
The legalization of drugs, just to provide more freedoms is an entirely different issue. Drug abuse creates irresponsible behavior and consequences. Pot isn’t just some herb. It is a powerful drug that causes more of a physical reaction than garlic. The problem is that the drug freaks are not wanting to take 100% responsibility for those consequences. They are so irresponsible that they have abused the system of clinics that have been established for sick people. They have abused them to the point that the government raids these clinics. This is the mentality of the drug freak. They don’t give a rats a$$ about anyone except themselves. They lie, they cheat, and they break the law with no regard for others.
They don’t deserve any consideration at all.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 8:24 AM
Question: If a Republican candidate included in his platform the legalization of marijuana, how would his candidacy fare?
Troy Rasmussen on October 9, 2007 at 8:32 AM
Like wow! totally awesome dude! Most pot comes from Mexico. Asian gangs have increased their distribution of high potency pot into domestic markets. The potency of pot has doubled since the mid 90’s. Those numbers are from all samples seized. Considering most pot comes from Mexico, most high potency pot comes from Mexico.
Why do drug freaks always believe their dealers? They guy says his dope is local weed and there is no way to prove it. It’s a sales technique. Stoners are like, totally easy to lie to man.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 8:41 AM
Horribly. No candidate is that better in any area to justify the move toward destroying this country from the inside. Rudy can get away with a soft stance on abortion, but he would not get away with a pro-legalization policy.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 8:46 AM
Ooof
Valiant on October 9, 2007 at 8:47 AM
Sometimes when I read Wickard v. Filburn, I can’t help but think that it was wrongly decided. Other times, in the larger scheme of things, it seems to be rightly decided. Regardless, the facts in that case are pretty harsh. I feel bad for poor old Filburn.
Troy Rasmussen on October 9, 2007 at 8:49 AM
I didn’t think that Mitt screwed up too badly on this. He stated his anti drug stance and got out before it turned into a debate. It’s his stance to have and I can appreciate that he didn’t pander to this kid or the camera on what he believes is right.
Buzzy on October 9, 2007 at 8:51 AM
I think he saw that for what it was – a lose/lose situation. He says what he says, he sounds cruel. He says he’d make an exception for situations like this young man’s, and headlines blare that he supports medical marijuana. He plays the Dem politician game of “Hmm, I’ll have to look into that” (such as Kerry to the truthers), he’s playing the Dem politician game of lying to someone’s face. I think I’d rather he just stand on his own belief.
It was painful to watch, though. But he answered it and moved on, which he must have felt was the best option. I can’t say I disagree with his assessment, given the microscope Republicans are under from our left-leaning media, and how they’ll beat something to death … but, yes, maybe a little more tact could be used if he’s in that position again.
President Bush goes through this often, when he talks to the families of fallen soldiers. He stands and takes it. That’s what a President has to do. But he evolved into the President he is (who I adore, thank you very much, though I strongly disagree with his philosophies on illegal immigration).
eucher on October 9, 2007 at 9:03 AM
I’m not a huge Mitt fan, but I must admit whenever I see him, I’m very impresseed with him. Until this time. It feeds into the stereotype that he’s just a smooth politician who doesn’t really give a damn.
asc85 on October 9, 2007 at 9:08 AM
Wrong is wrong, whether in a wheelchair or not.
Kudos, Mitt. Taking a stand may not be PC, but sticking to his guns is admirable, especially when dealing with pot.
madmonkphotog on October 9, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Yeah, the life of privilege.
I would bet if his sons were dying(God forbid) of cancer, and they needed what this man needed, they would have it.
Guys like Mitt, can’t separate reality from their beliefs. They live in a neverland, the fact is medical drugs help. Every (severe) pain reliever drug is illegal on the street, with Mitt’s mentality, all drugs would be forbidden that relieve pain.
A simple, I feel it could be appropriate on a case to case basis would do. But his “beliefs” forbid him to be that generous, let the man suffer, but Mitt remains pure. The burning in the breast tell him to let people suffer.
right2bright on October 9, 2007 at 9:26 AM
I would bet if his sons were dying(God forbid) of cancer, and they needed what this man needed, they would have it.
