• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds Raid Pot Dispensaries in Washington, Where the Drug is Legal

Fisher said:
Because national drug laws trump state drug laws. If a state wants to waste its time letting people vote on it, then it doesn't make it any less illegal.
Click to expand...

The same people who complain about the federal law taking precedence over the state laws, regarding marijuana, are the same people who praise federal laws, taking precedence of state laws, when it comes to abortion.

Just sayin'....

But the federales are sending mixed messages. This current administration has instructed the DOJ to honor the state laws, regarding marijuana, giving the signal that they won't enforce federal laws where states have legalized the usage. Then people make the effort to organized the industry in compliance with said state laws only to find the fed's kicking in their doors.

Reminds me of Lucy and Charlie Brown, kicking the football. ARRRRGGHHH!

 
Last edited:
HumanBeing said:
No, it straight up kills certain types of cancer cells, and severely damages others, all while leaving (or possibly even actively protecting) the healthy cells. This has been proven beyond any doubt.

"Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis.[9-12] One review summarizes the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents.[13] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[14]"
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

That's why people prefer it over chemotherapy, because chemo kills ALL the cells including the healthy ones. Cannabinoids only destroy the cancerous cells while actively protecting the healthy ones. Pretty cool stuff



It's hard to see how someone who is usually so reasonable would say something so absurd :(
Click to expand...

Obviously you don't have a science background, because if you did, you wouldn't be claiming that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. :lol:

Here, let me give you some key words and phrases out of your quote that will help you out. "may cause," "one review, "appear," "in mice and rats." Hardly "proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I happen to agree with marijuana legalization but in spite of that, I just couldn't help laughing out loud when I read the article linked in the OP.



Am I the only one who hears the sad violin music being played in the background? Cancer patients? Give me a break. I lived in Olympia for 2 years back in the 90's and have many freinds from there to this day. It's weed culture central. If people want to smoke pot and make it legal, fine. Go for it. Just don't try to hide behind some transparent mumbo jumbo about wanting to help the sick. Be honest about it and just admit that you enjoy catching a good buzz.

Cancer patients.... that's just TFF. Cue the poor starving children in 5... 4... 3...
Click to expand...

Although plenty of healthy people take advantage of pot clubs to obtain their cannabis, there are many sick people who use cannabis and find it helpful. It is important for them to prevent nausea from chemotherapy, relief of joint and muscular pain and for stress relief. I don't necessarily believe it has much other therapeutic value, except for Glaucoma.

By the way, no one has gotten lung cancer from cannabis. Unless proof is provided, that claim needs to be considered a lie.
 
Hard Truth said:
Although plenty of healthy people take advantage of pot clubs to obtain their cannabis, there are many sick people who use cannabis and find it helpful. It is important for them to prevent nausea from chemotherapy, relief of joint and muscular pain and for stress relief. I don't necessarily believe it has much other therapeutic value, except for Glaucoma.

By the way, no one has gotten lung cancer from cannabis. Unless proof is provided, that claim needs to be considered a lie.
Click to expand...

This whole issue could be simple power politics and the Fed is just trying to prove to local police that the Fed is in charge. I don't agree with that, but I really think that it is the underlying issue. A previous poster said the local police should arrest those Feds for a felony, find them guilty and they will no longer be allowed to carry firearms, so their usefulness will be limited. That's a good idea.
 
Hard Truth said:
Although plenty of healthy people take advantage of pot clubs to obtain their cannabis, there are many sick people who use cannabis and find it helpful. It is important for them to prevent nausea from chemotherapy, relief of joint and muscular pain and for stress relief. I don't necessarily believe it has much other therapeutic value, except for Glaucoma.

By the way, no one has gotten lung cancer from cannabis. Unless proof is provided, that claim needs to be considered a lie.
Click to expand...
Where did I claim that smoking pot causes cancer?
 
Captain America said:
The same people who complain about the federal law taking precedence over the state laws, regarding marijuana, are the same people who praise federal laws, taking precedence of state laws, when it comes to abortion.
Click to expand...

Federal protection for abortion rights is protecting our right to privacy as specified in the Bill of Rights. (that was the basis for the Roe v Wade decision) There is no constitutional mandate for the feds to ban cannabis and rights are being taken away, not protected.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Where did I claim that smoking pot causes cancer?
Click to expand...

You didn't make that claim, and I didn't intend to create the impression that you did. It was jmotivator who made the smoking pot causes lung cancer claim.
 
HumanBeing said:
"One of the dispensaries was the Bayside Collective in Olympia, the state capital, where seven government vehicles converged Wednesday morning. Agents with guns drawn seized business records and about $2,500 worth of marijuana intended for cancer patients"

Feds Raid Pot Dispensaries in Washington, Where the Drug is Legal

I'd make some snarky comment, but I'm not in the mood. I'm just too disgusted.
Click to expand...

it's legal at the state level. Federally they can still **** you. Though application seems rather arbitrary and random
 
HumanBeing said:
So why let people vote on making it legal if it's still going to be illegal either way? And don't you think cancer patients have an inalienable right to the only natural medicine known and proven to have the ability to damage and kill cancer cells? I mean, why spend all these billions of dollars on finding a cure for cancer if it's just going to be made illegal anyway?
Click to expand...

