Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Politicizing Pain


Recommended Posts

Read this, learn the message, and in turn use your Vote to Free yourselves of the all encompassing Angry Totalitarian Mothering Goobermint that we've managed to saddle ourselves with.


Your choices in management of pain are limited to what the Goobers decide is "good for you".


<self edited>





Politicizing pain


by US Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)


"K.K. Forss lived in constant fear of federal and state officials so

he eventually stopped taking medical marijuana and switched to his

more rigorous and expensive pill regimen. Presently, twelve states

have passed legislation allowing marijuana, under certain conditions,

to be prescribed legally by doctors for patients who could benefit

from it. K.K. Forss lives in Minnesota, where it is not yet legal.

However, even if it is legalized by the state, Mr. Forss will still

have plenty to fear from the Federal government, as cannabis

dispensaries and clinics that operate under these state laws are still

under fire from the Drug Enforcement Administration. In other words,

the federal government sees fit to use our tax dollars to raid state

sanctioned healthcare clinics, to imprison and fine patients and

operators, in order to compel people like Mr. Forss to be bedridden

and overmedicated at great taxpayer expense every single

day." (04/29/08)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should we hope for civil war?

Strike the Root

by Per Bylund


"Take the issue of medical marijuana as an example of the struggle

between state and federal levels of power. While the state of

California has legally approved of medical marijuana, the federal

government through one of its militant agencies -- the Drug

Enforcement Agency, DEA -- is still persecuting legal users. We

therefore have the strange situation where state licensed physicians

hand their patients receipts for medical marijuana as treatment for

painful, deadly diseases; where the patients can use their receipts in

legal stores to purchase marijuana to ease their pain; but where both

physicians, their patients, and stores face the threat of being

federal-legally assaulted and imprisoned for state-legal and state-

approved actions. ... What we are seeing is a small-scale civil war,

where the state's legislature is using its legal right to legislate

for the state while the federal agency is enforcing conflicting

federal policies. Of course, when politicians struggle and fight,

there is only one category of losers: people like you and

me." (04/28/08)



Link to comment
Share on other sites



The men in black

The Line is Here

by Robb Allen


"Is this what we want? For the police to expect us to fear them? How

much more authority do we need to give them to do their jobs? Why is

it that the common American thinks that the law only belongs in the

hands of police when it is we the people who grant them that right?

How can we grant them something that isn't ours to give?" (04/28/08)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also related...



Even if you're not for legalization, you should learn more about this. Even if it's not legal, it should be a state issue.


Do something about it:




There are two bills in Congress that would help reform this right now. This is something I posted in the News section a while back. It's got a link that will write a letter to your Representative for you if you just fill in a bit of information. It's still being processed as far as I know.


Plus, it's got a nice long discussion about the drug, and it's effects, positive and negative, the difference between state and federal charges, the difference between decriminalization, and legalization, and the effects of the War on Drugs which is mostly negative...if not completely.


The way things are set up now, a single joint and the wrong judge can ruin a life. Loss of student loans, public finance programs, loss of voting rights, excessive jail time, and a federal charge on your permanent record, just to name a few. It's completely unjust, and causes far more suffering than it comes close to alleviating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Ron Paul :wub: It is really a sad situation. Why are we using tax dollars to imprison the elderly and sick? I am so sad to live in a country that prioritizes war while making health care virtually impossible. Also, the amount of money spent on pr for the drug war is staggering. I work in the media in NYC and i have seen first hand how news exposes about drug companies can be shuffled to the side b/c the station is supported by drug companies ad dollars.

I have little hope for 08'; I love Ron Paul and I prefer a more libertarian government but that is evidently not what the majority wants. I sat in on a news meeting where they were talking about Huckabee and one of the reporters brought up Ron Paul and he was roundly ignored by the station managers. :nono: He can't get nominated b/c the media is full of gatekeepers who choose what goes on air and what doesn't. From someone on the inside...never take your tv news at face value. It is carefully crafted, edited, lit and there are camera angles that specifically elicit certain emotions (ie: the slow close up on a grieving victim elicits sadness from the viewer) and this makes it really hard to tell what the real story is. Google News helps sort the spin but overall I gotta say that the media has been totally corrupted since the start of the Bush administration. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a copy of my OP for those interested...


Congress has a bill, contact your local representative and be heard.





United States


WASHINGTON -- Proponents of U.S. Rep. Barney Frank's proposal to legalize small amounts of marijuana are pointing to efforts in some states -- including Massachusetts -- to decriminalize the drug as evidence of public support for Rep. Frank's plan.