I’ve been in a wheelchair, but I don’t believe in stem cell research. I’ve been in unbearable pain, but I didn’t smoke pot.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. Any reason to smoke pot.
I can say this because I’ve been there, which is why I support Mitt’s action.
madmonkphotog on October 9, 2007 at 9:44 AM
I am sorry but if they are trying to achieve a synthesized canaboid, I would ask why? when you can get the THC to turn naturally into a canibiod but just harvesting it later when the THC glands turn amber brown.
No I would be tossing into the mix rampet cheese puff eating and couch potatoing.
I found out along time ago I speak only for myself, I am not responsible for other people’s actions and I should not have to pay for others irresponsibility
That might be true in the rest of the country but not in California where the Canadian product doesn’t hold a candle to the locally grown.And very few actually Mexican garbage weed.
Mojack420 on October 9, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Due to Mazzy Star, thanks far the time trip back to a beautiful time in my life. About your comment, I have to agree that the addict is looking for anything as a foot hold to get pot legal but is it really the place of government to allow certain drugs and not less harmful ones, as
put it so well and what about the true benefits in such an herb?
Very well said. I’d have to agree with you after the way you put it, because I don’t believe the kid wanted an answer, he wanted a “gotcha”
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Pot isn’t a painkiller.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Sorry Esthier, it is, in fact that is the only symptom they prescribe Marinol to me.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Ouch, yes that didn’t look good, but like everything the MSM shows us, it probably was taken out of context.
I have to set the record strait on this one, George Washington grew hemp, hemp is one of the most useful plants known to man, it is related to the marjiuana plant, but it doesn’t produce THC (the chemical that gets you high). It does produce great strong fibers for cloth, rope whatever cotton and linen can be made into. It also produces oil high in protein that can also be used as fuel. Washington was a very innovative and economical man. We should be growing hemp in this country today, but it’s been outlawed because of it’s close resemblance to pot and because of the successful lobbys of the cotton (maybe oil companies too) industry.
I know many people who smoke pot, I don’t because it just makes me paranoid, hungry and sleepy. The people I know who like it are quite functional, happy people. Some of them grow their own because they don’t like the idea of giving their money to the likes of drug dealers.
This all doesn’t make it right, it’s still illegal, but out of all the drugs, alcohol included, I think it’s one of the more benign ones, and I don’t understand why it can’t at least be legalized for medical use. Are people who don’t really need it going to abuse the system and get it prescribed? Of course! But how many people are doing that now with legal prescription drugs that are a hell of alot more dangerous and addictive on top of that??!
That’s my rant, late as usual.
4shoes on October 9, 2007 at 10:38 AM
That’s why we have more than one way to take a pill. You can’t throw up something that came in the other way.
So your argument here is irrelevant.
And really, what’s the point with this one? Let’s say alcohol is worse, does that mean pot is OK? No, it just means alcohol is bad. So maybe we should make alcohol illegal as well.
Oh wait, we tried that and it didn’t work since alcohol was already so entrenched in our culture. The logical conclusion here is that if pot is made legal and if it too can become just as entrenched, we’ll have a difficult time ever making it illegal again if we feel making it legal was a mistake.
Basically, there’s no going back on legalization.
This is a non sequitur. The two have nothing in common. To keep kids from drinking, we punish the kids and the adults who sell to kids. Those punishments are severe, including jail time.
But if we legalize pot for medical purposes, we are opening such a wide window into pot use that punishing people for using it recreationally will be nearly impossible.
Plus, unlike drugs in pill form, pot is difficult to regulate. As you said, you can grow it yourself and make it as potent as you’d like. You can even smoke as much as you like, smog up a tent, eat a bunch of brownies or even go the less conservative route with joints.
Your intake of pot is solely up to you.
With regular pain meds, you’re given a prescription with a specific dose and specific instructions. Once you run out, you can’t grow more. The doctor actually has a decent amount of control over how you intake the drug.
On top of that, you’re inhaling smoke. Your lungs are being filled with tar. Since you self medicate, surely you’ve cleaned one of your own paraphernalia before and seen the build up of resin. That’s in your lungs too. Unless the pot is dispensed as a pill or in food, you’re actually damaging your body with prescribed medicine.
