| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | Marcelina (0)
08/29/2008 | why not? I haven't heard a compelling argument against medical marijuana, or legalizing marijuana totality for that matter.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | pansycritter (1)
10/05/2007 | The hell with medical. Wake up and smell the pot. It's awesome and can be taxed...just think of the highways and byways...
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | FranksWildYears (58)
06/07/2007 | It should be taken out of the realm of politics and made into a purely medical issue. It's merits and detriments should be discussed based on the principles of scientific methods of evaluation, free of politicall rhetoric, with some Bob Marley playing in the background and a big plate of nachos on the table. Did anyone else see that beautiful flash of white light?
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | ClassicTVFan47 (38)
06/03/2007 | It should not be an issue. This dangerous and illegal substance should remain illegal. It causes hundreds of deaths every year...the problem is that all marijana-related deaths are classified under smoking, thus lacking the distinction needed to point to the truly insidious effects this drug has. And, that doesn't even include the massive psychological damage that long-term use can have on the user.
With our medical technology as advanced as it is, there's no need for this. Keep it illegal--forever.
(3 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 0 agree) |
 | adc103051 (0)
08/03/2006 | To all against it; When your on your deathbed you might change your mind.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | butyubchubstub (0)
01/13/2006 | I find it ludicrous to even suggest this. We have PLENTY, and I stress, PLENTY of drugs that can eliminate pain. People are just looking for any excuse possible to get ahold of it; its illegal for a reason.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | MariusQelDroma (36)
12/29/2005 | There is a reason that marijuana is on the DEA and FDA's Schedule One list: this stuff kills brain cells and more insidious affects. It's a wonder that cigarettes haven't hit at least Schedule Two with the health affects demonstrated there.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | numbah16tdhaha (156)
12/22/2005 | Whether or not potheads can smoke up freely matters not to me. This is not medicine, its a loophole.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Djahuti (57)
09/07/2005 | People dying or in extreme pain should get ANYTHING that helps to ease their suffering.It is ludicrous to deny hospice patients even dangerous drugs such as Morphine or Dilauded because they are addictive,these people are DYING! Hello! I don't think the supposed dangers of Marijuana are anywhere near as harmful as the side-effects of many commonly prescribed drugs.The real reason the FDA is dragging its feet and grasping at straws is because the Pharmaceutical industry knows that people can all too easily grow their own or buy it on the black market.They won't be able to gouge the sick and elderly as is their custom with other prescribed substances.Meanwhile,cancer patients and others who could benefit from this relatively innocuous drug are left to suffer and waste away,paying high prices for other products more dangerous and less effective.Money truly is the Root of All Evil!(or at least the greed it generates in decision makers.)
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | magellan (177)
06/06/2005 |  Pretty interesting decision by the Supreme Court - they decided 6-3 to support a ban on state laws allowing medical marijuana. What's interesting about this case is NOT so much the ruling regarding medical marijuana, but its effects on Federalism. The only judges to oppose the ban were Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor - three conservatives. The ban was supported by the court's liberal judges plus Scalia, plus Kennedy. So why do we have conservative judges going against the GWB administration crack down on states rights? Because, the GWB position is inherently liberal. That while these conservative judges are most likely in support of GWB's policies, they are not in support of the way he is going about achieving them - ie trampling on federalism, and inflating the power of the federal government. Because what Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'connor understand - that many seem to be missing - is that if you are going to allow a large intrusive government with whose policies you happen to agree, you have to be prepared to allow a large intrusive government with whose policies you DON'T agree. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Bush is much closer to a classic liberal than a classic conservative in his view of the role of government.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-10 OF 10 | View All |
