Constitutional right to federally-mandated "adequate medical care" for MA prisioner

[quietmike]

Wouldn't eliminating one be a start?

As long as its the right one.

See my reply above. You seem to be singling it out. As far as "alternate reality", until I think we should murder people without government papers because illegals are really an amassing foreign army, I'll assume my reality is just peachy.

No, you assumed I did. Just as you assumed incorrectly about amassing armies in different thread.

Uh huh.

The point for that being?

Does that protection extend to self harm? Do we need an agency to help you bathe, lest you slip in the shower?

No, it doesn't, as freedom includes being free to be self destructive. It doesn't include taking someone else along for the ride.

[Kiah]

People should be free to do anything as long as it doesn't harm others. Is there a strong movement to legalize marijuana where you live?

I live in the sticks, so no.

As long as its the right one.

But no on the other one?

No, you assumed I did. Just as you assumed incorrectly about amassing armies in different thread.

Apparently we aren't reading the same thing here. You say you're for legalization as long as there's no free healthcare, but these are separate issues. You're taking a possible scenario in one case to defend your position on another while completely ignoring the encompassing nature of that other. I understand that you're against free healthcare as a whole, but you're using it facetiously to back a different argument for lack of an actual one.

The point for that being?

The point of that being that you are making assumptions that marijuana users are looking to others for support in the case of medical problems from it's use (real or imaginary again). A lot of those users have more money than most of us will ever see and plenty have healthcare. You're ignoring that and lumping all marijuana users together to stretch the threads still holding your argument together.

No, it doesn't, as freedom includes being free to be self destructive. It doesn't include taking someone else along for the ride.

Who's going along for the ride? You can stretch your "smoke" argument and say that the segment of pot-smokers who don't have healthcare or funds to cover expenses weigh on you, but you can say the same about handymen who hurt themselves on the job, the old lady that falls down and breaks a hip, the kid that falls off his bicycle and fractures his wrist, ect. till we're out of people. Using that argument to back this one is a far reach.

[timcsaw]

You may have missed my late edit.

ON EDIT; Though it is fun to mess with you, to be perfectly frank, I really don't have a problem with most State's MJ laws that allow possession of very small personal amounts, but someone has to be in the distribution business so there's the catch-22.

It's already there. The punishment is the detriment. Look into countries who have legalized it.

Quite a few folks do load the additional MJ bullet but the Govt. doesn't hand it to them. I'm still amazed that folks who want to partake think it will be "better" if the Govt./FDA takes over control of MJ.

I wasn't calling your argument stupid and lazy, Tim. I was referring to your point that it makes people "stoopid and lazy" was not relevant or right. Apologies for forgetting my quotes.

No... You don't owe me an apology at all Kiah... quite the opposite actually. I apologize for my misunderstanding of your point and for thinking the worst and reacting so poorly. Totally my bad...

As far as being "drug addled", let's compare our medicine cabinets.

LOL! You may have a point there... but I guarantee that nothing in my medicine cabinet can be considered to be "recreational" by me.

Alcohol is perfectly legal. I fail to see your point.

I was addressing the point that even in moderated use, alcohol kills people. A first-time drinker, who does his very first shot or one beer can be impaired enough from that one dose to kill someone if they get in their car... and the alcohol CAN be the main contributor to that death.

If you are not willing to admit that our currently legal alcohol and tobacco DO cause societal harm(s), then you won't be convinced that adding another wide-open legal substance will do the same.

We talking about grape juice now? I thought it was vinegar?

There's Wine (yayin) and there's wine (tiyrowsh) and there's wine (shekar) and there's wine (Balsamic Vinegar is made from the juice of white grapes) to name a few. So depending on the Hebrew word used, and it's context, "wine" could be anything from fresh-squeezed grape juice, to strong alcoholic wine, to vinegar. Obviously if the word yayin is used in context with word shekar as in "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken" we're talking about alcoholic wine.

I'm already forced to cover your medical expenses.

And if you make the same commitments and sacrifices that I have, I'll be glad to pay for yours.

Excuses, excuses. You're a criminal, Tim. No shame in it.

No... I USED to be a criminal (important distinction there). I'm now reformed.

[jdm61]

Then don't wear it. I'm not fond of nylon, but I'm not arguing it's legality.

We SHOULD be debating the legailty of polyester. My point is that much of the debate about weed has been driven off on the "useful crop" tangent. yeah, it might be useful, but what do you think the response of the pro-hemp people would be if we said that hemp was legal for all of those grand purposes, but only as long as it had some kind of additive or modification to the flowers/buds like the methanol in denatured alcohol or some naturally occurring mild neurotoxin that would make you go blind, crazy or give you palsy like symptoms if you tried to use it for recreational purposes? This would, of course be left out of the medicinal stuff, but that would have the psychoactive properties bred out of it as much as possible and only be dispensed at a real pharmacy in pill form.

[Kiah]

You may have missed my late edit.

I did.

ON EDIT; Though it is fun to mess with you, to be perfectly frank, I really don't have a problem with most State's MJ laws that allow possession of very small personal amounts, but someone has to be in the distribution business so there's the catch-22.

Quite a few folks do load the additional MJ bullet but the Govt. doesn't hand it to them. I'm still amazed that folks who want to partake think it will be "better" if the Govt./FDA takes over control of MJ.

I don't. It's a plant. The government should have no part in it. No regulation, no FDA involvement, no nuttin'. As far as distributors, awesome. More job opportunities for farmers, industrialists, and small business for those that don't wanna grow. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

No... You don't owe me an apology at all Kiah... quite the opposite actually. I apologize for my misunderstanding of your point and for thinking the worst and reacting so poorly. Totally my bad...

No biggie.

LOL! You may have a point there... but I guarantee that nothing in my medicine cabinet can be considered to be "recreational" by me.

And if you ask someone like Montell Williams or any other patient using marijuana to ease their problems, they'll say the same.

I was addressing the point that even in moderated use, alcohol kills people. A first-time drinker, who does his very first shot or one beer can be impaired enough from that one dose to kill someone if they get in their car... and the alcohol CAN be the main contributor to that death.

If you are not willing to admit that our currently legal alcohol and tobacco DO cause societal harm(s), then you won't be convinced that adding another wide-open legal substance will do the same.

I do think they cause societal harm. I also believe that "Jersey Shore" and that show with Flava-Flav are detrimental to society. I believe that the ability to text message people or eat fast food in a car leads to deaths. I believe that religious zealotry leads to deaths. I'm not gonna petition to outlaw those things though.

There's Wine (yayin) and there's wine (tiyrowsh) and there's wine (shekar) and there's wine (Balsamic Vinegar is made from the juice of white grapes) to name a few. So depending on the Hebrew word used, and it's context, "wine" could be anything from fresh-squeezed grape juice, to strong alcoholic wine, to vinegar. Obviously if the word yayin is used in context with word shekar as in "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken" we're talking about alcoholic wine.

Oh, let's get into ancient translation! What about the virgi ... nah, better not.

And if you make the same commitments and sacrifices that I have, I'll be glad to pay for yours.

"You knew the risks going in."

As I've stated before, I have nothing against paying your bills, but I wasn't asked anymore than you are for covering someone else's. The "it's okay for me because..." argument is a wee bit hypocritical. The government has never paid any of my medical expenses, so the argument perturbs me a little.

No... I USED to be a criminal (important distinction there). I'm now reformed.

Ah, but you've yet to pay your debt to the offended party, "the state". You haven't been through the system, so how could you have learned your lesson? Are you saying that you managed to learn your limits on drug use without government intervention? Blasphemy.

[Kiah]

We SHOULD be debating the legailty of polyester. My point is that much of the debate about weed has been driven off on the "useful crop" tangent. yeah, it might be useful, but what do you think the response of the pro-hemp people would be if we said that hemp was legal for all of those grand purposes, but only as long as it had some kind of additive or modification to the flowers/buds like the methanol in denatured alcohol or some naturally occurring mild neurotoxin that would make you go blind, crazy or give you palsy like symptoms if you tried to use it for recreational purposes? )

I think my stance would lead one to know I'm against that. I don't really want neurotoxins added to cotton either. Anybody smoking industrial hemp is already crazy. Why exactly would this come up anyway? Legalize all forms for all uses. Problem remedied.

This would, of course be left out of the medicinal stuff, but that would have the psychoactive properties bred out of it as much as possible and only be dispensed at a real pharmacy in pill form.;

Marinol, awful stuff.

[timcsaw]

I don't. It's a plant. The government should have no part in it. No regulation, no FDA involvement, no nuttin'.

Now who's talking fantasy land? You don't think Uncle Sam is really going to 1. Give up that power, or 2. Give up all that drug money do you?

No biggie.

Seriously, you are too kind. Thanks.

And if you ask someone like Montell Williams or any other patient using marijuana to ease their problems, they'll say the same.

Hmmmm...... A good point that I'll have to think more about.

"You knew the risks going in."

Yes, and I weighed them against the promised benefits. If it makes anyone feel better, I don't cost much... I've done well enough that I take care of 95% of my own expenses... I've only been to the VA 4 times in more than 10 years and only then for routine evals. and check-ups that they tell me I have to show up for. Contrast that to the 2 back surgeries, 5 MRI's, PT, and associated stuff I've paid for myself (because I can and choose to)... All said, I'm a real bargain.

Ah, but you've yet to pay your debt to the offended party, "the state". You haven't been through the system, so how could you have learned your lesson? Are you saying that you managed to learn your limits on drug use without government intervention? Blasphemy.

Which State(s)?

Actually, I alone decided at some point (IIRC, about the time my son was born) that the "rewards" weren't worth the risks... that and the fact that I'd "wasted" (literally) tens of thousands of dollars.

[quietmike]

But no on the other one?

Yes on both.

Apparently we aren't reading the same thing here. You say you're for legalization as long as there's no free healthcare, but these are separate issues. You're taking a possible scenario in one case to defend your position on another while completely ignoring the encompassing nature of that other. I understand that you're against free healthcare as a whole, but you're using it facetiously to back a different argument for lack of an actual one.

Not at all. I don't see any reason, constitutionally speaking, that government should outlaw any drug. But, if people are free to use whatever substances they decide (as I believe they should be), they should also accept the consequences.

The point of that being that you are making assumptions that marijuana users are looking to others for support in the case of medical problems from it's use (real or imaginary again). A lot of those users have more money than most of us will ever see and plenty have healthcare. You're ignoring that and lumping all marijuana users together to stretch the threads still holding your argument together.

Again I was speaking of legalizing all drugs, and the consequences being born by those who use them. I have made no assertions about class at all. It has been my experience that lots of drug addicts do require substantial medical care at one time or another, and cannot pay for it themselves because their addiction consumes all their resources.

Who's going along for the ride? You can stretch your "smoke" argument and say that the segment of pot-smokers who don't have healthcare or funds to cover expenses weigh on you, but you can say the same about handymen who hurt themselves on the job, the old lady that falls down and breaks a hip, the kid that falls off his bicycle and fractures his wrist, ect. till we're out of people. Using that argument to back this one is a far reach.

See above. Also aging and working are things that must be done. Recreational drugs, not so much.
I don't believe government has constitutional authority to FORCE one person to pay for another's care. Voluntary charity is another matter.

[Daddyo16]

"Wanna use my money to cage people for going against my religious values? Here ya go and you've got my vote!!!"

No, just the ones who commit crimes against innocent people.

And Sheriff Joe Arpaio is doing one helluva job. We need more like him.

[Kiah]

Yes on both.

Then why not get rid of the cannabis laws without the prerequisite? Heck, it may even lower the cost of healthcare considering it's medicinal properties, and it would open the plant up to private researchers who could isolate properties and create alternatives to more expensive drugs.

Not at all. I don't see any reason, constitutionally speaking, that government should outlaw any drug. But, if people are free to use whatever substances they decide (as I believe they should be), they should also accept the consequences.

Sure, in a perfect world the system could be reformed as a whole. Since that's not gonna happen anytime soon though, I believe that single steps are better than standing still.

Again I was speaking of legalizing all drugs, and the consequences being born by those who use them. I have made no assertions about class at all. It has been my experience that lots of drug addicts do require substantial medical care at one time or another, and cannot pay for it themselves because their addiction consumes all their resources.

For hard drug users, I would agree. Things like heroin, meth, crack, etc. Again, I'll ask you to look at countries who have legalized drugs as a whole. Use has declined majorly and since it's now a public health issue and not a criminal one, costs have dropped.

See above. Also aging and working are things that must be done. Recreational drugs, not so much.
I don't believe government has constitutional authority to FORCE one person to pay for another's care. Voluntary charity is another matter.

The government is forcing you to pay more to house, feed, clothe, and care for drug users in prison than you would be by the occasional one wandering into the ER. A lot more.

[Kiah]

No, just the ones who commit crimes against innocent people.

And Sheriff Joe Arpaio is doing one helluva job. We need more like him.

I can't see how these things coincide. Arpaio's main spiel is the punishment of victimless crime yet he ignored over 400 sex crime cases in his county from 2005 to 2007.

Might wanna check his other issues as well. Charges against rival officials, misappropriation of funds, etc.

[jdm61]

Actually, we need a lot FEWER like him. Sheriff Joe is a monumental douchebag in addition to being an attention whore and probably a narcissist.

No, just the ones who commit crimes against innocent people.

And Sheriff Joe Arpaio is doing one helluva job. We need more like him.