Court: Dying can be charged for using marijuana

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well it's not exactly our system, they did put that one Calgary man (with MS or something?) in jail very briefly a few years back who had been an advocate and supplier of it for years, but I haven't really heard of any stories like that since the decriminalization went through. Plus I am pretty sure you can't be sent to jail for it now as it's been decriminalized. Just fined and have it (the herb) taken away

Re thread title: Oh I agree, I just thought it was a misprint or accidental ommision because it referenced this specific story.

Grant Krieger is the guy you're talking about.

And I don't know what you mean by decriminialization, as far as i know, it's still illegal.

In a lot of ways, decriminalization is worse than the status quo we have now.

[Daradon]

Flash, as to your comment (after I replied unfortunately) on Tylenol and Vioxx vs pot I agree completely. That's where I was going with my second point on my thread. Didn't want to chase it down completely and water down the rest of my response though.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

And I don't know what you mean by decriminialization, as far as i know, it's still illegal.

Hmmm unless I was in a smoke induced haze at the end of the Chretien years (which I wasn't I almost never touch the stuff, I found it makes me WAY to paro) I am very confused by this statement.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Hmmm unless I was in a smoke induced haze at the end of the Chretien years (which I wasn't I almost never touch the stuff, I found it makes me WAY to paro) I am very confused by this statement.

There was a brief time when it looked like reefer madness was going to end in Canada. An ontario judge ruled that federal marijuana laws were void, the senate advocated the outright legalization of marijuana (as opposed to simple decriminalization) and chretien introduced bill c-38.

Then he retired, Martin became PM and the bill died a nice quiet death. Health Canada changed some of the restrictions and now allows for personal supply of 30 days worth upon special permit or license. Growers can also be licensed for specific patients who otherwise would not be able to grow themselves.

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nice. Maybe you should use YOUR brain for a second. Since when is marijuana the only painkiller that can be prescribed?

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5975

It's not, but that's not the only reason a person would use it for medicinal puposes. It increases appetite which is the exact oppiste of most pain killers available.

It's quite simple to see that the government is blinded by the positives with the weed. Alcohol is legal and it kills many more people than weed. I can go to the store and buy a pack of ciggaretes which is one of the biggest killers yet a person wanting to ingest weed for medicinal purposes can't?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

It's not, but that's not the only reason a person would use it for medicinal puposes. It increases appetite which is the exact oppiste of most pain killers available.

It's quite simple to see that the government is blinded by the positives with the weed. Alcohol is legal and it kills many more people than weed. I can go to the store and buy a pack of ciggaretes which is one of the biggest killers yet a person wanting to ingest weed for medicinal purposes can't?

Yeah, I think one of the biggest benefits of marijuana useage is the combined painkilling and appetite inducing properties... not just the painkilling aspect. Of course, compared to many artificial chemical painkillers, marijuana's side effects are fairly mild. Heck, I'd take it instead of T3's after getting some extensive dentistry done

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Yeah, I think one of the biggest benefits of marijuana useage is the combined painkilling and appetite inducing properties... not just the painkilling aspect. Of course, compared to many artificial chemical painkillers, marijuana's side effects are fairly mild. Heck, I'd take it instead of T3's after getting some extensive dentistry done

Agreed. All the stigma surrounding marijuana has also hindered it's non-drug version hemp. Which is a very useful plant with many applications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

Hemp is used for a wide variety of purposes, including the manufacture of cordage of varying tensile strength, clothing, and nutritional products

[Azure]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

It's not, but that's not the only reason a person would use it for medicinal puposes. It increases appetite which is the exact oppiste of most pain killers available.

It's quite simple to see that the government is blinded by the positives with the weed. Alcohol is legal and it kills many more people than weed. I can go to the store and buy a pack of ciggaretes which is one of the biggest killers yet a person wanting to ingest weed for medicinal purposes can't?

I know, the law is dumb.

But we have to fight it through court, not by illegally trying to get our point across.

[Agamemnon]

I don't get it... it seems that some people are identifying a problem with the law (ie, this thread), and some are responding; 'well, the law is the law and thats that'. I don't think the point being debated here is 'is marijuana use against the law?', the debate is, 'is it right to prevent someone from using an illegal substance that adresses their pain/appetite issues?'.

I haven't seen anyone here come out and declare that marijuana use is legal and the government is wrong to persecute this woman based on that. Obviously.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

I know, the law is dumb.

But we have to fight it through court, not by illegally trying to get our point across.

Someone already mentioned Rosa Parks. I'm sure there are other instances. The Scopes Monkey trial I guess.

Anyway, that's moot. This woman is in no shape to be a marijuana crusader. If I lived in the States, I wouldn't do it either. Considering how hysterical they are about weed down there, whoever does it could end up in Leavenworth.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't get it... it seems that some people are identifying a problem with the law (ie, this thread), and some are responding; 'well, the law is the law and thats that'. I don't think the point being debated here is 'is marijuana use against the law?', the debate is, 'is it right to prevent someone from using an illegal substance that adresses their pain/appetite issues?'.