This is completely illogical.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 10:47 AM
All I’ve read about it says it only helps with nausea, vomiting and appetite issues.
And I still stand firm in saying pot doesn’t help ease pain. If anything, you’re more aware of your senses, not less.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Yes, but it’s legal from a doctor who will prescribe a specific, legal amount. Mitt didn’t say he was against legal medicine. What’s your point with that?
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 10:55 AM
When I lived in Maine I was constantly approached by dreadlocked hippie dudes trying to get me to sign medical marijuana petitions. You’ll pardon me if I believe this is mostly a huge scam to legalize pot for perfectly healthy
peopledeadbeats.If you haven’t already, see this:
And the dumbest comment of the day award goes to Jaime!!:
Congratulations dude! Spoken like a true pot head.
The runner up is right2bright:
not2bright, if you could ever get past your obsession with your issue of Mitt’s privilege, you’d know that his wife has MS yet they oppose embryonic stem cell research on ethical grounds.
Moreover this statement is jaw droppingly stupid:
So, should we just let everyone self-medicate and eliminate the need for doctor’s prescriptions to highly addictive drugs which can lead to death if an overdose is taken? People would be dropping like flies if we followed your “reasoning”. Brilliant!
Finally, this allegation does not have a germ of truth in it, is vile and malicious, and leaves us with an obvious yet easily answered question as to what your mentality is:
Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 10:58 AM
I agree with 99.9999999 % of what you post here at HA but on this you are going by what you read, I am going by first hand experience of what I know. I still appreciate all your comments.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 10:59 AM
right2bright really has it in for Mitt and Mitt wants people to suffer, dontcha know.
Moonbats suffer from BDS and r2b suffers from MDS. I might even buy into the legalize pot arguments if I thought there was some hope it could cure r2b, but he has a hopeless, incurable case of it I’m afraid.
Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 11:06 AM
I appreciate that you’re not turning this into something ugly, but you can enlighten me. I don’t know much about that drug.
I do have some experience with pot though, so that part isn’t what I’ve read. I can say this with certainty. Actual, legal medicine has been better for me both in terms of nausea and in terms of easing pain.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 11:13 AM
And if it’s that expensive, people will just grow it themselves. It’s an easy thing to do. And then, if people are growing it themselves, there is no way to regulate it. The potency, the taxes, all of that will be irrelevant.
I completely agree with you about gambling online. Though when I play Texas Hold ‘Em, I’m not gambling. I’m just good. As for the prostitution thing, I just don’t see why it’s helpful. Yes, if it’s legal the prostitutes will be less likely to have STDs, but nothing is foolproof.
I’m not against there being legalized prostitution in the world, but I’m not for it being down the street from me. Vegas is far enough.
Yes, the plant does, but THC doesn’t really have any more uses than what other drugs already provide.
There is no reason we can’t grow the male plants.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 11:26 AM
There are reasonable arguments for and against medical marijuana, r2b is suggesting that pain killers should be removed from the oversight of physicians and sold on the street.
Surely you don’t agree with that.
Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 11:41 AM
I think abinitioadinfinitum was talking about my information on Marinol.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Esther my comment has gotten eatin? I will try again
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Thanks! I confused your 10:51 with your 10:55 since abinitioadinfinitum’s comment followed the latter.
Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Whats up? my comment keeps getting ignored, and shoots me back up to the top of the page?
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Marinol or Dronabinol is synthetic THC or marijuana. It comes in 2.5, 5 or 10 mg pills that are round and full of liquid. From what I know it is prescribed for Aids, Glaucoma and multiple sclerosis which I have. I seldom take it for pain except if I let the muscle spasms get really bad. Oddly, pain is the only symptom the doctors can write a scrip for.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 12:10 PM
That’s his point he is against medical marijuana, even a prescribed amount.
Get my point now?
right2bright on October 9, 2007 at 12:16 PM
something is triggering a reject of my comment, so I will try it in parts.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 12:20 PM
The biggest problem with it compared to pot is it is extremely expensive $10 to $12 a pill. The problem with pot, that I do not smoke is you do not know what you are getting. Without me digging for the write up on the drug, that’s about all I can tell you about it for now. I hope I would never be ugly to you especially. You love my God and have covered my back on more than one occasion. G-d Bless
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 12:21 PM
I would rather take it than a narcotic like Viicoden or something even more heavy
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 12:22 PM
For some reason this thread will not take the name of the drug V i c o d i n
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 12:23 PM
?
