A 12 Year Old Girl With Epilepsy Is Suing Jeff Sessions Over Medical Marijuana

originally posted by: Metallicus
I think marijana should be legalized.

That being said this smacks of a politically motivated lawsuit with an 'innocent victim' / 'what about the children' kind of manipulation angle. I am not a fan of this kind of bull# lawsuit.

She's the headline, but not the only party in the lawsuit. It seems plenty of others agree with her.

Bortell decided to join a lawsuit to legalize medical marijuana in all states. The case was first started by another child, a military veteran, a marijuana advocacy group and Marvin Washington, a former Broncos player. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana.

Who cares regardless? It's a plant with proven medicinal value, and the real criminals are those advocating keeping medical marijuana illegal.

a reply to: bgerbger

There are so many uses for cannabis that it is criminal for it to be illegal. The stuff will grow in almost any climate, any patch of dirt.

Those places in your yard where we sometimes have trouble getting bushes to grow or flowers or hell even the damm grass, you can toss a couple pot seeds down and it will thrive.

I think its here for a reason. Like grass..

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: scrounger

Most of those jumping on this is for UNRESTRICTED use under the guise of medical.

Even if that were true which its not.. SO??

Because it means the person(s) either cant defend or unable to justify their view (unrestricted use of marijuana) so resort to using someone else issue (and in this case PAIN AND SUFFERING of A CHILD) to forward it.

In short a despicable coward.

Sigh
again if your for RECREATIONAL USE of marijuana then point blank STAND ON THAT, fight for that, and debate that on ITS OWN MERITS.

Dont hide behind or USE a TRULY MEDICAL NEEDING PERSON (much less a CHILD) and claim your cause is theirs.

because if you do that it shows your issue is not worthy on its own.

Scrounger

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: scrounger

Most of those jumping on this is for UNRESTRICTED use under the guise of medical.

Even if that were true which its not.. SO??

Because it means the person(s) either cant defend or unable to justify their view (unrestricted use of marijuana) so resort to using someone else issue (and in this case PAIN AND SUFFERING of A CHILD) to forward it.

In short a despicable coward.

Sigh
again if your for RECREATIONAL USE of marijuana then point blank STAND ON THAT, fight for that, and debate that on ITS OWN MERITS.

Dont hide behind or USE a TRULY MEDICAL NEEDING PERSON (much less a CHILD) and claim your cause is theirs.

because if you do that it shows your issue is not worthy on its own.

Scrounger

So the people bringing this lawsuit are despicable cowards? Or just the people that support it?

Why cant you be for both recreational and medical?

a reply to: scrounger

Well medical marijuana has proven benefits, and in this thread I am discussing the legalization of medical marijuana.

Having said that, I have no problem with consenting adults of age using marijuana for recreation purposes.

I do not see what the problem is.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: notsure1

I see your point, but why sue Sessions? He isn't the first 'archaic idiot' to hold his position on cannabis.

Why not Sessions? Seems like a great one to me.. This guy supported a bill to execute drug dealers in Alabama.

Execute !!!! for gods sake.

I have known alot of drug dealers over my life and most of them are just like everyone else, just trying to make some money.

And none of them should be executed.. Gd I hate that guy. .

So are pimps, thieves, people who break into houses, counterfeiters, "pick your crime" .

so because YOU want to legally use an illegal drug the law is stupid and those breaking it (dealers) are just "like everyone else"?

As for "being executed" I think the punishment should reflect the crime.

I have to look at SPECIFIC CASES but using your comment on selling pot (that is your gripe right) if they are doing it for a violent street gang involved in murders to protect their "turf" then maybe justified... Lie with dogs dont gripe you get fleas type deal.

Other hard drugs YES I think the death penalty is warranted... Or are you ok with molly, coc aine , crack, meth, ect?

Overall your "pot selling friends" are not "just like everyone else"...they are breaking the law (wither you agree with the law or not is not relevant) hence criminals. Subject if caught to punishment.

Sessions is defending the law ...just because you dont like it so what.
Get it changed but until then its illegal...right or wrong.

