Should marijuana be legal?

[Publisher]

The medical benefits of cannibis have been proven, in spite of your posturing.

As can be attested by those who have received the medical benefits and have received relief from some of the more debilitatiing side effects of chemo and anti-virals in the treatment of AIDS and it’s complications.

I had a good friend who was diagnosed with cancer in her 70’s…she fought an epic battle against it…under went numerous chemos and radiation and found immense relief from marijuana…she once said “I’ve never been so sick in my life and never felt like I wanted to die than when I was on chemo…pot helped me thru it…” She survived for three years fighting her cancer when the doctor’s only gave her 6 months…because of marijuana she was able to do chemo and still eat and sleep.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Benefits which I didn’t deny…what I denied is that pot is uniquely beneficial to sufferers of AIDS or cancer. It is NOT.

Why does it have to be uniquely beneficial?

 

[Publisher]

Benefits which I didn’t deny…what I denied is that pot is uniquely beneficial to sufferers of AIDS or cancer. It is NOT.

While not “uniquely beneficial” to AIDS and cancer victims…it is much easier to get and more affordable to those who have limited medical coverage…often times their cannabis is donated thru the variouos “cannabis clubs” OR procured thru their friends who grow it legally…no…not unique in it’s benefits…but very affordable compared to other drugs that don’t work nearly as well in mitigating the effects of AIDS and cancer treatments.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

As can be attested by those who have received the medical benefits and have received relief from some of the more debilitatiing side effects of chemo and anti-virals in the treatment of AIDS and it’s complications.

I had a good friend who was diagnosed with cancer in her 70’s…she fought an epic battle against it…under went numerous chemos and radiation and found immense relief from marijuana…she once said “I’ve never been so sick in my life and never felt like I wanted to die than when I was on chemo…pot helped me thru it…” She survived for three years fighting her cancer when the doctor’s only gave her 6 months…because of marijuana she was able to do chemo and still eat and sleep.

Well, according to some here, your friend is a disgusting pothead, cancer notwithstanding.

 

[Publisher]

Well, according to some here, your friend is a disgusting pothead, cancer notwithstanding.

To some, she may have been…but at least she was able to face her chemo treatments with grace and courage…she is someone I miss very much in my life…my life is much poorer for her absence in this world.

 

[nickybr38]

Since when is the purpose of law to save people from themselves?

Since people lost the ability to think.

Not sure if you noticed but common sense? Decency? Morality? That’s a thing of the past and people need more and more guidance so as not to harm themselves and others.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Why does it have to be uniquely beneficial?

There are plenty of medically approved, equally pain reducing alternatives that don’t have the socially destructive hangups of marijuana. That’s why. People who want to change the status quo have on their shoulders the burden of convincing the rest of society that is content to remain as it is.

Since when is the purpose of law to save people from themselves? That is the purpose of the Church, or are you willing to abdicate this duty to the government? God is my God, not Caesar. I owe Caesar nothing, I owe God everything.

There are plenty examples of this. That’e exactly why suicide is prevented by law enforcement. That’s why irresponsible parents who cannot support their children on their own are paid welfare stipends by the government. Unfortunately, it’s necessary, lest we allow those children to be continually impoverished.

Also, YOUR Catholic Church recommends in the Catechism that civil authorities should use the power of law to suppress objectionable or obscene materials like pornography. The state can and should protect people from themselves.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

There are equally pain reducing alternatives that don’t have the socially destructive hangups of marijuana. That’s why. People who want to change the status quo have on their shoulders the burden of convincing the rest of society that is content to remain as it is.

There are plenty examples of this. That’e exactly why suicide is prevented by law enforcement. That’s why irresponsible parents who cannot support their children on their own are paid welfare stipends by the government. Unfortunately, it’s necessary, lest we allow those children to be continually impoverished.

Also, YOUR Catholic Church recommends in the Catechism that civil authorities should use the power of law to suppress objectionable or obscene materials like pornography. The state can and should protect people from themselves.

Hail Caesar!

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Hail Caesar!

Ok, go ahead and place your earthly libertarianism ahead of the recommendation of God’s Church. See what it gets you in the hereafter.

 

[Kc906]

1. There’s also no denying that there are plenty of alternative pain medications tailored to these diseases that are NOT hallucinogenic in nature.
2. Emerging studies are beginning to show that smoking marijuana is, like smoking any drugs, highly toxic to the lungs.
3. The medical marijuana ‘industry’ has far more recreational clients than genuinely afflicted victims of cancer and AIDS. It’s mostly a sham industry.

As a former long time user of 8 years, I have to say that don’t recall one time where I had a hallucinogenic experience. I presume by “hallucinogenic” you are referring to experience that you cannot determine what is real and what is not (similar to XTC, Mushrooms, Acid?) Of course this does not mean that other people would not have these side effects, I can only go off of what I personally experienced along with my friends who I was doing this with at the time.

From my understanding the closest thing to the pure plant is “Marinol,” and from what I have researched it not nearly as effective as the plant itself. The possible side effects from all of the Pharmaceutical options are usually quite extensive as well, where the plant has no known side effects on the persons health.

As you know there are other ways to feel the effects of the plant in your body, like through food and oils. Inhaling smoke no matter if it is Tobacco or Marijuana is definitely not good for the lungs, but smoking is not the only way to take the medicine. The volume that is smoked is quite different if you were to compare an addicted cigarette smoker to what a recreational marijuana smoker intakes into their lungs/body. Cigarettes are processed and have chemicals, tar, and nicotene added to it, where marijuana is just a pure plant. The amount of smoke that goes through the lungs of a pack a day cigarette smoke is mind boggling; compared to a recreational marijuana smoker again there is just no comparison.

Either way, I have witnessed stories of people’s lives who were either improved or saved due to the medicinal factor of marijuana. I haven’t done research, but I am not aware of 1 single incident where Alcohol or Tobacco was prescribed to help cure an ailment of the body. That alone is enough to tell me that marijuana should not be criminilized. I would be fine if all 3 were criminilized in this country, but to have the two out of the three most dangerous substances legal makes absolutely no sense in my mind. It’s all about lobbyists, money, and power.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Ok, go ahead and place your earthly libertarianism ahead of the recommendation of God’s Church. See what it gets you in the hereafter.

I live my life in strict obedience to the Gospel, the Magisterium, and the Code of Canon Law. While I “worry” about the hereafter, as like St. Paul, I train my spirit like an athlete prepares his body for for a race.

What I don’t do is use the compulsory force of government to force others to live the life I choose. When I see others who do stupid things, I find ways to help them stop doing stupid things. But in the end, if a person wants to destroy their own life, it is their choice. I am not going to FORCE people to make the “right” decisions. IF you want to live your moral life vicariously through other people’s lives, feel free. Jesus Christ Himself never compelled people to follow Him.

“He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him.” Sirach 15:17-18

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

I live my life in strict obedience to the Gospel, the Magisterium, and the Code of Canon Law. While I “worry” about the hereafter, as like St. Paul, I train my spirit like an athlete prepares his body for for a race.

What I don’t do is use the compulsory force of government to force others to live the life I choose. When I see others who do stupid things, I find ways to help them stop doing stupid things. But in the end, if a person wants to destroy their own life, it is their choice. I am not going to FORCE people to make the “right” decisions. IF you want to live your moral life vicariously through other people’s lives, feel free. Jesus Christ Himself never compelled people to follow Him.

“He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him.” Sirach 15:17-18

So, if God forbid, a member of your family is holding a gun to their head, the Christian thing to do would be to let him decide whether or not to pull the trigger, hmm?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So, if God forbid, a member of your family is holding a gun to their head, the Christian thing to do would be to let him decide whether or not to pull the trigger, hmm?