Meh, I support legalization of MJ, especially for medical use. But these programs are hardly distributing to people with clear medical needs. Certainly this dispensary might be different (some are very well regulated internally). But in general, not so much
 
HumanBeing said:
So why let people vote on making it legal if it's still going to be illegal either way? And don't you think cancer patients have an inalienable right to the only natural medicine known and proven to have the ability to damage and kill cancer cells? I mean, why spend all these billions of dollars on finding a cure for cancer if it's just going to be made illegal anyway?
Click to expand...

No, it a cancer cure makes billions of dollars for the drug and medical industries it will definitely be made legal - likely whether or not it cures cancer.
 
The other element of the story is "guns drawn." No reason for that.
 
HumanBeing said:
No, it straight up kills certain types of cancer cells, and severely damages others, all while leaving (or possibly even actively protecting) the healthy cells. This has been proven beyond any doubt.
Click to expand...

Actually reading over that link, it hardly states anything conclusive.
 
mike2810 said:
Agreed. I did a quick search and found some articles on the subject. At this stage imo MJ is not a proven cure.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the page he links to is rather clear about this, as well. But some MJ advocates see the stuff as a wonder cure for everything, from economics, to medical.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Indeed, the page he links to is rather clear about this, as well. But some MJ advocates see the stuff as a wonder cure for everything, from economics, to medical.
Click to expand...

way back when I was in my early 20's, I got more of a buzz from beer than I did from MJ. Tried a few times, just didn't see the point.

For those who have a true medical need and MJ relieves the pain or allows them to cope better, I have no problem with it.

IMO, what is happening is some people are getting a medical MJ card and basically using it for legal recreational use.
 
HumanBeing said:
"One of the dispensaries was the Bayside Collective in Olympia, the state capital, where seven government vehicles converged Wednesday morning. Agents with guns drawn seized business records and about $2,500 worth of marijuana intended for cancer patients"

Feds Raid Pot Dispensaries in Washington, Where the Drug is Legal

I'd make some snarky comment, but I'm not in the mood. I'm just too disgusted.
Click to expand...

absolutely and completely unacceptable. makes this statement an outright lie :

Obama Won’t Go After State Marijuana Legalization: ‘We Have Bigger Fish To Fry’
 
mike2810 said:
way back when I was in my early 20's, I got more of a buzz from beer than I did from MJ. Tried a few times, just didn't see the point.

For those who have a true medical need and MJ relieves the pain or allows them to cope better, I have no problem with it.

IMO, what is happening is some people are getting a medical MJ card and basically using it for legal recreational use.
Click to expand...

My only problem with that is I see it as an instance of people exploiting the sick, who might find legitimate benefits to the program. Otherwise, I don't care if someone smokes pot, and certainly rather not waste money on putting people through the courts for it and in prison
 
This issue needs to be taken to the Supreme Court. The Fed needs to be enlightened to the fact that it does not have the Constitutional authority to implement or enforce the drug laws as they are currently written.

In the meantime, Americans have a civic duty to disobey Unconstitutional laws until they are repealed. So I'll be doing my part! :)
 
Since the DEA's not commenting on the details of the case, it's not fair to judge them. Just because someone is selling pot to cancer patients doesn't mean they are do-gooding Florence Nightingale's. Whether anyone likes it or not, marijuana is a Schedule I drug on the federal controlled substances list, and it does not appear that state rights trump federal law in this case. Even if it is de-scheduled it will still need legal oversight on the federal level to keep it out of the hands of minors.
 
IMO, what is happening is some people are getting a medical MJ card and basically using it for legal recreational use.
Click to expand...

As they should. Gov't needs to butt out of our lives. Its ridiculous you need a medical card to smoke a harmless plant.

There will be bad apples that gives the decent people who use a bad name, but thats with anything, and not a very good argument against legalizing pot.

Financially it is a wonder drug. If we could farm hemp we wouldn't have to cut down whole forests. If we could legally buy and sell marijuana, the poverty level of those who use would drop since they aren't spending half their check on something they can easily grow in their backyard.

Medically it is way better at curbing certain symptoms than all pharmaceuticals.

It has to be one of the most useful plants on earth, and its illegal. It can be used for many purposes i.e. cloth, paper, plastic, fiber, cosmetics, medicine, food production, and it is very easy and cheap to grow. Its a weed for gosh golly. That is how messed up we have become. Money and power trump logic and reasoning.
 
HumanBeing said:
I didn't overstate anything. I said it kills cancer cells, it does. That makes it a viable treatment. Chemotherapy works in the same way, but with the massive difference that chemo also kills healthy cells, whereas canabinoids only attack the cancerous cells while protecting the healthy ones. Given the billions upon billions of dollars that have been spent on creating synthetic compounds that do the same thing but with far worse side effects, there is no excuse to prevent cancer patients from access to this medicine.