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Seeing as you have started early with you name calling (an obsession with you), let me return the favor.
Listen stupid, medical marijuana has a place in society, just like the other “illegal” drugs. Get it? Most of the drugs used in surgery are illegal on the streets, yet they can be prescribed. So why is this one drug the exception? REEFER MADNESS.
Where did I say self-medicate? I said that him using the same belief for marijuana would take most prescription drugs out of use.
Cut the personal attacks, and be truthful…don’t fill your responses with lies.
So now…Where did I say self-medicate?
At least be a little honest in your postings.
right2bright on October 9, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Up yours you little Sh*t. I never said that. Show me where I said pain killers should be removed.
Show me you lying SOB.
I said Mitts train of thought of not allowing prescription marijuana if consistent would also prevent other drugs from being used medically.
Here is my quote. Which shows either you are lying or just plain stupid.
Shove it.
right2bright on October 9, 2007 at 12:33 PM
The V word is a no-no here.
infidel4life on October 9, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I’m going to assume you guys ragged on AP too much about his medication for his wisdom teeth?
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 12:42 PM
You’re very sweet. It’s just not uncommon for discussions on here to turn ugly unfortunately. I am grateful for the opportunity here, especially since with your condition, you could have taken the moral authority card.
I’ll remember you in my prayers today. I know very little about MS except for someone who was somehow related to me who I know struggled regularly. I can only imagine how that must be.
So is it for the pain of the spasms or the spasms themselves? And honestly that is odd, since THC itself isn’t really a pain-numbing agent. It can certainly calm you and make you not care about the pain you’re in, but I’d actually take advil or something else over-the-counter instead.
Of course the “v-word” is even better, but I can understand why you’d want to stay off of it since you need pain medicine for the long run.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 12:55 PM
A bike lock would work just as well, and it’s much cheaper, too.
James on October 9, 2007 at 1:01 PM
All anti-pot arguments come down to comments like these. Essentially, they’re all the same thing: “People who smoke pot are evil and they should be persecuted!”
How does someone else getting high, completely mind-blowingly high, deprive anyone else of life, liberty, or property? I simply don’t understand why some people (let’s be honest, they’re busybody Christians) feel the dire and pressing need (not to mention seething hatred) to make the lives of drug users worse.
Loundry on October 9, 2007 at 1:15 PM
How do you know it isn’t already down the street from you? All it takes for it to be “prostitution” is a) sex, and b) payment. It’s not like you need a storefront. Prostitution is everywhere.
Perhaps it’s just the “keeping up appearances” that appeals to you? Laws are good at doing that kind of wink-wink window dressing. (Compare “gun free zones”, “drug free zones”, etc.)
Loundry on October 9, 2007 at 1:20 PM
No, I don’t. You seem to be arguing that he believes medical marijuana should be illegal just because it is illegal on the street, but I don’t see where he is arguing that.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Esthier
Thank You for your prayers and no one has moral authority accept our Lord and Savior, as for as I’m concerned. As for my condition, sometimes I feel like a brown shoe in a world of tuxedo’s but most of the time , You can’t kill bad grass. I take Marinol for the spasm that would become pain untreated. What type of pain the Dr. prescribes it for, I really could not say, because you are right as for as I know, about it being a relaxant rather than a “pain” pill. As for Advil, I already take 8 a day plus all my other meds. That is why I need to do a liver panel every 3 months. And yes it is a shame the lack of respect people show towards one another on the internet or even in this day and age period.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 1:44 PM
I know legal prostitution isn’t just down the street from me, because I know prostitution is illegal where I live.
My statement is literally referring to legal prostitution.
Except that in places where prostitution is legal, it’s not really dressed up as anything other than what it is. It’s out in the open and not exactly subdued.
Absolutes like that aren’t necessarily appropriate here. Yes, I’m a Christian, but I don’t want to make life worse for potheads. I don’t even care what they do in their spare time.
I support decriminalization. Our jails are no places for people who smoke.
I do not want it legal though, and this is mostly because I understand, unlike most of the people who want it legal, that there is a harmful element to pot. I understand that this country would not be better off with a society that treats pot the way it treats alcohol or cigarettes.
We are better served with less people smoking less than we are with more people smoking more.
These are just a few simple facts.
Despite what many believe, pot is addictive and can suck the life out of a person. I’ve known people who smoked everyday for the last 10 years who become complete idiots when high and who tried to quit. Call me a busybody if you like, but our society is better off with less people like that. If you make it legal, we’ll have more of them.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 1:50 PM
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Rich Mullins. If not, he was (he passed away several years ago) a Christian singer. When he learned that his sister was going to give birth to a child with a disability, he was the first to congratulate her.
I forget the exact words, but he basically told his sister that this was proof that God knew she could handle this huge responsibility, saying that God only gives us what we can handle and that those without a problem are just not as capable.
Your attitude here just reminded me of that story.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Well I for one would like to be able to walk into a convience store late at night without first someone trying to sell me weed, then seeing the place stripped bare of all the Doritos and frozen pizzas, forcing me to call and have a pizza delivered.
But then again, if it weren’t for stoners, who’d actually deliver my pizza? I seem to be stuck with a paradox.
Hollowpoint on October 9, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Bwahahahaha!!!
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Stoners, doing the jobs sober Americans won’t do.
Maybe. I’ve never worked for a pizza place. I can tell you that a lot of waiters smoke. It’s one of the few decent paying jobs that doesn’t drug test.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Friggin’ pot heads. How can wheel chair boy get sick from marijuana tablets made of the actual stuff that’s supposed to benefit him and give him relief, without the intoxicant, but he can bong bong bong away and he doesn’t get sick.
Cuz the pill version doesn’t get him high.
LtE126 on October 9, 2007 at 3:16 PM
i have to figure this block quote thing
LtE126 on October 9, 2007 at 3:17 PM
r2b,
I never said that you said “pain killers should be removed”! What are you talking about? YOU claimed that if it were up to Mitt HE would get rid of pain killers.
You know, if I am having a problem understanding you, perhaps it is your convoluted writing skills that need work?
Like this sentence:
Uh, no I don’t “get it”. You can argue that medical marijuana has a “place in society” but your “reasoning” vis a vis “illegal” drugs makes no sense.
Think about the fact that I am not the only one here who can’t figure out what you are
talkingranting about.Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Yes. That is all it is!
Pity me! Pity me! Pity me!
Drink it up!
thejackal on October 9, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Sorry, I guess I was not clear.
If he was consistent, he would have to outlaw other drugs also.
He is stating that under no circumstances is he for medical use of marijuana. Even under doctors prescription, I am assuming he considers marijuana an “evil” drug, because some people mis-use it on the streets, or that it is considered a “gateway” drug.
But other drugs are also gateways, and on the streets they cause havoc. How many people are hooked on their prescription drugs?
If he is consistent he would have to outlaw those other drugs, that’s all I am saying. He happens to take one drug, of thousands, and deny that to people that could be helped. Why that one drug? Once again if he was consistent, he would have to take many others out of doctors hands.
That would be like saying wine is harmful and we should take it off the shelf, but it is okay to keep bourbon, gin, vodka, etc. on the shelf. When anyone of them, wrongly used, causes havoc.
The key here is being consistent, and allowing doctors to make the decision. Do you think marijuana or “V” causes more damage to the consistent user? Which is more likely to cause dependency?
I think marijuana use is stupid, that’s not the point, it should be the doctors decision whether to make someones life more comfortable, not a politician.
right2bright on October 9, 2007 at 3:55 PM
If the person gets mind-blowingly high on a regular basis and can’t hold a job, who is it that picks up the slack for them? Taxpayers?
Or perhaps they end up homeless and on the streets? Do you think that that has no impact on the quality of life for the rest of us?
If someone is in pain and wants to use marijuana for medicinal purposes to ease pain and nausea there are arguments pro and con that position, but you’re not doing the medical marijuna lobby any good by associating it with the right to get stoned out of your gourd.
Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »