Fuck You Feeney!

[robobond]

I just recieved a letter from my local representitive Tom Feeney. I emailed him awhile ago regarding a vote on a bill for medicinal marijuana. Here was his reply.

Dear Mr. blank

Thank you for contacting me regarding your views on the use of marijuana as a medical treatment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

The United States Supreme Court in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483, 486 (2001), stated that there is no medical necessity defense against prosecution for the federal crimes of cultivating or distributing marijuana, even in places where state law recognizes such a defense. Medications, approved by the FDA, are availible that provide already established, legitimate pain managment therapies.

The United States is already fighting a costly war against drugs. Any form of legalization of drugs such as marijuana will undermine these efforts by the drug enforcement community. Marijuana is an illegal substance, which can attract illegal activity, and legalizing it will only open the doors for further illicit behavior.

Though we disagree on this issue, I value your opinion blah blah blah, bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit.

This was sent to me in the mail btw. What does anyone think?

 

[Babbabud]

Well you could send him back a letter explaining to him how lame he is. Definetly should detail how you and many others wont vote for him as long as he continues to wear the blinders. Make sure he knows he is losing votes

 

[Guest]

I hope your not a grower cause now "they", the U.S. government have your address.


Peace

 

[robobond]

Not currently no. And even when I do its not at the location in which I recieved the letter.

 

[Guest]

Cool, then write him back telling him he just lost a lot of votes and he should not look forward to another term.

 

[robobond]

Hell I didn't vote for him. There's too many damn republicans with their heads up their ass in this state I swear.

 

[Guest]

Don't worry I think the republicans are gonna loose this next election. The approval rating for the republicans is way way low.

 

[BenKrishman]

I like how he says that marijuana attracts illegal activity when the only reason it does is because of it's legal status. Too bad there's no way to stop that...

 

[Guest]

I bet he is hoping you are high when you vote.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps you can challenge all the moot points he brings up in his response with rational, well thought out arguments and responses. I'm not saying you haven't, but perhaps if you do some research and enlighten him on the many benifits medical marijuana can bring as well as the choas that prohibition has caused. For example, perhaps you can remind him that alcohol was once also outlawed and illegal in the states at one time...

 

[Guest]

Perhaps you can challenge all the moot points he brings up in his response with rational, well thought out arguments and responses. I'm not saying you haven't, but perhaps if you do some research and enlighten him on the many benifits medical marijuana can bring as well as the choas that prohibition has caused. For example, perhaps you can remind him that alcohol was once also outlawed and illegal in the states at one time...

That's a very good point

 

[Guest]

I wrote one of those letters too, and Pete replied.


Dear Mr. Taylor

Thank you for contacting me about your support for medical marijuana. We
agree, and I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2087, the States' Rights to Medical
Marijuana Act.

I have long been an advocate of legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes.
H.R. 2087 would allow licensed physicians to prescribe marijuana for medical
use by the seriously ill in accordance with the laws of various states.
This legislation advances personal freedom, states' rights, and the ability
of members of the medical profession to practice as they see fit without
undue political interference.

The regulation of medical practice has long been a state matter, and I think
in this instance, it should remain so. Again, thank you for your opinion
and you can count on my continued support for this issue.

Sincerely,

Pete Stark
Member of Congress

 

[Guest]

Pete Stark for President!!

 

[Guest]

Well you could send him back a letter explaining to him how lame he is. Definetly should detail how you and many others wont vote for him as long as he continues to wear the blinders. Make sure he knows he is losing votes

thats true but he would lose a lot more votes if he was promoting medical marijuana. trust me, he doesn't give a fuck what policies he supports. he only cares what the voters want him to support. if he thought he could get more voters by sucking a horses dick on tv, he'd probably do it. but right now he gets more voters by saying that he's against medical marijuana so that's what he says.
someday when politicians would actually get more votes by legalizing mmj instead of criminalizing it, that's when they'll all be for legalizing it.

 

[robobond]

It's no use to challenge the hardcore republicans on medical mj. That's like trying to convince George Bush to legalize weed. It's not going to happen even if you're right on a lot of points. What state rep is pete stark anyways cause we need some representatives like him down here in FL.

 

[XxJ03YxX]

Legalization would then eliminate the war on it. There is then, no profit..


I would never vote for a person to be President just for marijuana though..As much as I would like it to be legal.

But with legalization, comes more commercial shitty bud, made by the Government.
Who knows what will be in it?

 

[robobond]

That's why as soon as it's legal you set up your own backyard garden. I would vote for a president just to legalize weed. I mean after 4 years he's out but we got bud.

 

[Fat Albert]

It's no use to challenge the hardcore republicans on medical mj.

William F. Buckley, Jr. is about as hardcore Republican as you can get. Well, I stand corrected: Buckley would tell you that he's a conservative first, and a Republican second, since the disconnect between the two has been growing steadily under this administration. Anyway, here are some of his thoughts on medical marijuana; he has written much more on the subject. His views reflect the official editorial position of the National Review, the premier conservative magazine Buckley established.

I understand your frustration, Robobond, but please don't paint all of us conservatives with the same brush.

Fat A

**************************
Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great. The laws aren't exactly indefensible, because practically nothing is, and the thunderers who tell us to stay the course can always find one man or woman who, having taken marijuana, moved on to severe mental disorder. But that argument, to quote myself, is on the order of saying that every rapist began by masturbating. General rules based on individual victims are unwise. And although there is a perfectly respectable case against using marijuana, the penalties imposed on those who reject that case, or who give way to weakness of resolution, are very difficult to defend. If all our laws were paradigmatic, imagine what we would do to anyone caught lighting a cigarette, or drinking a beer. Or — exulting in life in the paradigm — committing adultery. Send them all to Guantanamo?

Legal practices should be informed by realities. These are enlightening, in the matter of marijuana. There are approximately 700,000 marijuana-related arrests made very year. Most of these — 87 percent — involve nothing more than mere possession of small amounts of marijuana. This exercise in scrupulosity costs us $10-15 billion per year in direct expenditures alone. Most transgressors caught using marijuana aren't packed away to jail, but some are, and in Alabama, if you are convicted three times of marijuana possession, they'll lock you up for 15 years to life. Professor Ethan Nadelmann, of the Drug Policy Alliance, writing in National Review, estimates at 100,000 the number of Americans currently behind bars for one or another marijuana offense.

What we face is the politician's fear of endorsing any change in existing marijuana laws. You can imagine what a call for reform in those laws would do to an upward mobile political figure. Gary Johnson, governor of New Mexico, came out in favor of legalization — and went on to private life. George Shultz, former secretary of state, long ago called for legalization, but he was not running for office, and at his age, and with his distinctions, he is immune to slurred charges of indifference to the fate of children and humankind. But Kurt Schmoke, mayor of Baltimore, did it, and survived a reelection challenge.

But the stodgy inertia most politicians feel is up against a creeping reality. It is that marijuana for medical relief is a movement which is attracting voters who are pretty assertive on the subject. Every state ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana has been approved, often by wide margins. Of course we have here collisions of federal and state authority. Federal authority technically supervenes state laws, but federal authority in the matter is being challenged on grounds of medical self-government. It simply isn't so that there are substitutes equally efficacious. Richard Brookhiser, the widely respected author and editor, has written on the subject for The New York Observer. He had a bout of cancer and found relief from chemotherapy only in marijuana — which he consumed, and discarded after the affliction was gone.

The court has told federal enforcers that they are not to impose their way between doctors and their patients, and one bill sitting about in Congress would even deny the use of federal funds for prosecuting medical marijuana use. Critics of reform do make a pretty plausible case when they say that whatever is said about using marijuana only for medical relief masks what the advocates are really after, which is legal marijuana for whoever wants it.

That would be different from the situation today. Today we have illegal marijuana for whoever wants it. An estimated 100 million Americans have smoked marijuana at least once, the great majority, abandoning its use after a few highs. But to stop using it does not close off its availability. A Boston commentator observed years ago that it is easier for an 18-year old to get marijuana in Cambridge than to get beer. Vendors who sell beer to minors can forfeit their valuable licenses. It requires less effort for the college student to find marijuana than for a sailor to find a brothel. Still, there is the danger of arrest (as 700,000 people a year will tell you), of possible imprisonment, of blemish on one's record. The obverse of this is increased cynicism about the law.

We're not going to find someone running for president who advocates reform of those laws. What is required is a genuine republican groundswell. It is happening, but ever so gradually. Two of every five Americans, according to a 2003 Zogby poll cited by Dr. Nadelmann, believe "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and make it illegal only for children."

Such reforms would hugely increase the use of the drug? Why? It is de facto legal in the Netherlands, and the percentage of users there is the same as here. The Dutch do odd things, but here they teach us a lesson.

**********************

'Free Weeds' from the National Review

 

[treble]

tabacco is legal to sell but not to grow unless under license.... mj is illegal to grow and will stay that way because it is such a versatile product....

you see I used the word product there.... it has significant marketable potential for a range of therapys and as a fibre

therapys like sleep deprivation, pain management, energy, diet, calmative

as a therapy... far and away the most profitable mode for pharmacetical companies.... it has no value to them if there is general availability in the community. They have told the government this and the govt is now working on it.

we all know its a concerted campaign but I think its an economic exploitation issue more than anything else... oh and taxation and bribery.. all the usual stuff that goes on between industry and the governments they put in power on our behalf

treb

 

[robobond]

You can grow tobbacco as long as you do not sell it. The same with alcohol. You can make your own alcohol but not sell it I do believe.