That's the second thread where you've used this as a fallback argument to counter questions of ethics. It's bad for a number of reasons. The main one is that it doesn't mean anything. I asked whether you think people should have a basic inalienable right to medicine, and your response was basically "well they don't, so that's that". That isn't really an argument or a debate, and it doesn't answer the question.

Another problem with it is what would happen if someone actually called you out on it. It happens from time to time, people get told their whole lives that their voices and opinions are irrelevant unless they can back it up with mass violence to get their way. It's arguments like that which contrubite towards the creation of the Ted Kaczynski's of this world. If your only argument for weed to be illegal is that you have the will, power, and violent intent to make it so, then I think you should just accept that you don't have an argument at all.
Click to expand...

If you read through medical journals killing cells is not the only consideration. It's all a bit more technical than that. Killing cells is easy. Killing them effectively, without other damage, in low enough doses and that lead to a cured or remission, that's the goal. They use words even in what you linked like maybe, possibly and not anything as definitive as you suggest. So you do overstate.
 
HumanBeing said:
No, it straight up kills certain types of cancer cells, and severely damages others, all while leaving (or possibly even actively protecting) the healthy cells. This has been proven beyond any doubt.

"Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis.[9-12] One review summarizes the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents.[13] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[14]"
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

That's why people prefer it over chemotherapy, because chemo kills ALL the cells including the healthy ones. Cannabinoids only destroy the cancerous cells while actively protecting the healthy ones. Pretty cool stuff



It's hard to see how someone who is usually so reasonable would say something so absurd :(
Click to expand...
If cannabinoids truly have anti-tumor effects, and better without side-effects than current FDA-approved drugs, then there either is or is being developed an FDA and AMA -appoved pharmaceutical based upon cannabinoids minus the negative side-effects in sufficient strength to be effective.

Pot simply is not one of those pharmaceuticals, obviously, and it's doubtful that the pot delivery system provides the medicinal value the NCI references in the study -- a more effective actual medicine would be required.

A number of herbs may be shown to kill cancer cells .. just not enough to seriously matter, or without drugging or other negative side effects to make it to the list of current FDA and AMA -approved treatments.

This is not a "bureaucracy resistance" on the part of the FDA and the AMA.

It is a matter of responsibly presenting the pharmaceutical with the greatest efficacy and least side-effects, nothing more.

Obfuscating that pot is a "cancer fighter" simply to make it easier "to get my drug!" is .. simply that: obfuscation employing subterfuge.
 
JRSaindo said:
the poverty level of those who use would drop since they aren't spending half their check on something they can easily grow in their backyard.
Click to expand...

If someone is spending half their paycheck on recreational drug use, I hardly have sympathy for their plight, and they certainly have larger issues than the legal status of that recreational drug
 
HumanBeing said:
"One of the dispensaries was the Bayside Collective in Olympia, the state capital, where seven government vehicles converged Wednesday morning. Agents with guns drawn seized business records and about $2,500 worth of marijuana intended for cancer patients"

Feds Raid Pot Dispensaries in Washington, Where the Drug is Legal

I'd make some snarky comment, but I'm not in the mood. I'm just too disgusted.
Click to expand...

States rights. I hope it goes to the supreme court. The feds need to be bitchslapped, and this could be a good starting point.
 
Fisher said:
Because national drug laws trump state drug laws. If a state wants to waste its time letting people vote on it, then it doesn't make it any less illegal.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Has this been before SCOTUS yet? Do the feds have the grant to make federal drug law other than on federal property (and maybe D.C.)?

But the DOJ and this POTUS screwed that pooch even if they do have the constitutional power. They took Arizona to the woodshed for trying to enforce federal law. What that means here is that the feds are the only ones who can bust folks in Washington state for pot. The locals and the staties cannot because pot, in limited quantity and all the medical stuff is legal in that state.

What I'd like to see from the folks of Washington state as a reaction is to command their law enforcement not to cooperate with the feds on these raids. No material, no bodies, no vehicles AND no shelter from local law. So if the feds break any speed laws - arrest them and impound their vehicles.

And have to say, it's heinous they are busting the MEDICAL dispensaries.
 
clownboy said:
Yes and no. Has this been before SCOTUS yet? Do the feds have the grant to make federal drug law other than on federal property (and maybe D.C.)?

But the DOJ and this POTUS screwed that pooch even if they do have the constitutional power. They took Arizona to the woodshed for trying to enforce federal law. What that means here is that the feds are the only ones who can bust folks in Washington state for pot. The locals and the staties cannot because pot, in limited quantity and all the medical stuff is legal in that state.

What I'd like to see from the folks of Washington state as a reaction is to command their law enforcement not to cooperate with the feds on these raids. No material, no bodies, no vehicles AND no shelter from local law. So if the feds break any speed laws - arrest them and impound their vehicles.

And have to say, it's heinous they are busting the MEDICAL dispensaries.
Click to expand...


Yeah I'd like to see the 82nd Airborne take Seattle too and be all scorched earth about it, but that is something for Hollywood, not reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom