StarGateWars Forums

I like how its a medical drug. I have a medical problem thus the logical cure for this is to get stoned.

GrizzZzzly wrote:I like how its a medical drug. I have a medical problem thus the logical cure for this is to get stoned.

I'd say I'd much rather be stoned and suffering, than suffering and not stoned! Depending on the medical condition it may even alleviate some of the symptoms. That sure would be awesome, wouldn't it? There is some pretty damn inarguable evidence that marijuana can help with certain things, but not cure them.

Z E R O wrote:There is some pretty damn inarguable evidence that marijuana can help with certain things, but not cure them.

That's where you are wrong. watch a 1 hour film called "Run From The Cure. The Rick Simpson Story". he's a fellow Canadian of yours.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Juliette wrote:Studying the constitution is of less importance as you seem to think. Study jurisprudence. The USA's justice system is based on that far more than on the constitution (this is why low-level decisions can carry such weight - e.g. Roe v Wade), and since you are looking for enforcement of the laws and not the theory, that is where you have to look. Theoretical understanding is worthless without situational awareness.

I'm only interested in what's constitutional-therefore legal according to the constitution-as opposed to what's legal because the courts say so. the courts saying Obamacare is legal doesn't make it so.

Well the courts are the ones who interpret the constitution and decide what is "constitutional"/legal and what isn't. So if the courts say "Obamacare" is legal, then it must be constitutional. Unless I'm misinformed and only the US Supreme Court decides constitutionality and they're not the ones who heard the case about "Obamacare." I'm afraid I'm woefully ignorant to all that.

Empy wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Juliette wrote:Studying the constitution is of less importance as you seem to think. Study jurisprudence. The USA's justice system is based on that far more than on the constitution (this is why low-level decisions can carry such weight - e.g. Roe v Wade), and since you are looking for enforcement of the laws and not the theory, that is where you have to look. Theoretical understanding is worthless without situational awareness.

I'm only interested in what's constitutional-therefore legal according to the constitution-as opposed to what's legal because the courts say so. the courts saying Obamacare is legal doesn't make it so.

Well the courts are the ones who interpret the constitution and decide what is "constitutional"/legal and what isn't. So if the courts say "Obamacare" is legal, then it must be constitutional. Unless I'm misinformed and only the US Supreme Court decides constitutionality and they're not the ones who heard the case about "Obamacare." I'm afraid I'm woefully ignorant to all that.

Not so, it simply means at best the courts have no idea what is constitutional and what isn't. at worst, they are corrupt and are breaking the law.

An example is tax law. the income tax as it is being implemented in the US is unconstitutional but the courts are enforcing it. there is no law that requires US citizens to pay taxes, that's fact. yet the courts will prosecute you if you don't pay....is that ignorance or corruption?! that's down to the individual to decide. watch a film by the late great Aaron Russo called "Freedom to Fascism. Aaron went on a fact finding mission to try and find the law and he was threatened on camera by the guy that wrote the law. you also hear from people who worked for the IRS and they couldn't find the law. watch that and then decide.
I only raise this up because it helps to understand just how courts interpret the constitution. if they can break the law so blatantly on tax laws, what about the rest?

Edit: What the TSA does-and it's very existence-is completely unconstitutional, but people have lost their court battles against the TSA. what the TSA does completely and utterly violates the 4th amendment. they are not sworn bonded officers and do things even the police cannot do without reasonable suspicion. IE a TSA agent can grope your genitalia, a policeman cannot do that unless, say you commit a crime with a hand gun and then stuff that gun down your trousers the police can then restrain you and put their hands down your trousers to remove the gun. a TSA can just do it regardless if they have reasonable suspicion or not. as stated, that's a total violation of the 4th amendment and people cannot go to the courts to protect their civil liberties being violated.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Z E R O wrote:There is some pretty damn inarguable evidence that marijuana can help with certain things, but not cure them.

That's where you are wrong. watch a 1 hour film called "Run From The Cure. The Rick Simpson Story". he's a fellow Canadian of yours.

I've seen the film. Was pretty good, but not sure of it myself. Seems a little too good to be true. It would be good if a bit more proper research could be done on it.

Z E R O wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Z E R O wrote:There is some pretty damn inarguable evidence that marijuana can help with certain things, but not cure them.

That's where you are wrong. watch a 1 hour film called "Run From The Cure. The Rick Simpson Story". he's a fellow Canadian of yours.

