English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

34 answers

Yes, why not? We already use a marijuana component called "Marinol" to treat nausea and poor appetite in cancer patients. I believe it also helps those with AIDS who have no appetite. Once you see how miserable cancer patients can get I don't know why you'd be against helping them. Marijuana use for recreational purposes should be banned. I saw way too many schizophrenics during my nurse training that had used marijuana. People who say it's safe to use just for fun have not done their research.

2007-12-06 02:32:18 · answer #1 · answered by lenurse 3 · 6 2

That is a complete non-issue for me. By that I mean that I think there are both pros and cons for the issue, so neither position is completely right or wrong. Therefore I can't get completely behind a candidate or hold this particular issue against them.
In general I am of the opinion that the government should stay as far away from an indevidual's personal choices as possible, and from that standpoint I am all for legalizing marijuana for medical and even non medical use. It SHOULD be up the the indevidual to rgulate the proper use of any substance like that for themselves.
On the other hand, the government has gone out of it's way to all but eliminate the idea of personal responsibility in all areas of our lives, so how could we expect people to take responsibility for properly using a potentially dangerous substance when according to the government we are not even capable of properly handling our own healthcarre or retirement money?

2007-12-06 02:13:11 · answer #2 · answered by gregghalecki 3 · 3 2

The presidential candidate needs to support Medical Marijuana and be open enough to understand why.

Would you support a presidential candidate that supported poisoning children? Of course not.

Drugs that treat symptoms, have side effects and are toxic are considered medicine while pot is considered a crime?

We have the legal drug industry being touted as big business while we chase those pot smokers underground to support their billions of dollars of business through a black market.

Pot dollars go towards financing harder drugs and the proceeds of that support crime and fund terrorism. Hard to comprehend that North Americans and Europeans finance the terrorists that are killing them by purchasing their dope. Well intended Canadians and Americans don't support the war but unknowingly finance the terrorists.

Legalizing pot would lower the crime rate immediately and stop the funding of terrorism. The revenues associated with the sales would create substantial tax income for local governments.

I have heard of crimes being committed by pot smokers, I was the victim. When I was younger, my roommate smoked and ate my piece of pizza.....give em the chair.

2007-12-06 17:25:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I would support a candidate that was for medical marijuana. But that issue alone is not enough to sway my vote. I think there are some more important issues at hand - Iraq War, immigration, socialism....pot should be legal, but it's not top priority.

2007-12-06 02:06:46 · answer #4 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 4 2

Yes yes and YES! I'm a supporter of Medicinal Marijuana 100%. I know personlly it's been the only thing that's relieved body pain, stomach problems (IE: heartburn, acid reflux), severe headaches, and it's helped me eat and sleep normally. In my opinion it's a lot safer than any narcotic that a doctor can prescribe to you and it's not addictive unlike pain killers.

2007-12-06 01:59:28 · answer #5 · answered by Darcy 1 · 4 3

1000% not because i'm a pot head but because i't doesn't cause any harm it heals and I believe that people try to say it's bad because they either never tried or just don't fully understand the Medical Benifits like treatment without any damn side effects why take a pill for glaucoma that cause diareah, nausia, nose bleeds, or DEPENDANCY How many weed smokers do you see sweating and shaking or in more pain just because they didn't smoke for two days!!!

2007-12-06 02:03:07 · answer #6 · answered by jerzyson29 3 · 3 2

I do not believe we should be against the liberty of people to decide what treatment is best for them, with the advice of a doctor. We shouldnt limit choices.

2007-12-06 02:34:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

It would certainly increase their prospects in my book, but I'm not a single issue voter. There are too many other important things to think about, as well.

Vote for Rudy!

2007-12-06 03:35:04 · answer #8 · answered by Rick K 6 · 1 2

Nope! It's getting old listening to you 60s throw back hippy freaks. There are plenty of pain killers out there for which you can get a script. Hippies just want to smoke pot and that's it!!

2007-12-06 02:02:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

Absolutely. When something can subside pain or return some normality to a sick individuals life they should have the right to use it.

2007-12-06 02:04:18 · answer #10 · answered by larry k 2 · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers