GWB goes back on his increasingly worthless word (not war-related)

The BBQ Pit
1

From the October 22, 1999 Washington Post:

Is that right, Georgie? That’s what you really believe? Were you being emphatic or just stupid when you used the word “choose” twice in that sentence? More importantly, were you just spouting bullshit back then? See, I’m inclined to believe you were, based on this AP story:

So how exactly do you go from states rights to stripping doctors of their licenses for prescribing the medicine that they think is best? Oh, and if I hear any politician refer to it as “so-called ‘medical’ marijuana” one more time, I’m going to drive a bus full of cancer and AIDS patients up to said politico’s front door and drop them off, fat doobies in hand.

Remember back in 1998, when the federal government commissioned a study to determine once and for all whether or not marijuana was an effective medicine? Apparently the government doesn’t - or doesn’t want to. The study came to the same conclusion that doctors and patients have for years - it works. The study also recommended that further research be done on the subject.

The Clinton administration’s response, of course, was to make it even more difficult for even privately funded studies to take place! Yes, I’m bitching about Clinton too, pubbies. This is a big fat pile of horseshit that is spread evenly across party lines. GWB just happens to be the man with the shovel at the moment.

What possible reason could the government have for going out of their way to deny people medical marijuana? Their shaky claim is that it would somehow send the message that pot use is okay for everyone, and that use would become more widespread. Christ, maybe even children would use it! Is anyone thinking of the children?

Err, um, okay. But if that’s the case, then aren’t we currently sending the message that oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, demerol, and codeine are just fine for kids to pop like candy? How about the myriad of benzos and amphetamines out there? Oh, and of course, you don’t even need a prescription for alcohol and tobacco, which kill a combined 500,000 people a year in the U.S. Are we sending the message that liver failure and lung cancer are A-okay?

Oh, but surely none of that stuff is more dangerous and addictive than the deadly devil weed! Damn filthy Mexicans and uppity negroes brought that poison 'round these parts long 'bout three score ago now, and it’s been trouble ever since!

Politicians want to appease the voters, right? Well, medical marijuana initiatives have passed in the majority of the states in which citizens have had the opportunity to vote on them. Nationwide polls have pegged the number of people who support it to numbers as high as 76%. (93% if you include online (CNN.com) polls, but nobody ever does)

So could somebody please tell me why virtually everyone in politics today is deadset against this? Why try to block legitimate studies? Why arrest providers of medical marijuana in states where the voters approved it? Why go after doctors?

Oh, and why, why, why, for the love of Bob, are we spending billions fighting something that we could be taxing and making billions from? At the very least, 20 million people use marijuana illegaly in this country, both medicinal and recreational. They’re obviously going to buy it no matter what silly laws you make.

Would you like to see their countless billions of dollars going towards improving the schools (think of the children!) and fixing the roads, or do you prefer the current system, where all the money goes to gangs and murderous cartels? Okay, just checking…

Oh, and Mr. President? I’d really like to know why you changed your stance on this, you cretinous, cokeheaded, feces-flinging, monkey-faced, chimp. If your answer in any way includes the phrase “in this post 9/11 world,” you automatically lose. Protestations of revisionist historianism will also fall upon deaf ears.

2

“Would you like to see their countless billions of dollars going towards improving the schools (think of the children!) and fixing the roads, or do you prefer the current system, where all the money goes to gangs and murderous cartels? Okay, just checking…”

I think if you’ll substitute “pharmacutical corporations that contribute megabucks to my campaign fund” for “gangs and murderous cartels” the answer is in the question.

3

Yeah, they believe in the state’s right to choose, as long as they choose the conservative choice. The hypocrisy isn’t usually quite so obvious as this example.

4

It may have something to do with the fact that while many people will tell you how they feel about this, the people who vote are still anti-pot enough that it counts to have an anti-pot platform. Above everything else a politician worries about keeping his/her job, and that means a platform that’s going to keep 'em in office.

Because he knows bloody well that most states will keep their anti-pot stance. It’s like saying “each state has the right to change their anti-puppykicking stance as they so choose”. He knows most states (if not all) won’t change that because the votes are, right now, with the anti-puppykicking crowd. When puppy kicking becomes more popular/accepted, that will change.

Not, of course, that I’m comparing puppy kicking to pot:)

5

quote:The Bush administration wants the U.S. Supreme Court’s permission to strip prescription licenses from doctors who recommend marijuana to sick patients.

The administration, which has taken a hard stand against state medical marijuana laws, asked the high court to strike down an appeals court ruling that blocked the punishment, or investigation, of physicians who tell patients they may be helped by the drug.

iampunha — I could buy that argument except for the above. Sounds like he’s hedging his bet to me.

6

Um, huh? The administration asked for a reversal of a decision that would disallow punishment or investigation of physicians for even saying “pot might help you”, and that’s hedging his bet? That’s not exactly pro-pot…

7

That’s my point. The hedge is that if a state passes a medical marijuana law the Feds canl bust any physician that uses it. You can pass a law but you can’t use it.

8

canl=can

Where did that come from?:smack:

9

Right, but they asked for a reversal of a decision, the decision which prohibited physicians for being investigated or punished for it. As in, they wanted there to be the possibility to hurt any physician who said that pot might do a body good, so to speak. I don’t see how that’s pro-pot at all.

10

If that’s the case, how did the medical marijuana ballot initiatives pass in all of those states? People voted on them, didn’t they?

11

Sure did. But if it’s states that have few electoral votes, and the ones with more electoral votes are anti-pot, betcha anyone considering a run at the presidency is going to be anti-pot for the electoral votes.

Too, that a state once voted one way, or even did for several years, does not necessarily mean that it does now.

12

Well, one of the states with medical marijuana is California. Can’t say they’re wanting for electoral votes. Further, many states don’t have ballot initiatives or similar provisions to make law based on popular demand, so we don’t necessarily know that those are anti-pot states. People in most states haven’t had a chance to voice their minds.

IIRC, medical marijuana initiatives passed in 8 states and failed in either one or two. I’m not sure offhand which state(s) didn’t pass it. And, of course, then you have places like Washington D.C., where, when preliminary reports were suggesting the medical marijuana initiative would pass, the bastard politicians blocked the votes from being counted.

13

OK,let’s say that Bush gets his SCOTUS ruling and the Feds have permission to strip prescription licenses from physicians that prescribe marijuana. That will,in effect,nullify any medicinal pot law past by any state. Now Bush can openly support state marijuana laws without alienating the pharmaceutical lobby. It’s a political con game that’s not new by any means.

14

Pot is used medically for far more than terminal patients.

I have multiple sclerosis. Taking a hit or two makes my body relax and will abate pain.

Currently I am on 1200 mg of Neurontin three times a day.

This level of Neurontin costs $350.00 per month.

In the past three days, I found out that even though I have been getting this medication for two years, it needs a prior approval now and will have to wait until that’s accomplished.

Going off Neurontin cold turkey has some potentially nasty and permanent side effects. The state wouldn’t even see fit to granting me a smaller portion to be able to step down safely.

If it were safe to used Oregon’s medical marijuana law, I wouldn’t need as much Neurontin, nor would I need it as often.

So, the Feds have me screwed one way, and my state has me screwed the other.

15

Face it, folks. Representative democracy is durn near dead. All we can do now is vote for one guy or another who will rule our asses with an iron fist until the next election.

Nowadays, the only things that affect politicians are special interests, big business, and other politicians.

16

Wow. What a newsflash.

:rolleyes:

17

Damn,that’s pessimistic but since I view a politician about 4 levels below a crack whore on the Respect scale. I gotta agree.

18

Colorado passed a Medical Marijuana bill a couple of years ago. It is legal for a physician to prescribe it.

It is, however, not legal to fill the prescription.

Bob