I've seen the film. Was pretty good, but not sure of it myself. Seems a little too good to be true. It would be good if a bit more proper research could be done on it.

I agree, with such evidence you would think the cancer research institutes and health organisations the world over would have have studied hemp to see if these claims are what they appear to be.

It looks like to me it's an excuse to have it legalized by pretending it would be almighty medicine.

Legendary Apophis wrote:It looks like to me it's an excuse to have it legalized by pretending it would be almighty medicine.

How about you watch the film and then decide if we are using it as an excuse to get it legalised?


let me ask you this Jim...IF a full and open study of Hemp was conducted by experts and IF it was found to be as medicinally powerful as they claim and IF it was also found to be a natural cure for cancer...would you still say it should be illegal?

I dunno about you (i sincerely hope not) but i've lost 3 members of family to cancer and if it is a cure which is being suppressed...well, i don't know what to say or how i would react if this ever came to light.

Legendary Apophis wrote:It looks like to me it's an excuse to have it legalized by pretending it would be almighty medicine.

It's already legal in Oregon for medical purposes, and we have fewer issues with that than any other deug on the market.

Psyko wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:It looks like to me it's an excuse to have it legalized by pretending it would be almighty medicine.

It's already legal in Oregon for medical purposes, and we have fewer issues with that than any other deug on the market.

Well.. health-wise.. Marijuana is much safer than basically every pharmaceutical out there.

It's the bud of a plant. Where as most of the pharmaceuticals are concoctions of chemicals, that were never meant to be consumed in that manner, just look at the laundry lists of side effects.. Call me old fashioned, but I trust mother nature far more than big pharma! I'm not saying there aren't claimed negative side effects to marijuana either, I may have experienced some myself. I would much rather consume something natural to heal myself than something synthetic, though.

Z E R O wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:It looks like to me it's an excuse to have it legalized by pretending it would be almighty medicine.

It's already legal in Oregon for medical purposes, and we have fewer issues with that than any other deug on the market.

Well.. health-wise.. Marijuana is much safer than basically every pharmaceutical out there.

It's the bud of a plant. Where as most of the pharmaceuticals are concoctions of chemicals, that were never meant to be consumed in that manner, just look at the laundry lists of side effects.. Call me old fashioned, but I trust mother nature far more than big pharma! I'm not saying there aren't claimed negative side effects to marijuana either, I may have experienced some myself. I would much rather consume something natural to heal myself than something synthetic, though.

This is the outlook of many Oregonians in regard to medical marijuana. There are many with chronic pain issues who find the effects of marijuana to dull the pain enough that they can lead relatively normal lives.

thats a completely flawed argument

http://listverse.com/2011/07/02/top-10- ... -kill-you/

Just because a substance is naturally in a specific state on this earth does not in any way justify consumption over a substance that has been created through human interaction.

GrizzZzzly wrote:thats a completely flawed argument

http://listverse.com/2011/07/02/top-10- ... -kill-you/

Just because a substance is naturally in a specific state on this earth does not in any way justify consumption over a substance that has been created through human interaction.

And who defines "justification" when it comes to ingesting anything? who has the right to tell you or me or anybody else what we can and cannot consume? how can a law be made that makes me a criminal for ingesting a substance-regardless of what affect it has on my body?

So long as i am not diagnosed as being mentally unfit, insane and i am in full control of my faculties, and so long as i don't harm anyone else, how can i be labelled a criminal and possibly incarcerated for hurting myself? I'm a smoker and i know i am doing damage every time i light up a fag (<cigarette, not homosexual), who has the right to punish me for my habit?

Sorry, but the argument being made we should be punished for consumption of substances and said substances should remain illegal is not for govt or courts of law. it's down to each and everyone of us to decide if it is right for us or wrong. as i've said before, i've smoked weed and decided it wasn't for me...what gives me the right to force that decision on anybody else?

This all comes down to personal choice, not laws, rules, courts, govt, police, etcetera.

ok i didnt mean legal justification i meant its effect on the human body. I'm saying the fact that it occurs naturally without human interaction doesn't make it good or healthy or unhealthy. Its a flawed argument to use that as any kind of basis.

the problem with freedom is this. You have to right to do whatever you wants as long as it doesnt infringe on the freedom of anyone else. At least thats the idea. Essentially no you dont have the right to do whatever you want. However the decisions made in that respect in terms of law-making etc can of course be disputed and you can dispute those forever. This is where everyone disagree's with one another.