Scrounger

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: notsure1

I see your point, but why sue Sessions? He isn't the first 'archaic idiot' to hold his position on cannabis.

Why not Sessions? Seems like a great one to me.. This guy supported a bill to execute drug dealers in Alabama.

Execute !!!! for gods sake.

I have known alot of drug dealers over my life and most of them are just like everyone else, just trying to make some money.

And none of them should be executed.. Gd I hate that guy. .

So are pimps, thieves, people who break into houses, counterfeiters, "pick your crime" .

so because YOU want to legally use an illegal drug the law is stupid and those breaking it (dealers) are just "like everyone else"?

As for "being executed" I think the punishment should reflect the crime.

I have to look at SPECIFIC CASES but using your comment on selling pot (that is your gripe right) if they are doing it for a violent street gang involved in murders to protect their "turf" then maybe justified... Lie with dogs dont gripe you get fleas type deal.

Other hard drugs YES I think the death penalty is warranted... Or are you ok with molly, coc aine , crack, meth, ect?

Overall your "pot selling friends" are not "just like everyone else"...they are breaking the law (wither you agree with the law or not is not relevant) hence criminals. Subject if caught to punishment.

Sessions is defending the law ...just because you dont like it so what.
Get it changed but until then its illegal...right or wrong.

Scrounger

Yep your right pot heads are just like pimps and murderers..

Some people are such hypocrites.

I don't understand why they are targeting Jeff Sessions?...he can not make new law...he can only execute the laws in place that are created by congress in our government. The legislative branch...those representatives from all the states and districts are the ones who need to be appealed to. I believe even Sessions has said this in the past.

So the people bringing this lawsuit are despicable cowards? Or just the people that support it?

Why cant you be for both recreational and medical?

ATS is supposed to be about "deny ignorance"

the answer to your question is they are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND INCOMPATIBLE ISSUES (outside of the substance)

One recreational is for ones OWN PERSONAL PLEASURE and the right to do it legally. Not for any other reason.

One is to help someone WITH A TRUE MEDICAL CONDITION that this may be the only thing that works. In short NEEDED to help them, not for personal amusement.

Now I a agree to disagree on using it for personal use.

but (not saying you) many claim if your against personal use your against helping this little girl (or whatever medical needing person story at the time) boils my blood.

Sigh if you want to debate and change the law on PERSONAL USE THEN STICK TO THAT. Defend your position to change the law for that.

STOP USING PEOPLE HURTING FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL ENJOYMENT OF THIS.

Scrounger

a reply to: notsure1

nice try at deflection.

So using your logic your comment that "drug dealers selling meth, molly, and coc aine" are "just like everyone else"?

see how silly your deflection is when turned on you?

but if you want to be TOTALLY HONEST/DENY IGNORANCE yes THEY ARE THE SAME in the fact they are BREAKING (FEDERAL and in some places STATE in regards to pot) THE LAW.

BTW what does this have to do with getting a little girl the MEDICINE SHE NEEDS?

Scrounger

originally posted by: CynConcepts
I don't understand why they are targeting Jeff Sessions?...he can not make new law...he can only execute the laws in place that are created by congress in our government. The legislative branch...those representatives from all the states and districts are the ones who need to be appealed to. I believe even Sessions has said this in the past.

EXACTLY.

He is enforcing the law....

But unfortunately (and not limited to just marijuana issue) people think if they dont agree with the law its ok to break it and also hate/target/sue/whatever those WHO'S JOB IS TO ENFORCE THE LAW.

but hey they dont let LOGIC AND FACTS get in the way of their rants.

Scrounger

originally posted by: bgerbger
a reply to: scrounger

Well medical marijuana has proven benefits, and in this thread I am discussing the legalization of medical marijuana.

On this we are in agreement. The only thing I say is that its treated as any other perscription medication. Not the current "heres a card, take whatever , however strength, how much you want"

Having said that, I have no problem with consenting adults of age using marijuana for recreation purposes.

on this I must respectfully agree to disagree

I do not see what the problem is.

the problem (and not saying you) is that they are two entirely separate issues/reasons.

One is for a genuine (by doctor with knowledge to get dose right) medical need. In her case desperate need.

One is for pure pleasure. It is NOT needed.

If you want to debate for medical (in which I am an advocate) then do so ON THAT.

If you want to debate on for personal use then do so ON THAT.

Again not saying you but the usual argument goes (as seen alot here) is if your against PERSONAL USE of marijuana your against it for those who need it medically and then put out someone like this child to make their point.

that is what makes me angry. your using THIS CHILDS PAIN and medical need to justify someone getting high just because they want to. THAT IS WRONG.

maybe (separate of big pharmacy companies , that is another issue all together and not just on pot) if it were approached that way this girl could get what she needed .

Scrounger

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: DAVID64

“Big Pharma” makes medicinal marijuana.

Potentially the most ignorant comment I have ever seen when it comes to the efficacy of cannabis, there is no defense of big pharma when it comes to this topic.

Are you familiar with the thousands of small business's evolving the cannabis industry?

Marinol is crap, Cannabis is effective in its natural form, and this is what Alexis is getting benefit from.

a reply to: Guyfriday

No. It isn't just a states' rights issue. The problem is that it is still technically 100% illegal on the federal level. This creates many issues with local laws in states that have legalized. Banks refuse to lend to them or open accounts. They have to do most of their business in cash (which gives them a penalty from the IRS). They can't take advantage of many business tax deductions that help out small businesses either. It's a real cluster# all because the federal government is being a stubborn mule over this.

a reply to: scrounger

Tell me one (ex) CVS pharmacy that you go in for ANY PRESCRIPTION DRUGS that does that.

Like different 'strains' of Tylenol for example?


Ask an employee at the drug store about any medication and they will give you the list of types available. You have a pain and you need a pain killer, how many pain killers are available? Tylenol, Advil, Ibuprophen, Asprin, etc.

Just so long as it has THC I think the prescription is valid; the types in both cases are just marketing and strength variables, which is legit IMHO.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Guyfriday

No. It isn't just a states' rights issue. The problem is that it is still technically 100% illegal on the federal level. This creates many issues with local laws in states that have legalized. Banks refuse to lend to them or open accounts. They have to do most of their business in cash (which gives them a penalty from the IRS). They can't take advantage of many business tax deductions that help out small businesses either. It's a real cluster# all because the federal government is being a stubborn mule over this.

Yes it is. Try looking at the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, and legal justifications. Again, if the state Governors forced the issue to deregulate it, then the US Government would, but since that isn't happening (even if a majority of states have laws that allow cannabis use in one way or the other) this isn't going to change.

Banks can do business with these merchants, but refused to do so due to the possible legal precedence it could open to other federally questionable industries. The IRS on the other hand works within the Federal guidelines, so unless it's legalized across the board, it won't get "OK'd" by the IRS as a legal business. back to the point though, it's not really that the US Government isn't willing to change the listing of cannabis, but rather a failing of the 29 states to collectively request that the item get deregulated.

a reply to: Guyfriday

I don't think you understood the point I was making. The states can legalize it all they want but it is still illegal on the federal level. The 10th Amendment isn't going to change anything. It's on the federal government now to legalize it and end the weird legal issues surrounding the plant.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I understood you, and your point, and you're correct. I'm just pointing out that it is a state issue as of now since it would be up to the states to collectively request it's removal. Currently state are using the 10th Amend in order to justify their stance on cannabis legalization, this in no way makes it legal on the federal level, but if these states grouped together they could gather the votes together in Congress to legalize it. In this sense it goes back to being a state issue.

I guess my point is more "philosophically" speak in saying that it's a states right issue, and you're saying that "legally"
it's a federal issue.

a reply to: scrounger

WTF are you talking about? The whole point of the suit is because the LAW is stupid and they are trying to bring about change.

You saying he is just enforcing the law its not his fault is just stupid and why he is getting sued.

LOL everything else you said is pretty much just retarded.

a reply to: notsure1

More like brainwashed..bigly.