Rep. Frank, D-Mass., said recently that he will introduce two bills, one that would decriminalize possession of less than 100 grams -- or 3.5 ounces -- of marijuana and another that would grant protection to states that decide to allow medicinal use of marijuana.


"The public is now ready for this," Rep. Frank said in a telephone interview. "I have long thought it was foolish to have these laws on the books, but now as I look at the public opinion, it's clear that this is wanted."


Rep. Frank said that although he does not support marijuana use, he believes that adults should be able to consume small amounts without facing criminal penalties. He said prosecution of marijuana charges costs federal law enforcement agencies time and resources. Rep. Frank, who said he has no experience with marijuana, added, "I think marijuana is less harmful than alcohol."


As Rep. Frank tries to drum up support for his bill in Congress, the Massachusetts Legislature is considering an initiative to decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. A person caught with an ounce or less would be fined but would not be charged with a criminal offense, which appears on employer background checks and is a disqualifying factor for receiving certain government benefits, such as subsidized housing and student financial aid.


If the state Legislature does not act on the initiative by May 6, supporters have until June 18 to get 11,000 signatures on a petition to put the initiative on the ballot in November. If they succeed, it would require a majority vote to pass.


Whitney A. Taylor, campaign manager for the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which drafted the Massachusetts initiative, said she supports Rep. Frank's proposal.


"We are very excited that Congressman Frank understands the need for more sensible and sound marijuana policies," Ms. Taylor said. "The policies in Massachusetts do more harm than good, and I think the congressman realizes that on a federal level, as well."


State Sen. Patricia D. Jehlen, D-Medford, is sponsoring her own bill that would decriminalize possessing an ounce or less of marijuana.


"I'm not saying it's OK, but it's not a criminal offense," she said. "It's a civil offense, but you don't get a criminal record and you don't use up court resources."


State Rep. Martin J. Walsh, D-Dorchester, who has led the opposition to marijuana decriminalization in Massachusetts, said he would instead favor adjusting laws for youths using alcohol and marijuana in order to protect their permanent records.


"People make mistakes," Rep. Walsh said. "I don't agree with them being penalized for an irresponsible decision."


Since 1973, 12 states, including Maine, have decriminalized marijuana in some form. A bill that would decriminalize possession of a quarter-ounce of marijuana passed the New Hampshire House, although the governor and Senate president have vowed to defeat it.


"Almost half of the ( U.S. ) population lives in states that have done this sort of thing," said Bill Downing, president of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition. "Those states saved millions of dollars in law enforcement and marijuana usage rates did not go up as a result."


Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, pointed to those 12 states as proof of support for reforming drug laws. Mr. St. Pierre said there is widespread public support for decriminalizing marijuana and allowing for its medicinal use, although many still oppose its full legalization.


Americans are able to distinguish between decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana and the complete legalization of marijuana, making it like alcohol and tobacco, Mr. St. Pierre said.


Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said his agency would "oppose any changes that would make dangerous, addictive drugs widely available."


"Common sense shows that when you make something more available, people will use it," he said.


Mr. Riley said that proponents of marijuana decriminalization are "using medical marijuana as a back-door solution to legalization," and that marijuana is a more harmful drug than people realize. He said patients using medicinal marijuana are being used to invoke public sympathy.


"The state-level passage has been playing on people's good wills more than based on science," Mr. Riley said. "They go through the ballot process rather than the scientific process."


For the past 10 years, Rep. Frank has unsuccessfully filed legislation during each two-year congressional term to loosen marijuana laws. He has filed bills that would allow the unrestricted medicinal use of marijuana in states that have passed such laws, and he also has filed bills -- one as recently as January -- to repeal a law that prohibits college students who were convicted of drug offenses from receiving financial aid. None of the bills has made it onto the House floor for debate.


U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., filed legislation in the Senate last month that would allow judges to decide whether students who were convicted of drug offenses can keep their financial aid.


Tom Angell, spokesman for Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a Washington-based lobbying group seeking to decriminalize marijuana, said more than 200,000 college students have lost financial aid in the past 10 years because of drug convictions.


Although Mr. Angell would not say whether he would support Rep. Frank's legislation until he sees the details of his proposal, he said he believes passing a law to reduce penalties for marijuana will "show a lot of momentum for reforming punitive drug policies."


"Congress will be on the record saying it doesn't make sense to punish people for what they're putting into their own body," Mr. Angell said.


