So the cops just busted a few medical marijuana warehouses and seize large amount of weed so that AIDS and Cancer patients can't get there medicine now. Was this the right thing to do?
2007-07-26 02:20:09 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
read it in the news
2007-07-26 02:33:19 · update #1
hell no We all voted 4 the 215 law to allow people with medical permit to grow and use cannabis.
It is under the doctors orders to give the Patience's the amount they need.2 consume,and grow.
the law should concentrate on the crank labs,and not the gardens.Marijuana has been used 1000s of years 4 many many thing.Hemp coverd wagons
and the USS Constition was made of mostly hemp
grow on America
2007-07-26 04:04:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to the National Cancer Institute, other antiemetic drugs or combinations of antiemetic drugs have been shown to be more useful than smoked marijuana or synthetic THC as "first-line therapy" for nausea and vomiting caused by anticancer drugs.
Examples include drugs called serotonin antagonists, including ondansetron (Zofran) and granisetron (Kytril), used alone or combined with dexamethasone (a steroid hormone); metoclopramide (Reglan) with diphenhydramine and dexamethasone; high doses of methylprednisolone (a steroid hormone) combined with droperidol (Inapsine); and prochlorperazine (Compazine). Research withother agents and combinations is under way to determine their usefulness in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
A number of medications have been shown to be effective for pain control and for HIV-associated wasting, which are among the most frequently cited conditions for which marijuana has been proposed as potentially helpful.
These medications include opiates and anti-inflammatory drugs for pain, while for HIV wasting, the synthetic hormone megestrol acetate, dronabinol and somatropin are FDA-approved. Researchers in government and the private sector are continuing to develop improved methods of treatment for each of these conditions.
There are always those who want to smoke their weed despite what the researchers say is not always the best!
2007-07-26 09:37:32 · answer #2 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was the federal government not the state that executed the busts in CA, do i think the federal government has more pressing concerns currently? like i do not know terrorists?
besides the issue that the courts have granted way to much power to the feds threw the commerce clause; in no way should this be a fed issue but a state issue under its police power 10th, and leave it up to the states
2007-07-26 09:41:15 · answer #3 · answered by goz1111 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Legal? Yes. Moral? arguable but not popular. Do they have anything better to do? At least they're not terrorizing and killing innocent civilians.
"Right thing to do? What a morally ambiguous question. Is it right to enforce a law against the sick? Probably means "shouldn't a law have exceptions for sick and dying" or the "health of the mother"? Enforcing a legitimate law isn't a question of right.
2007-07-26 09:27:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The sad thing is, every time they make a marijuana bust, it's always the people who actually need it who can't get it.
Meanwhile, it's still everywhere on the streets - unregulated, untaxed, and unstoppable.
The 'war on drugs' is a joke.
2007-07-26 09:25:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. If a state passes a law it is the will of the people of that state. Imposing outside will upon that state is just wrong.
2007-07-26 09:24:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My opinion, they shouldn't have but if it is not legalized in that state then they really didn't have much of a choice, right?
2007-07-26 09:29:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
hell no
2007-07-26 09:24:21 · answer #8 · answered by miss v8 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