I haven't seen anyone here come out and declare that marijuana use is legal and the government is wrong to persecute this woman based on that. Obviously.

I think some people would rather follow the letter of a misguided archaic law, rather than see this women live the rest of her (probably short) life in pain.

I don't get it either. Some people are saying that she is committing a crime and shouldn't be an exception. But accept the fact that this law is wrong. Well there is no reason why the law can't change. Why wait till after she is dead?

I don't smoke marijuana but I am a strong advocate for it's legality.

[GeoffSK]

I was watching a Dan Rathers program on HDnet a couple weeks ago in the report it was suggested that Marijuana use was actually fairly widely in the U.S.A. before the 1930's. I think they used the cannibis oil and did not smoke it. They said even George Washingthon grew it.

This is the transcript of the program. Mostly it was about the California law that allowed doctors to prescrib it. Some teenagers were caught with MJ in school and they had a doctors note because they had depression.

http://www.hd.net/transcript.html?air_master_id=A4429

I think they concluded that marijuana should not be prescribed to smoke, but maybe the oil could be used in a pill or something.

[The Unabomber]

The problem with the law around medicinal use is that the people that do use it for that purpose don't have the years ahead of them to go through the courts.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't get it... it seems that some people are identifying a problem with the law (ie, this thread), and some are responding; 'well, the law is the law and thats that'. I don't think the point being debated here is 'is marijuana use against the law?', the debate is, 'is it right to prevent someone from using an illegal substance that adresses their pain/appetite issues?'.

I haven't seen anyone here come out and declare that marijuana use is legal and the government is wrong to persecute this woman based on that. Obviously.

I think most people here, including myself would agree that marijuana should be legalized not only for medical use, but recreational use as well.

Its a naturally grown plant after all.

But they only way you're going to do that is by taking a case like this, where the woman is almost dependent on marijuana and take it to court.

The US is hysterical about marijuana use yes, which is quite ironic since they call themselves the land of the free.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GeoffSK

I was watching a Dan Rathers program on HDnet a couple weeks ago in the report it was suggested that Marijuana use was actually fairly widely in the U.S.A. before the 1930's. I think they used the cannibis oil and did not smoke it. They said even George Washingthon grew it.

This is the transcript of the program. Mostly it was about the California law that allowed doctors to prescrib it. Some teenagers were caught with MJ in school and they had a doctors note because they had depression.

http://www.hd.net/transcript.html?air_master_id=A4429

I think they concluded that marijuana should not be prescribed to smoke, but maybe the oil could be used in a pill or something.

Marijuana is historically a very popular medicinal and recreational drug. There was almost a medical revolution in France following the napoleonic wars when doctors and soldiers brought the extraodrinary drug back and studied the amazing health benefits of it, while it had already been coopted by france's elite as a recreational drug. Hemp as a cash crob is exceptionally diverse. During the second world war the US issued requirements for farmers to grow it. Colonialists were required to grow vast swathes of it. They are even using it in Ukraine to decontaminate agricultural land surrounding Chernobyl.

One acre of hemp produces as much cellulose protein as 4 acres of Trees, and can be cultivated in a matter of weeks as opposed to years. This is extremely important to the construction industry for the creation of pressed and particle board and concrete moulds. Hemp requires no pesticides, is water table friendly, and is easily converted to biofuel. Hemp seeds also contain the highest level of humanly digestable protein of any source on the planet. Soybeans and cotton by comparison are known gluts for pesticides, and because of this, require some of the most harmful pesticides in use for agricultural and commercial crops. The respective yields per acre is also not even close.

For paper consumption, the paper coming from hemp pulp is naturally acid-free and does not yellow with age. Bleaching can be done with environmentally friendly hydrogen peroxide, rather than the dioxin producing cholrine bleach. You can even recycle hemp pulp twice as many times as you can wood pulp.

Hemp oil can be used as a base for paint and varnishes, used to make plastics, even commerically viable lubricants.

It's nothing short of sheer lunacy that hemp isn't the #1 cash crop of north america.

[Daradon]

Flash: Re: Hemp being outlawed/now rarely used

Doesn't it go back to the cotton industry lobbists convincing the government to side with cotton so many hundreds of years ago?

Edit: Now of course the law stays in place because of bizzare drug policy and giant drug companies. But I think it all began with the cotton industry.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Flash: Re: Hemp being outlawed/now rarely used

Doesn't it go back to the cotton industry lobbists convincing the government to side with cotton so many hundreds of years ago?

Edit: Now of course the law stays in place because of bizzare drug policy and giant drug companies. But I think it all began with the cotton industry.

Cotton yes, but primarily because of the timber industry.

What exactly would the timer industry do if we didn't use wood for pulp and building supplies?