Education
Anti-drug, pro family Activist.

A blog about Politics.
About Linda2


Member Since:
July 26, 2006
Last Signed In:
October 07, 2008
Profile Views:
5413
Blog Views:
17705
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Can I ask a serious question... about dating.
Proposition 5. A DANGEROUS Proposal
Proposition 6. The Safe Neighborhoods Act
AB-2279... No, I don't think so.
The plight of the rainforest.
New bumper sticker...
NO on the recall!
Remember Angel Raich... As in Raich vs Ashcroft?
Marijuana isn't addictive huh? Check out Celebrity Rehab.
Dont buy the "medical marijuana" lie.
Archives
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


Linda2 - > Education -> Pelosi..... No drug legalization!
Pelosi..... No drug legalization!

Pelosi has a prior history with both NORML and California NORML. She is a former co-sponsor and supporter of the States Rights to Medical Marijuana Act, and she has voted repeatedly in favor of the House Appropriations Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment to bar the US DOJ from spending federal tax dollars to interfere with statewide medical marijuana laws. Pelosi has also opposed passage of the Barr Amendment (preventing DC from implementing its 1999 medical marijuana law), has argued for reduced funding for Plan Colombia, and has been a leading critic of tactics used by the ONDCP anti-drug youth media campaign. She’s also on record in favor of needle exchange and opposing random drug testing for federal workers. She recently received a 100% approval rating in DPA’s Congressional voting guide.

What a honor to recieve the Drug Policy Alliances congressional approval, is that before or after the door is slammed in their faces. Consider it slammed!

http://www.ornorml.org/foru...

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by Linda2 on Saturday, January 13, 2007 at 06:56 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 1430 times
143 comments from 16 users

1 2 3

posted by anonymous on Jan 13, 2007 at 08:52 PM
Yay for Pelosi! Keep the cartels from killing and make it legal. Make it legal for the suffering AIDS and chemo patients and stop the madness.
posted by anonymous on Jan 14, 2007 at 01:49 PM
I have chronic pain, I'd rather use marijuana than become an addict of painkillers like vicodin, which is legal, but more people become addicted to that.  I've tried the pain killer route, and the only pain reliever I have found that works for my spinal issues is marijuana.  It's also unfair that I can't get a job where I have to give a urine sample, because I'm not a vicodin addict....because that'd be ok....and my new employer wouldn't even know it.
posted by TomW on Jan 14, 2007 at 01:56 PM
So Linda, you're against states' rights?
posted by NancyII on Jan 14, 2007 at 02:00 PM
Anonymous..Vicodin shows up in urine tests too.  It's an opiate.
posted by anonymous on Jan 14, 2007 at 02:05 PM
Yes, but it's legal.
posted by chanddi on Jan 14, 2007 at 02:12 PM
anonymous, my father passed away from bone cancer . While he was still alive he was in severe and constant pain. He took the vicadin and other pain killers but then he could not eat because they kept him so nauseated all the time and he couldn't keep any food down. He started drinking marijuana tea and got off the others and he was at peace until the end.
posted by anonymous on Jan 14, 2007 at 02:54 PM
Thank you!  That's what I'm saying....Vicodin just trades the pain for naseua.  When I was on Vics,  it was only when I couldn't handle the pain and knew I was just exchanging it for another discomfort, but sometimes, when dealing with chronic pain, that's what you have to do.   Sorry for your lose.
posted by motopoet on Jan 14, 2007 at 04:07 PM
Whether or not Vicodin makes you sick depends on your body. I have taken it semi regularly since 2000 following my second broken femur. I have so many old injuries coming back to haunt me that it is sometimes necessary to use it. It is a very effective pain killer wehn not abused. I smoked pot for 10 years. I remember the night I tore my quadracep playing baseball. I smoked about 10 bowls of high quality bud and still ended up at the ER getting a prescription to some pain killer, I dont even remember what it was , but it worked. All the pot did was get me so stoned I had to have help getting in and out of the car! As far as legalizing pot..It will never happen and all the "potheads" are the reason. Everyone knows that the legalization of por isn't being pushed by the medical community, but rather, by pot smokers. They just want to be able to get pot without being hassled about it. Besides, it wouldn't be the "good shit" that would still rule the streets.
posted by Linda2 on Jan 14, 2007 at 04:55 PM

Maybe it started out that way. Maybe it was and is the pot heads pushing for legalization, but, the sad truth today is that those pot heads are recruiting politicians to pass legislation to "medicalize"  marijuana and decriminalize all drug use.  Nancy Pelosis is one of those paid puppets.

 

posted by TomW on Jan 14, 2007 at 05:09 PM
Linda, talk about baseless accusations.  There are a lot of people who don't think marijauna should be illegal.  Not all of them are paid puppets.  Some of them back it because they've looked at the studies.
posted by anonymous on Jan 14, 2007 at 05:17 PM
Marijuana should be legalized IMO , it is no different than alcohol to me.
posted by TomW on Jan 14, 2007 at 05:29 PM
How about we legalize it and sell it the way they sell ephedrine now?  I won't be smoking it, but we could tax it enough to pay for healthcare for everyone and still sell it for less then it sells for now.
posted by NancyII on Jan 14, 2007 at 05:48 PM

Dang I hate to get this started again.   My stance on it hasn't changed.  If people want it legalized for medicinal use then that's fine.  Just make it a MEDICINE.  Get a prescription from a legitimate doctor (Not Aywzadoc with his internet degree) dispensed from a legitimate pharmacy (Not a storefront on Oildale Drive) by a legitimate pharmacist (not some hack selling you MJ butter and brownies.)  Now you're talking about a legal, medicinal item prescibed for your pain or nausea.

Trouble is..that eliminates most of the people I've talked to who think it should be legalized.

By the way..I heard they're considering making sudafedrin a prescribed item again.  Don't know if it's true or not.

posted by motopoet on Jan 14, 2007 at 11:12 PM
THC is the active ingredient in pot. extract it and/or synthesize it and prescribe it that way in pill form. It would keep air clean, appeal to non-smokers, take the risk of dozing off and dropping a joint which could start a fire and make the "potheads' unlikely to back any legislation concerning it once they figured out it couldn't be stuffed into a bong. As I stated, I toked for a long time. The effects of pot are actually much more enjoyable, in my opinion, than booze, which I also no longer partake in. You don't get the spins, there is no nasty after taste, you don't belch it up the next day and it's stench doesn't permeate the air around you after a night of partying. One BIG difference is that there is no way to prove when you are or when you aren't under the influence, and driving under the influence of pot is just as dangerous as driving under the influence of booze. Both affect your judgement, reaction time and perception. Another problem arising from that is that most companies have a "zero tolerance" position when it comes to drugs. Even with my prscription to Vicodin(I have pee tested twice since having it and take it seldom enough that I have not tested positive), the company can use it's own discretion when it comes to taking action where that is concerned should I test positive. I doubt they would be so understanding with a couple of dirty pot tests. Once a drug like pot is legalized, it sets a dangerous precedence. Many drugs could be used to treat some specific type of illness or condition and who knows where that could lead. The illegal sale and ubuse of prescription drugs is already at nearly epidemeic levels, especially in teens. Let's not add another form of recreational drug to that list.
posted by antiextremism on Jan 15, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Stop and think about it. Do pot smokers really give a damn if it's legalized or not?  You can get a half ounce of pot for 25 bucks from just about anywhere, legal or not.  The only ones who would really be hurt by it's legalization are the south of the border drug syndicates.
posted by anonymous on Jan 15, 2007 at 11:34 AM
A half oz for 25 bucks? You must be talking about the flattened stuff that comes over the border in tires. Good luck with that headache.
posted by Linda2 on Jan 15, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Anti ex,

If pot smokers dont give a damn why should mainstream America.  Why should we be forced to live under that umbrella. I dont want to, and I wont be forced to.

posted by randomfactor on Jan 15, 2007 at 04:06 PM

And we won't be forced to live in a country which has a double standard for some drugs, and legalizes more deadly ones. 

.

Despite your misquotation of statistics, it remains true that someone can walk into a liquor store with $20 and walk out with a lethal dose of alcohol--yet a lethal dose of marijuana has to be dropped on your head from a height.

(Heck, a recent story on the news has a woman who died from an overdose of *WATER*.  Death from WATER overdose (and I'm not talking drowning here) has claimed more lives than marijuana abuse.

posted by semperdurantem on Jan 16, 2007 at 08:54 PM

Linda,

I am a staunch conservative and I very rarely see eye-to-eye with the liberals.  I do not like Pelosi because of how she stands on self protection issues. That being said I have to agree with them.

There are people who abuse marijuana. There are those that abuse prescription medications "pretending" to be in pain just to get a fix.  The abuses of the system will continue. I know of elderly people that live with pain because they cannot afford the outrageous price of medication. If you give someone who is financially insecure but in pain the option of growing medicinal marijuana at a cheap cost to remove his pain I am all for it.  You are talking about a substance that has basically no lethal dose factor.  Even salt has a lethal dose factor; it cannot be too bad.  People get strung out on opiates all of the time; they steal, rob, and plunder just to get a hold of it.  Marijuana does not have the chemical dependancy risks that narcotics do. This is a substance that is safer than alcohol yet it is illegal.

I have never smoked marijuana and would not even if it were legal. I am still young (30).  If there ever came a point in my life where I were in chronic pain it would be my medication of choice.

posted by Linda2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 09:42 AM

Semper,

A staunch conservative huh.... I doubt it...

 If you think marijuana is safe, then why not put it through the rigorous process of the FDA. Why then does the Amercian Cancer Society, and a long list of other reputable companies reject marijuana as medicine. Because they know that a drug should never be smoked. . Would pro-druggies be interested in capsule form marijuana, NO. This whole medicalization of marijuana is just a ploy to smoke it without consequence. It's very simple. Sativex is already available, capsule form marijuana, and that is not appeasing pro-drug advocates. WHY? Because thats not the agenda. Get it?

 

 

posted by randomfactor on Jan 17, 2007 at 10:04 AM

Linda, let's run a test.  You run marijuana past the FDA, and I'll run tobacco past them.  In an honest test, which of them would be approved for sale to the general public?

.

The test isn't honest.  You like some drugs and you dislike others--and that's the sole basis of your objection.  Hooray for those who are restraining the Federal jackboots on *SOMETHING.*

posted by mattloch on Jan 17, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Nancy, again, the only person saying that all drugs should be legalized is Linda, when she said that "pot heads" want to decriminalize everything (which is about a stupid and baseless as you can get, but that's almost par for the course by now...). Almost everybody agrees that medicinal marijuana is a good thing, the issues become a "what then" situation; some want to stop there, others want to move onto a next step. Linda, what about high-temperature vaporization? All the benefits and no smoke. Do you honestly need someone to say why Big Pharma doesn't want to legalize medicinal marijuana? Are you that dense, or do you just have a selective intelligence (as you accuse others of having in spades)? And while the ACS may be against smoking it, they have no position on other forms of ingestion. And don't forget that the AMA and other medical groups have been calling for testing for years, if not decades.
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Nobody is willing to pay for the rigorous testing involved with FDA approval. It costs millions of dollars to get a drug approved, and we're talking about a plant here that's not any harder to grow than tomatoes. Besides all that, they can't use the same process as they do with synthetic drugs.

Linda, how many FDA approved drugs turned out to be incredibly harmful after being on the market for a few years?

More than a dozen have been pulled since 1997.

FDA approval does NOT mean a drug is safe. It just means they got their money.
posted by anonymous on Jan 17, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Pete, you hit the nail on the head. Years ago, the pharmaceutical companies lobbied for the criminalization of pot for obvious reasons. Then, they went down to South America and purchased as many coca farms as they could get their hands on. The rest is history, as they say.

posted by irv on Jan 17, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Another factor in the criminalization of marijuana was William Randolf Hearst. The infamous newspaper czar lobbied hard to keep all hemp products illegal because he feared losing his monopoly on the newsprint business. It seems he owned enough forest land and pulp mills to produce the majority of the paper used by the nation's print media. Congress has long been the paid stooge of the rich, on both sides of the isle.

posted by Linda2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 12:37 PM

The Drug Policy Alliance the proponents behind California's Prop 215, the medical marijuana scam,  openly state their mission to be to legalize ALL drugs. Drug by Drug,  State by state. No matter what you hear from some people on this site.

 

So, pro-druggies, are you supportive then of legislation that would increase penalties for meth users, heroin addicts, and other "harder" drugs if used in the presence of children?   As long as marijuana is left out.     Cant wait to hear this one.

posted by randomfactor on Jan 17, 2007 at 12:48 PM

I don't see that here, Linda.  Which one of these supports your statement? 

(By the way--you *DO* support the legalization of alcohol and tobacco, right?  That's a remarkably pro-druggie stance for you to take...)

 

 Making marijuana legally available for medical purposes;

  • Curtailing drug testing not related to detecting impairment;
  • Ending asset forfeiture abuses; Restoring constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures;
  • Redirecting most government drug control resources from criminal justice and interdiction to public health and education;
  • Supporting public health measures, notably syringe exchange and other harm reduction programs, to reduce HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and other infectious diseases;
  • Supporting effective, science-based drug education and ending support for ineffective programs;
    Making methadone maintenance and other effective drug treatment more accessible and available;
  • Removing obstacles to proper use of opioid and other medications for treatment of pain and terminal disease;
  • Repealing mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses and ending incarceration for simple drug possession;
  • Ending criminal penalties for marijuana, except those involving distribution of drugs to children;
  • Ending invidious discrimination against people with past drug abuse problems or offenses; and
  • Ending racially discriminatory drug policies and enforcement measures.
  • posted by TomW on Jan 17, 2007 at 12:56 PM
    Linda, I'm not a pro-druggie.  (Any stance that keeps drugs illegal is pro-druggie since it supports the black market and dealers.) I'll take a stab at answering your question though.  Increased penalties are excellent if the goal is to create a group of people who were drug users and are now professional criminals.  It's a great short term solution, but if you start looking over the horizon, it only makes society worse.  We need to treat drug addiction like an addiction rather than a crime.
    posted by mattloch on Jan 17, 2007 at 01:18 PM
    I heard a great line over lunch.... "I can't wait for them to start doing clinical trials on marijuana, because in the trials they have to use a placebo for half of the people. 'Hm, I've smoked this for half an hour, I can't feel anything happening, and I smell oregano.' "
    posted by Linda2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 01:22 PM
       Would any of you be in favor of increased penalties for drug use other then marijuana use? Please answe the question.
    posted by ProgressivePete2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 01:45 PM
    Great list RF.

    Mattloch, maybe they could just use "movie pot"

    Linda, I'll answer. NO we shouldn't increase penalties for other drugs. They're already pretty high already. Locking up an addict in jail does nothing more than allow them a place to detox in the worst way, then spend the rest of their sentence thinking about getting high again. They get out and start all over. If you are serious about keeping people off drugs, then you should be pushing effective treatment programs. You aren't in the correction industry are you? If so that explains why you want tougher punishment. Gotta keep them cycling through the system, right?

    You really need to quit calling people druggies Linda. It just makes people turn on you. I thought we went over this already.
    posted by TomW on Jan 17, 2007 at 01:47 PM
    No.
    posted by Linda2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 01:56 PM

    Not even for drug users who abuse children?  Or what about drug users who kill people? You do understand that meth users are violent dont you? 

     

    - Some justice for the people who dunked a little boy into scalding hot water. Severe burns changed the face of a little boy, known only as Isaiah in court.

    He was three years-old when prosecutors say, baby-sitter Frank Garza dunked the boy head first into a tub of scalding hot water.

    "To hear what your baby or your child went through is nothing any mother wants to hear," Isaiah's mother Regina Rayos said while crying.

    She asked the court for stiff punishment. A judge sentenced Garza to life with the possibility of parole, after he pleaded guilty to aggravated mayhem.

    His mother, Susan Garza, also pleaded guilty to child abuse.

    Police reports say she rubbed aloe and mustard on the boy's burns, but never called 911.

    "I am sorry, I think I made a mistake," Susan Garza said.

    Despite that plea to the judge, she'll spend two years in prison for what happened.

    A bailiff took her into custody on the spot. Frank Garza's attorney said his client was high on methamphetamine at the time and is wholeheartedly sorry for what he did. But Regina Rayos isn't ready to forgive.

    She lost custody of Isaiah, and the abuse cost the little boy his ears and his eyesight.

    http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn...

    posted by mattloch on Jan 17, 2007 at 02:00 PM
    Linda, you know that they already have punishments for child abuse and murder, right? You do understand that the punishments aren't less if the perp is high don't you? Seems to me you've moved from drug use to criminal sentencing as a whole....
    posted by Linda2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 02:03 PM
    Have you heard the word "prevention"?  Are you saying that you believe that methamphetamine users are caught every time they break the law? 
    posted by Linda2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 02:05 PM

     

     

    This is Isaisah before being dunked into scalding water.
    posted by Linda2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 02:12 PM
    Can we not reasonably anticipate the actions of meth users?  Do we not know enough about the behavioral affects of meth to predict their actions?  YES we do, and YES we can.  If a parent/guardian/caregiver uses meth in the presence of a child, we know enough to say with certainty that a child is NOT safe in that environment. Isn't that just common sense. 
    posted by mattloch on Jan 17, 2007 at 02:18 PM
    Linda, do you believe that if the punishments are stiff enough that you'll completely remove the incentives for using drugs? Where are you going with your "prevention" statement? I'd like to see where you're headed with this one.
    posted by ProgressivePete2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 02:19 PM
    What about alcohol. People get way more violent when drunk than they do on meth. You can't use one sad example of child abuse as an appeal to our emotions to change our minds. Child abuse is child abuse whether the person is on drugs, drunk, crazy, having to work 3 jobs and leaves the kid alone, smokes inside with no ventilation, or just not emotionally ready for a child. Way more domestic abuse is caused by alcohol than meth, yet oddly enough you don't seem to care about alcohol. Why is that Linda?
    posted by ProgressivePete2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 02:24 PM
    Linda, I don't think you can reasonably predict the actions of a meth user. One might just want to talk all night. One might take apart every clock in the house, one might draw pictures, one might work on the car, one might feel the need to start a brawl with the first person they see, and yet another might just sit on the computer or play video games til they get blisters. Meth and its users aren't as predictable as you portray them. Of course it's easier to try to prove a point if you generalize though.
    posted by TomW on Jan 17, 2007 at 02:30 PM
    Linda, in the case you cite, the person got life in prison.  How much more strict should the punishment have been?
    posted by TomW on Jan 17, 2007 at 02:32 PM
    Mattloch, I agree completely.  There are already penalties in place.  This is about commiting a horrible crime while high, and the sentence should and did reflect that.
    posted by anonymous on Jan 17, 2007 at 02:39 PM

    The latest studies show that marijuana not only does not lead to cancer, T.H.C content may actually help kill aging cells and protects against Cancer. Another study shows that there is no comparison between alcohol driving and marijuana driving. Alcohol is far worse of a menace on the road. And just the other day on the Today show, a company that sells hemp laced food has a diet plan using those foods. Of course, the THC content is minimal in that hemp, but Linda will tell you that hemp is evil in all it's forms.

    But let's leave alcohol alone.

    You cannot compare marijuana to meth, or even alcohol in how it affects the human condition.

    http://www.washingtonpost.c...

    http://www.webmd.com/conten...

    http://www.sciencedaily.com...

    http://safeaccess.ca/resear...

    http://www.sciencedaily.com...

     

    posted by Linda2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 03:44 PM

    BS. Your just dodging the question, and not wanting to acknowledge what can and does happen. Are you willing to vouch for meth users? Can you say that a meth user is not capable of violence, with a straight face. Are you going to defend them??/   lol.

     

    posted by TomW on Jan 17, 2007 at 03:55 PM
    Linda, I won't vouch for or defend meth users.  Now, can you vouch for everyone who is not a meth user?  Are you going to say that no person was ever violent without using meth?  You seem to want to put people in jail for crimes they haven't committed.
    posted by ProgressivePete2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 03:58 PM
    Linda, I never said a meth user isn't capable of violence, but that doesn't mean that every meth user will turn violent every time they use. It just doesn't. I'm not trying to defend anyone either, but you can't just throw out gross generalizations and expect them to not be questioned. It's not like this is the first time you've posted anything here. Most people are capable of violence, but can avoid resorting to it. You're suggesting that if someone uses meth, then they will without a doubt resort to violence, no matter who it is. You know that's just not true. Will you acknowledge that someone that uses meth is capable of not being violent?
    posted by antiextremism on Jan 17, 2007 at 04:47 PM

    There is no doubt that Meth is the scourge of today's youth. Highly addictive, and easily obtained, it will kill your dopamine receptors faster than you can say sudaphed, thus taking away your brains ability to feel happy. That puts you on an endless cycle of self destruction, you destroy more receptors, you need more meth, and your body fades like a leprosy victim.

    Although I don't stand with Linda on the issue of medicinal, or for that matter, recreational use of marijuana, I have seen even highly intelligent people ruin their lives by use of meth.

    I would say that although I agree with Pete that not all meth users will become violent, most of them do become manic, and that can lead to violence.

    posted by Linda2 on Jan 17, 2007 at 05:15 PM
    I'm talking about chronic meth users, the ones who stay up for days on end, and get paranoid and hallucinate.  A child is not safe under the supervision of a meth user period. 
    posted by antiextremism on Jan 18, 2007 at 11:25 AM

    I doubt if anyone disagrees with that Linda.

    posted by ProgressivePete2 on Jan 18, 2007 at 11:29 AM
    Anybody that leaves their kid with someone that has been up for days is just asking for trouble. If they aren't hallucinating, they're passed out.

    Linda, I'm glad you made that distinction. It really strengthens your arguments. Just by using the word chronic changes it completely.
    1 2 3

      (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

    BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:

    Advertisement