Mr. St. Pierre said Rep. Frank's proposal does not promote the use of marijuana but instead encourages people who use it to consume the drug within reasonable limits.


"It will build consistency into drug policy that if you use something like cannabis, just like alcohol, you should largely be punished for the abuse of the substance, not the use of it," Mr. St. Pierre said.


"We all know there's a difference between use of alcohol and alcohol abuse."


by: Richard Lake



Take a moment to speak out, it will only take a moment of time. Just fill in the blanks at this link and click send:




Here's a copy of the message that it will send to your local representative after the information is sent:


I'm writing today to urge your support for H.R. 5843, an “Act to Remove Federal Penalties for Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults,†which seeks to eliminate federal penalties for the possession and non-for-profit distribution of small amounts of cannabis.


Specifically, the bill would eliminate federal penalties prohibiting the personal use and possession of up to 100 grams (3 1/2 ounces) of marijuana, and for the not-for-profit transfers of up to one ounce of cannabis. This common sense change will ensure that adults who possess small quantities of cannabis for their own personal use will no longer be subject to arrest or prosecution, or the emotional, social, and financial hardships that follow.


Otherwise law-abiding citizens who use marijuana responsibly are not part of the crime problem, and we must stop treating them like criminals. In 2006, the last year for which national data is available, law enforcement arrested over 829,000 persons for marijuana violations – the highest annual total ever recorded. Of those arrested, approximately 90 percent were charged with minor marijuana possession only.


Seldom emphasized penalties associated with a minor marijuana conviction include probation and mandatory drug testing, loss of employment, loss of child custody, removal from subsidized housing, asset forfeiture, loss of student aid, loss of voting privileges, loss of adoption rights, and the loss of certain federal welfare benefits such as food stamps. Thousands of Americans suffer such sanctions every day – at a rate of one person every 38 seconds. Surely, our limited law enforcement resources would be better served targeting more serious and violent crimes.


On this latter point, most Americans agree. Marijuana decriminalization currently enjoys support from the majority of Americans. According to a CNN/Time Magazine poll, 76% of US citizens favor a fine over criminal penalties for the possession of marijuana. In fact, twelve states – representing one third of the population of the United States – have already enacted various forms of marijuana decriminalization, eliminating criminal sanctions for cannabis possession. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts are currently considering similar options.


Once again, I urge you to support the passage of H.R. 5843. It is a common sense approach that will refocus law enforcement resources on fighting violent and more serious crimes. Please support H.R. 5843 and stop arresting responsible adult marijuana consumers.



This could save the US billions of dollars in wasted revenue and resources in law enforcement expenses, free up much needed room in jails, and prevent the time and money drain on prosecuting harmless, non violent offenders.


Please take the time to let your representative know how you feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a classic issue of states' rights...

Presumably, in the Constitution, the Federal government has no more power than the individual states give it.

But in reality, that is not so. The Federal authority attempts to trump state authority at every turn, including this one.

Bottom line...the original USA, as conceived and set up by the framers of the Constitution, is dead. That entity no longer exists. It has been destroyed, not by interpretation and adherence to the original Constitutional principals, but by the "powers that be", in the times that they be, for the special interests that prevail.


The "noble experiment" has failed. Even to the extent that a medical finding that may benefit a few should fall to the dictates of a governmental monolith.


Woe to us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a classic issue of states' rights...

Presumably, in the Constitution, the Federal government has no more power than the individual states give it.

But in reality, that is not so. The Federal authority attempts to trump state authority at every turn, including this one.

Bottom line...the original USA, as conceived and set up by the framers of the Constitution, is dead. That entity no longer exists. It has been destroyed, not by interpretation and adherence to the original Constitutional principals, but by the "powers that be", in the times that they be, for the special interests that prevail.


The "noble experiment" has failed. Even to the extent that a medical finding that may benefit a few should fall to the dictates of a governmental monolith.


Woe to us all.


From what I understand, the reasoning behind the federal control over narcotics stems from it's constitutional mandate to regulate inter-state trade. Why is it that the feds couldn't just say "We respect and enforce the state's right to allow, limit, or ban imports and exports of 'X' product?" I guess we would need a constitutional amendment at this point to reverse all the judicial decisions made up to this point.


I would be all for this, but don't see it happening. http://www.ex-christian.net/style_images/i...icons/icon2.gif


No way the gov't is going to volunteer to give up some of it's power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.