Well, the biggest problem with medical marijuana as practiced in the Canada is that the government apparently produces some incredibly horrible Saskatoon ditch-weed for their government grown pot. People have been returning it because it makes them sick and doesn’t even give them a little girlie buzz.
As Cecil put it:
[
As I said in another thread, I lean conservative and I think laws prohibiting sick people from obtaining and smoking medical marijuana are unjust and stupid (kinda like the War on Drugs itself).
IMHO, the OP pigeonholes (inaccurately) conservatives.
**Nas Duire
**
[Moderator Hat ON]
Don’t call people idiots in this forum, Nas Duire. If you absolutely must, do it in the BBQ Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
As a resident of Saskatoon, I resent this foul slur on our fair city. Weed here is grown hydroponically in basements, same as in BC, and most emphatically not in ditches! 
Anyways, if it were grown in ditches, the 'hoppers would just eat it all, which would be horribly wasteful.
But the 'hoppers would have a good time. And, having the munchies, they would be even more destructive.
Friends don’t let friends smoke bad weed. 
Seriously though, I think the nail was hit on the head earlier in this thread. Medical marijuana, in my opinion, is the main reason marijuana will never be legal in this country, as long as pharmaceutical companies have the politcal clout they do here in the US.
Why on earth would multi-billion dollar pharamaceutical companies want you to have, as an alternative to addictive, expensive drugs only they can give you, something you can grow in your closet with minimal effort?
Yeah, but the other side could be funded by the Hostess and Old Dutch companies.
I don’t think there is any evidence that pharmaceutical companies are behind the illegalization of pot and resistance to medical marijuana. It isn’t like they make huge bucks off of marinol (THC in pills), right? How exactly would Pfizer lose money if pot were legal? I’m not seeing it.
Canadian potato chip technology being what it is, Old Dutch (how apropos) would probably have a line of marijuana (excuse me, hemp) chips in no time flat.
http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=717
another myth in need of debunking. the cannabinoids in marijuana have proven antineoplastic properties. search google for 'Steve Kubby" …
excerpt:
kind of strange that you don’t see any of this in the mainstream media…
Another conservative checking in with no opposition to medical marijuana, and a strong belief that the idea that “many” conservatives oppose it is a fallacy.
I really cannot fathom how someone could say that AIDS and cancer patients, especially, should not have this option available to them. Given that it would only become an issue when they are quite ill, it’s not like they’re going to be smoking huge spliffs and getting behind the wheel to run out for some burgers. So what could possibly be the objection? The idea baffles me.
Of course, I don’t think marijuana is nearly as big a deal as it is made out to be by law enforcement. We just saw the results of a marijuana raid in a South Carolina high school, with kids being forced flat on the ground by police with guns drawn and pointed at the kids’ heads, and there was no dope anywhere. We are putting altogether too much money, manpower, time and energy into the War on (Some) Drugs. It’s time to get real about it.
So if it’s not the Liberals and it’s not the Conservatives-- where is all the oppostion to medical marijuana coming from?
Seems to me it’s the White House leading the opposition and thems some pretty conservative people.
Bush has been expanding the federal government (e.g., the Patriot Act).
Well, for example, as I understand it, one common use touted for medical marijuana is as a nausea suppressant and appetite inducer for chemo patients. Currently one expects that such patients take an expensive regimen of drugs to achieve the same purpose, though the claim is that those drugs are just vomited back up before they can help - hence the value of smoking pot. Or something like that. So while marinol might not be a big seller, other drugs would be supplanted by medical marijuana, and that would lead to large losses. Or so goes the theory.
Ah, but you see, Biggirl, that brings us into the realm of how current-day “conservatism” or “Republicanism” in America is a coalition that includes both “economic” or “political” conservatives who believe that what threatens the nation is the hobbling of the free market, the growth of Big Government, the abdication of individual responsibility, and that a weak national defense may embolden our enemies to strike; and on the other hand “social” or “moral” conservatives, puritans who believe that the threat is evil corruption of our “family values”, weakening of respect for institutional authority, and the possibility of God smiting us for being tolerant of sin.
So the Bush admin’s hardline stance on Medical MJ is to a great extent one big pander to the “moral conservatives”, who tend to be very strident.
Maybe if we rephrase the statement to “Opposition to legal marijuana comes mostly from conservative sources”? I know that the huge corporation I work for is opposed, and definately conservative. Most (all?) companies are.
Same for conservative political entities, right.
Conservatives as a group are opposed to legal mj, medical or recreational, because they like to control, and they don’t embrace change. That’s part of the definition of conservatism.
Peace,
mangeorge
Biggirl the white house was leading the opposition when Clinton was in.
The opposition to medical marijuana steams mostly from people seeing that promotion of medical marijuana is a first step to legalizing it in general.
Nice try, Biggirl, but you seem to have forgotten about The other White House:
The truth is, it’s the Feds of both stripes who oppose medicinal pot. Conservatives and Liberals, or Republicans and Democrats if you prefer, at that level have consistently opposed the states’ rights on this issue. And both groups seem to be using the “slippery slope” argument.