Maybe you missed the part about “helping them stop making stupid decisions”. However, if I have a family member that is at that point of suicide, I failed a long time ago.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Maybe you missed the part about “helping them stop making stupid decisions”. However, if I have a family member that is at that point of suicide, I failed a long time ago.

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you are on the record as saying that a person contemplating suicide is past the point of no return and cannot be helped by physical restraint or a Christian longing to protect him from himself?

Balderdash…poppycock. I have a friend who took his own life while I left my country of residence to return to the United States. I would say emphatically that, had I been in the room with him when he committed suicide, I would have tied him to a bed if it meant he would still be alive today.

What you’re encouraging is a level of apathy that no Christian can abide. That’s why, in spite of my desire to radically curb the powers of excessive government, I repudiated my own libertarianism a long time ago because it cannot protect people with no sense from themselves.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you are on the record as saying that a person contemplating suicide is past the point of no return and cannot be helped by the physical restraint or a Christian longing to protect him from himself?

Balderdash, poppycock. I have a friend who took his own life while I left my country of residence to return to the United States. I would say emphatically that, had I been in the room with him when he committed suicide, I would have tied him to a bed if it meant he would still be alive today.

What you’re encouraging is a level of apathy that no Christian. That’s why, in spite of my desire to radically curb the powers of excessive government, I repudiated my own libertarianism a long time ago because it cannot protect people with no sense from themselves.

No, apathy is thinking politicians and laws can solve problems. Where in anything that I’ve written do you get that I would just sit their an watch a family member splatter their brains over the ceiling? I have been quite insistent that taking action on this sort of thing is a personal responsibility. Where does law enforcement make any of this better? If I were to disarm my relative, my next goal would be to get them into treatment, not jail. If you think he/she would get better in jail, you are more clueless about this than I realized. I still wouldn’t second guess your commitment to Christ though. Thanks for that. The smug self-righteousness of some people here amazes me sometimes.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

No, apathy is thinking politicians and laws can solve problems. Where in anything that I’ve written do you get that I would just sit their an watch a family member splatter their brains over the ceiling? I have been quite insistent that taking action on this sort of thing is a personal responsibility. Where does law enforcement make any of this better? If I were to disarm my relative, my next goal would be to get them into treatment, not jail. If you think he/she would get better in jail, you are more clueless about this than I realized. I still wouldn’t second guess your commitment to Christ though. Thanks for that. The smug self-righteousness of some people here amazes me sometimes.

Well, for one you dithrered and artfully phrased your answer to a question that should elicit an immediate “yes” from a Christian. My question about the family member committing suicide was a socratic exercise meant to elicit an answer that would be thought provoking. I never accused you of literally displaying a comparable level of apathy.

I took your logic to its natural logical extreme. Your allegiance to libertarianism is disempowering to law enforcement authorities who can and do save people from themselves EVERY DAY.

You are asking civil authorities to be the passive third party that looks on helplessly while people destroy themselves. The role of government in a libertarian society is analogous to the people who looked curiously on while Kitty Genovese was raped and murdered. You’re asking the government to be indifferent to suffering.

Conscientious, compassionate Scott Lafrance’s are not on every street corner in every city when rapes are committed. Police on the other hand, are usually not far away. You may believe that conscientious individuals should be allowed to solve the ills of our society in their own personal capacities, but that’s not the world we live in. How often do people see suffering on the street and ignore it? Very often…every day, in fact.

So, as a logical extension (it’s a METAPHOR, not to be taken literally), you might as well be that person who sits idly by while evils are committed. When the government can save lives, it should be empowered by us (as citizens of a republic) to do so. That’s why abortion should be illegal. Libertarians like Ron Paul do not believe it should be.

Not stopping an action when one has the power to do so is the same as being complicit in that act.

I still wouldn’t second guess your commitment to Christ though. Thanks for that. The smug self-righteousness of some people here amazes me sometimes.

This is just an underhanded way of insulting me without actually addressing me personally. By saying “Thanks for that”. you are indicating sarcasm. By saying you are “amazed at the smug self-righteousness of people here sometimes”, you’re actually referring to me, and that’s a subtle way of calling ME “smug and self-righteous” without using my pseudonym.

Scott, you’ve been here on these forums a lot longer than I have, so I’d venture to guess you’re a little more familiar with the rules of conduct. Yet, even I’d tread carefully when using antagonistic language. You know how the moderators feel about that sort of thing. And no, this is not a threat. Just be mindful for your own sake.

 

[iloveangels]

Then go to Holland and live there. But stay the hell of our roads. Pervert.

 

[iloveangels]

Good idea. Emigrate to Holland and make their roads a living hell instead of ours.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Well, for one you dithrered and artfully phrased your answer to a question that should elicit an immediate “yes” from a Christian. My question about the family member committing suicide was a socratic exercise meant to elicit an answer that would be thought provoking. I never accused you of literally displaying a comparable level of apathy.

I took your logic to its natural logical extreme. Your allegiance to libertarianism is disempowering to law enforcement authorities who can and do save people from themselves EVERY DAY.

You are asking civil authorities to be the passive third party that looks on helplessly while people destroy themselves. The role of government in a libertarian society is analogous to the people who looked curiously on while Kitty Genovese was raped and murdered. You’re asking the government to be indifferent to suffering.

Conscientious, compassionate Scott Lafrance’s are not on every street corner in every city when rapes are committed. Police on the other hand, are usually not far away. You may believe that conscientious individuals should be allowed to solve the ills of our society in their own personal capacities, but that’s not the world we live in. How often do people see suffering on the street and ignore it? Very often…every day, in fact.

So, as a logical extension (it’s a METAPHOR, not to be taken literally), you might as well be that person who sits idly by while evils are committed. When the government can save lives, it should be empowered by us (as citizens of a republic) to do so. That’s why abortion should be illegal. Libertarians like Ron Paul do not believe it should be.

Not stopping an action when one has the power to do so is the same as being complicit in that act.

This is just an underhanded way of insulting me without actually addressing me personally. By saying “Thanks for that”. you are indicating sarcasm. By saying you are “amazed at the smug self-righteousness of people here sometimes”, you’re actually referring to me, and that’s a subtle way of calling ME “smug and self-righteous” without using my pseudonym.

Scott, you’ve been here on these forums a lot longer than I have, so I’d venture to guess you’re a little more familiar with the rules of conduct. Yet, even I’d tread carefully when using antagonistic language. You know how the moderators feel about that sort of thing. And no, this is not a threat. Just be mindful for your own sake.

I am well aware of the posting rules, I was once a moderator here. in as much as antagonistic (its actually inflammatory language or direct insults) language is discouraged, discounting someone else’s faith is a strict no-no.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

I am well aware of the posting rules, I was once a moderator here. in as much as antagonistic (its actually inflammatory language or direct insults) language is discouraged, discounting someone else’s faith is a strict no-no.

Yes, it would be. Had I done that, I would probably merit the disciplinary action of the moderators. In fact, if you believe I did question your committment to your faith you should probably bring it to their attention, and I would support you doing so, but I have a feeling you know that I was engaging you on a logical basis.

You cannot defend disempowering the power of legislation to promote CERTAIN social goods in light of my mentioning the Catechism’s recommendations on civil authorities promoting the public welfare on issues like drugs, or obscene material like pornography. You still have not addressed my point in that regard, because you can’t LOGICALLY reconcile libertarianism with what the Catechism teaches. I defy you to do that.

My feelings on government welfare not satisfying the individual Christian’s responsibility to be charitable are quite clear in the thread “American Catholicism’s Pact with the Devil”

Bottom line, a libertarian government will not criminalize the murder of the unborn. A more socially conscious one will.