Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor came down on the side of toking-up, and all the liberals (plus Scalia and Kennedy) were against it.

That's very funny.

Dr Drew, my hero, says that we have cheaper, safer and more effective medications for every complaint (eye problems, appetite etc) that people want to treat with marijuana. Basically, folks just wanna smoke dope. Should we write new rules for people just because they're hurtin'?

Cansy-wormsy, sez me. But...

Amy, you were complaining about pharmicists who won't offer the morning after pill a few weeks ago. You'll like this point from Reynolds today: "[P]harmacists enjoy a government-created monopoly on the dispensing of prescription drugs. Just take that away, and the [M.A. pill] problem disappears, too. In the meantime, like others who enjoy government monopolies, they are forced to make some concessions to public convenience. That doesn't strike me as an overwhelming imposition, but if the pharmacy profession feels otherwise, I'll be the first to support a move to eliminate its privileged position."

Should we write new rules for people just because they're hurtin'?

We should make these rules at the state level so wacky Californians can toke up but Texans can't. It's called "federalism" and it's a good thing.

Crid-
If you've never known someone who experiences the agony of taking a deep breath or trying to dredge up an appetite after they've had surgery to remove parts of their mouth and throat after cancer takes them- I don't want to hear your half ass opinion on why 'weed bad'.

Bitterness acknowledged, but it's still a non-sequitor.

Strange to see Californians called wacky when compared to Texans. Just about any other state would have been a better choice to make California look wacky. Except Kansas.

Pharmacists have a priveleged monopoly? Please. Tell Reynolds to open his eyes and look next door. I can't walk a block in any direction without hitting two pharmacies and this is in Pittsburgh, where it's still 1958.

ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

by Jesse McKay for THE BLAZING TRUTH

June 17, 2005

Of course the medical-marijuana position is junk science. There is no reason a person should smoke marijuana to alleviate suffering and certainly no benefit that could not be better achieved through cannabinol instead. This should not confuse anyone (except maybe the folks with the THC-damaged brains who want marijuana anyway.)

When Americans lost the right to self-administer medication in 1948, they lost it forever. There is no restoration. There is no path from here to there.

The meddy-jane folks will go nowhere with this. On an upside note, they can feel more secure in the realization that marijuana laws are about as well-prosecuted as laws against speeding and illegal immigration. They probably won't get caught -- y'know, unless they're high or something.

Addictions such as these bring them in to circles of disease, poverty, violence, death, and worst of all, apathy.

What will happen to dopers? Probably nothing. A stagnant, boring life with no meaningful accomplishments is too heavy a price for partying.

Jesse McKay

wymck@gtcom.net

Jesse, I don't have time to respond to all the wacky stuff you wrote above, but smoking pot isn't an "addiction" any more than enjoying a brownie or a martini from time to time is. People can become addicted to pot -- or to brownies -- or buying antique linoleum. Should we also ban brownies and antique linoleum purchasing?