House Approves Legalization Of Medical Marijuana in CT

Forum: Politics
Author: [Politics] Topic: House Approves Legalization Of Medical Marijuana in CT
Stiln PM Stiln
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6423
Maryland
 
Stiln
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/26/2012 10:39:08 PM




http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-house-medical-marijuana-0426-2-20120425,0,6285465.story
wallstreetcappers PM wallstreetcappers
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 51371
United States
 
wallstreetcappers
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/26/2012 11:20:46 PM
I'm sure the number of Covers members who live in CT and have legit, legal medical need has to be in the thousands.

spearing24 PM spearing24
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1066
 
spearing24
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/27/2012 11:23:00 AM


Welcome to the 21st century CT!
DiscoD69 PM DiscoD69
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7937
Canada
 
DiscoD69
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/27/2012 11:42:45 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

I'm sure the number of Covers members who live in CT and have legit, legal medical need has to be in the thousands.


I'm curious Mr. WSC, with all due respect, if there was only one person suffering, would that be enough in itself? Or does there have to be a certain number of people suffering and in need of natural medicine before we deem it necessary to allow them access to this medically approved treatment? 

If even one person lives through less pain because of this policy, would that not be worth it? What if somebody has cancer and chemical treatments make them sick and have severe side effects and consequences, but medical marijuana relieves their pain and suffering (as it has been proven to do). Would it not make sense to legalize MM even if it was just for one person, never mind 10, 50, 100, 1000 or more?

I'm being serious. 
DiscoD69 PM DiscoD69
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7937
Canada
 
DiscoD69
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/27/2012 11:45:11 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by DiscoD69:


I'm curious Mr. WSC, with all due respect, if there was only one person suffering, would that be enough in itself? Or does there have to be a certain number of people suffering and in need of natural medicine before we deem it necessary to allow them access to this medically approved treatment? 

If even one person lives through less pain because of this policy, would that not be worth it? What if somebody has cancer and chemical treatments make them sick and have severe side effects and consequences, but medical marijuana relieves their pain and suffering (as it has been proven to do). Would it not make sense to legalize MM even if it was just for one person, never mind 10, 50, 100, 1000 or more?

I'm being serious. 

Never mind... 

"Covers members in CT" 

I must have missed that. 
lordspoint PM lordspoint
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13119
Connecticut
 
lordspoint
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/27/2012 12:46:03 PM
just legalize it, regulate it like booze and get it over with
dl36 PM dl36
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 27623
United States
 
dl36
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/27/2012 7:55:48 PM
lords...  Why is it that neither Dems or GOPs want to do that?

On some issues it really is like there is no practical difference between the two... 
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/27/2012 8:16:53 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by DiscoD69:


I'm curious Mr. WSC, with all due respect, if there was only one person suffering, would that be enough in itself? Or does there have to be a certain number of people suffering and in need of natural medicine before we deem it necessary to allow them access to this medically approved treatment? 

If even one person lives through less pain because of this policy, would that not be worth it? What if somebody has cancer and chemical treatments make them sick and have severe side effects and consequences, but medical marijuana relieves their pain and suffering (as it has been proven to do). Would it not make sense to legalize MM even if it was just for one person, never mind 10, 50, 100, 1000 or more?

I'm being serious. 

It is kind of funny how you are a proponent of legalizing marijuana, and see it as an individual's choice, while you loathe the powers that be that take away this simple right, while on the other hand you preach gun bans and turn to the nanny state to protect us from gun violence. 

When you give power to Govt, you will never get it back without a fight.  

BaleeDat.  
Stiln PM Stiln
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6423
Maryland
 
Stiln
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 2:03:10 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by rick3117:


It is kind of funny how you are a proponent of legalizing marijuana, and see it as an individual's choice, while you loathe the powers that be that take away this simple right, while on the other hand you preach gun bans and turn to the nanny state to protect us from gun violence. 

When you give power to Govt, you will never get it back without a fight.  

BaleeDat.  


I don't support the legalization of marijuana. I do support the complete decriminalization of marijuana and subsidization of rehab facilities going back to the nixon era..
rooster010 PM rooster010
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10899
Mongolia
 
rooster010
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 7:27:26 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by rick3117:


It is kind of funny how you are a proponent of legalizing marijuana, and see it as an individual's choice, while you loathe the powers that be that take away this simple right, while on the other hand you preach gun bans and turn to the nanny state to protect us from gun violence. 

When you give power to Govt, you will never get it back without a fight.  

BaleeDat.  
be easy PM be easy
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15420
Pennsylvania
 
be easy
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 10:19:48 AM
Another pot thread

I do my best to avoid these, but couldn't resist temptation. I don't have anything to offer of substance to the discussion, but i will make sure to take a jab at all of those that could/do benefit from MMJ in this country, but are made to suffer because of these just laws, and remind you stupid stoners that nobody needs MMJ, surely pharmacists and scientists can use chemicals and other dangerous substances, to produce the same result as this natural plant
spearing24 PM spearing24
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1066
 
spearing24
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 11:21:46 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by be easy:

Another pot thread

I do my best to avoid these, but couldn't resist temptation. I don't have anything to offer of substance to the discussion, but i will make sure to take a jab at all of those that could/do benefit from MMJ in this country, but are made to suffer because of these just laws, and remind you stupid stoners that nobody needs MMJ, surely pharmacists and scientists can use chemicals and other dangerous substances, to produce the same result as this natural plant



rooster010 PM rooster010
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10899
Mongolia
 
rooster010
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 6:24:22 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by be easy:

Another pot thread

I do my best to avoid these, but couldn't resist temptation. I don't have anything to offer of substance to the discussion, but i will make sure to take a jab at all of those that could/do benefit from MMJ in this country, but are made to suffer because of these just laws, and remind you stupid stoners that nobody needs MMJ, surely pharmacists and scientists can use chemicals and other dangerous substances, to produce the same result as this natural plant
wallstreetcappers PM wallstreetcappers
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 51371
United States
 
wallstreetcappers
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 8:02:22 PM
Nice one BE, right on cue as well.

be easy PM be easy
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15420
Pennsylvania
 
be easy
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 8:10:38 PM
i dont get it


wallstreetcappers PM wallstreetcappers
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 51371
United States
 
wallstreetcappers
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 8:19:18 PM
Sure you do..

be easy PM be easy
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15420
Pennsylvania
 
be easy
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 8:30:37 PM
the hell i do

by it, i meant, i don't get how someone like yourself, can hold the position you claim to hold on this topic. maybe it's all a rib, for a while now, i've hoped that's what it is. but with all the information available in the year 2012, how any American can hold the belief that marijuana prohibition is a concept that our federal government should pursue, (or that it could ever even possibly "work"),blows my mind.

worse still, you find the need to interject your presence every time the topic is brought up here at covers. never once have i seen you present an argument as to why prohibition works and why it should be pursued (you've actually stated you would like to see more resources thrown down the rathole)



Sure you do..



enlighten me

Stiln PM Stiln
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6423
Maryland
 
Stiln
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 8:47:02 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by be easy:

Another pot thread

I do my best to avoid these, but couldn't resist temptation. I don't have anything to offer of substance to the discussion, but i will make sure to take a jab at all of those that could/do benefit from MMJ in this country, but are made to suffer because of these just laws, and remind you stupid stoners that nobody needs MMJ, surely pharmacists and scientists can use chemicals and other dangerous substances, to produce the same result as this natural plant


Who the darn are you talking to though?
be easy PM be easy
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15420
Pennsylvania
 
be easy
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 8:59:27 PM
i was talking, to God
wallstreetcappers PM wallstreetcappers
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 51371
United States
 
wallstreetcappers
Participation Meter
Posted: 4/30/2012 10:43:26 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by be easy:

i was talking, to God

Yeah that wasnt extremely transparent.

At least I took issue with the topic, not the person.

glenndef62 PM glenndef62
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 7507
Massachusetts
 
glenndef62
Participation Meter
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:04:39 AM

What would be the adverse consequences of legalizing it nation wide?

 

Doing so would certainly cripple the savagery of the Mexican drug cartels, no?

spearing24 PM spearing24
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1066
 
spearing24
Participation Meter
Posted: 5/1/2012 10:32:28 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by glenndef62:

What would be the adverse consequences of legalizing it nation wide?

 

Doing so would certainly cripple the savagery of the Mexican drug cartels, no?



The prison industrial complex would come crashing down.  Thousands of employees that are employed by the private prisons would lose their jobs. 

The pharmaceutical companies would lose billions. 

Hospitals would lose billions because the overall health of Americans would be increased 5 fold and wouldn't require a lot of the services they need to go to a hospital for today.


slikstiks99 PM slikstiks99
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5837
Zambia
 
slikstiks99
Participation Meter
Posted: 5/1/2012 10:43:45 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by spearing24:



The prison industrial complex would come crashing down.  Thousands of employees that are employed by the private prisons would lose their jobs. 

The pharmaceutical companies would lose billions. 

Hospitals would lose billions because the overall health of Americans would be increased 5 fold and wouldn't require a lot of the services they need to go to a hospital for today.


I know.

All those high school drop outs would be forced to do something productive for society. They'd have to work for an industry that actually produces something. It is a scary thought.

Forum: Politics
You have entered the forum as a GUEST. 
You must login/register to post or reply.