The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - Presidential Candidates Pressed On Marijuana Issue

July 09, 2003

Presidential Candidates Pressed On Marijuana Issue

The hemp positions, courtesy NewsMax, are here. How did Kucinich respond given his Willie Nelson endorsement? Don't know, but Kerry we do:

On July 2, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told New Hampshire medical marijuana advocate Linda Macia that he was "in favor of" medical marijuana. Ms. Macia said that Sen. Kerry "came right out and said, 'I'm in favor of it.'" Kerry added that he is "in favor of its prescription." This is a positive statement from Sen. Kerry, who is a top contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Posted by Alan at July 9, 2003 08:46 PM | TrackBack

Comments

This is something that needs to be done, how stupid that the fed gov won’t even allow it to be used for medical purposes & that we crowd our prison systems with marijuana users.

Posted by: sophia at July 9, 2003 08:58 PM

sophia, you’re wrong. I wish the pro-legalization crowd, as you apparently are, would quit spouting the same lies to try to make the general public believe them. It only harms your cause

In the U.S., we do not crowd our prisons with MJ users who are there for having one joint.

Our prisons ARE full of people who smoked pot, but that’s not what they got arrested for. A very important difference. People get high and commit crimes, sophia. That’s the normal course of business for bad guys.

BTW, in many places, for at least the first offense of small, personal-use MJ possession, you get a summons and a fine, like a traffic ticket.

And “we fill our prisons with pot smokers” is one of those lies, it’s carefully worded to make people believe that we lock up some guy boppin’ down the sidewalk with one joint in his pocket. It ain’t so, sophia. most cops could care less about this type of drug offender.

Our prisons are filled with addicts and loadies of various types who committed other crimes. Drug trafficking; smuggling. Murder. Assault. Rape. Child abuse. Burglary. Armed robbery etc. Lots of those folks were loaded on somethin’ when they did their dirty deeds - by the way, busting another myth that if drugs were cheap and legal, so-called acquisition crimes would disappear. that isn’t true, since a whole, whole lot of locked-up criminals were high on their drug of choice already, when they did it.

I have no quarrel with prescription MJ, regulated and prescribed with the model we’ve been using successfully for other prescription drugs. But I won’t go for the “recommendation of a doctor” and “growing it for yourself and 4 friends”, legalization for recreation that’s been touted by the pro-MJ crowd.

Posted by: flick at July 10, 2003 03:11 AM

flick,

I have seen your handle on CP more than once, and usually attached to some pretty good posts, if memory serves. On the dope issue however, I couldn’t disagree more. Smoking pot is one of the least troublemaking of all the various methods humans use for “getting a buzz”. The most violence inducing drug out there is alcohol, by far. The last thing a stoner wants to do is fight, whereas a drunk is a fight waiting to happen.

I won’t begin to advocate the harder drugs, but pot is a gift of nature that requires no chemical processing, and despite the prohibition crowds loud mantra of it leading to all manner of evils, is about as benign as you can get. The government should keep its nose out of trying to legislate behavior, didn’t work for alcohol, and has cost the US billions, if not trillions in our “war on drugs”. Locking people up for something that arguably harms only themselves is way wrong.

Posted by: Elvis at July 10, 2003 04:16 AM

Elvis - Was your hiatus really for ‘Jailhouse Rock’? Curious. LOL. Flick. What do you do to ‘get high’? Stand up? Barkin’ from the lounger doesn’t help much. Elvis is right. Try some BC Bud. OBTW. It doesn’t come in a can…

Posted by: Dave Dub� at July 10, 2003 08:17 AM

Thanks for the compliment, Elvis. Considering that we disagree very much on this issue, that was quite kind :-).

It puts my back up to read that “we fill our prisons with pot smokers” stuff.

It’s wrong to treat drugs as toys. It’s as simple as that. Whether or not MJ is particularly harmful compared to other psychoactive drugs, one of the biggest harms comes from being intoxicated and acceptance of that as a form of recreation. It probably is less harmful than alcohol, but that doesn’t mean to me that we should legalize it.

Please read stats at the Dept. of Justice site about what intoxicants people were using when they committed crimes. A surprising number of felons were high on pot. Guess it didn’t mellow them out.

Elvis - Prohibition did work for alcohol. The rate of alcoholism, deaths from same, and consumption of alcohol went down considerably during its prohibition. The law has an effect on people’s behavior, and did during alcohol prohibition - despite the fact that alcohol is addictive, there apparently were a number of people who did not use it when it was illegal, because it was illegal.

Dave - “What do you do to get high?” implying that a person must get high (on a drug, I assume) ?! Oh, dear. Using psychoactive drugs as toys, for fun, to get high or intoxicated, isn’t a necessity of life for most people, nor is it the only way to have fun.

Does getting high affect other people? You bet it does. Unless you’re posting from your own privately-owned island, where you interact with nobody else, everything you do affects other people. Come to think of it, from a private island or not, you’re making ripples by posting in this newsgroup ;-).

How can I dictate behavior to other people? Every law dictates or prohibits some behavior. I and other like-minded people elect folks to represent us who pass laws we like; we have every right to do so and keep those laws on the books, as long as they don’t run afoul of the Supreme Court.

I think I see where this is going, please don’t tell me the WoD is a failure because some people still break drug laws. I can’t think of any law that has 100% compliance. Are all laws then failures that should be struck down? Of course not.

A fine, misdemeanor citation, for small-amount possession of MJ should be, I think, the law throughout the land - similar to laws against being drunk in public. It is the law now in many places. “Get high” on that stuff to your heart’s content at home, where you are extremely unlikely to get caught, because doors aren’t kicked in for misdemeanor offenses. Smoke it in public, spend time in the drunk tank.

The U.S. govt. is not prejudiced against the use of MJ as medicine. MJ has been studied, and substances present in MJ continue to be studied. There are numerous other psychoactive medicines approved for use, available by prescription. Some of them are extracts of MJ. That’s how we do medicine in the U.S. - it’s studied and tested and the dose is standardized. Safe and effective.

I can’t think of any medicine whose approval is voted on by the general public. When it comes to medicine, I trust the FDA and science more than Average Joe Voter.

Posted by: flick at July 10, 2003 11:54 AM

Flick! I would agree that drugs should not be treated as toys, and neither should alcohol. My mother died because a drunk idiot got behind the wheel of a car 40 years ago, and you know what? This country wasn’t thinking about drunk driving much back then. Well, it does now. They’ve also continued to treated MJ the same way that they treated it 40 years ago! That’s stupid. The government IS prejudiced against the use of MJ, and continues to suck up the big Dinero, because it is a self-perpetuating circus of ‘enforcement’. There are countries (CAN, for instance) where usage is ignored. Get yourself in trouble OTOH, and you’re on your own. It isn’t another ‘drug’ that needs regulation. Do away with the silly laws, and you no longer have a problem with enforcement.

Posted by: Dave Dub� at July 10, 2003 12:28 PM

Hi, Dave - You and I are not so far apart on this issue as I first thought. I, too, don’t think that we should follow MJ enforcement habits from 40 years ago. But I don’t think we are, in the U.S. The number of communities where small-amount possession is a misdemeanor seems to be growing; 40 years ago it was practically nonexistent, I believe. I’m not quite old enough to recall from personal experience what the drug laws were like back then. I’ll subtract a decade, and make it 30.

I knew people who got a couple years of prison time for simple possession of an ounce of the Evil Weed ;-), first offense, 30 years ago, and that is definitely too harsh. It rarely happens now, thank goodness, though the change has kinda inched along over that 30 years.

There are communities that have started Drug Courts, where first-time, small-amount possession of anything, and you’re offered jail time or treatment and probation. I don’t have a problem with that type of program at all. Sometimes Drug Court is used for first-time offenders like shoplifters who admit they were stealing for money for drugs and ask to be remanded to treatment. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that places with Drug Court are also places where small MJ possession is a misdemeanor.

We seem to be moving in a more compassionate direction, basically saying with the Drug Court program, “It’s against the law to use Substance X, but if you do and you get caught, we’ll help you quit the stuff if you want to.”

I don’t think it’s kind to, say, legalize every presently-illegal drug and let the chips fall where they may, allowing the addicts to rot in the gutter. I think it’s more compassionate to have reasonable legal sanctions on the books and expand treatment. Putting MJ use roughly on the same footing as alcohol wrt drunk-in-public is okay, imnsho. One can be discouraged from using the stuff by the existence of a fine, but make it a misdemeanor, so that in fact only people who hang on a corner, obvious, flaunting it with a joint in their hand will get in trouble.

Keeping something illegal seems to discourage its use in the U.S. I don’t have a problem with encouraging sobriety or non-use this way, even with pot; it’s better for individuals, and it’s better for society as a whole. Use the law to (fairly gently) encourage people to be sober, responsible, productive citizens? Cool.

Enforcement against MJ smokers isn’t the main activity that drug enforcement is aimed at. Though you couldn’t expect a cop to ignore a public MJ smoker, bec. his job could be at stake. We need to be very, very careful about that pervasive myth that “we lock up pot smokers,” because mostly we don’t lock them up for smoking pot, and when we do, it’s on a par with a drunk-in-public sentence. And these days, overall, very few doors get kicked in because a cop thinks a guy has one joint behind the door. It simply isn’t a top priority. mistakes by cops and/or overzealous enforcement isn’t a reason to totally drop a law; it could be a reason to totally drop that cop and make him look for another job.

I’m sorry about your mother. The potential danger of driving under the influence, to the driver and others, is so great that I get angry when I read about people fighting sobriety checkpoints. Imagine what the roads would be like if driving drunk were only illegal if you caused an accident (!). Carnage.

So we refine our laws,to walk some line between being too harsh and intrusive, and being so toothless as to be meaningless. A line that gets continually shifted and argued about, etc.

I’m not sure most cops care what the legal status of MJ is, just that if it IS illegal, they’re required by their job to enforce the law. If it were legalized, that would free up a bit of their time- a thing that would delight most law enforcement officers, who are overworked in understaffed police departments. So I’m not sure that law enforcement or the govt., in general, wants MJ to stay illegal any more than individuals do. I haven’t worded that very well; hope you understand my POV.

Ever mindful of the fact that if we were having a conversation like this in Iran, criticizing the law, the secret police could haul us both off to prison. Ain’t America great :-)?

Respectfully,

flick

Posted by: flick at July 10, 2003 02:04 PM

Well I believe the real topic here is medicinal marijuana. Therefore, to satisfy all sides you take it out of joint form. You then put it in pill form. Same effects. Therefore, maybe some who have images of pot smoking hippies in their mind our happy. And, people who believe that it is ludicrous and should be legalized our happy. This is the only way the drug czar nationwide is gonna support it anyhow. If it does indeed stop the suffering of people, legalize it. But lets make everyone happy. If Viagra is legal so should a pill form of mj.

Note: Small drug offensives in some states are now given rehab treatment as opposed to jail sentences.

Posted by: John at July 10, 2003 04:10 PM

John - Agree with your post!

Flick - Agree with your post! What’s fabulous about this forum is we get a chance to share viewpoints across a very wide spectrum. You’re right. It wouldn’t happen anywhere but here!

Posted by: Dave Dub� at July 10, 2003 05:23 PM

California has legalized medicinal MJ, but it’s a state thing, not federal, so the DEA is constantly jumping on any violation or percieved violation they can.
In L.A., they’ve closed down most of the MJ dealerships(they call ‘em clubs out here), but here in San Francisco, these stores are a booming business, more opening every day. You need the MJ ID to get into the merchandise areas, and they even let people smoke their medicine on the premises if they like.
At first, the biggest problem they had here were crowds of freaky looking people hanging out in front of them, waiting for friends with the ID to emerge so they could go “party”, but complaints from other local businesses got a crackdown going on that.
An SFPD guy I socialize with has told me that the prices in these places come out to about a third of street prices(meaning those people who stand along the sidewalks on Market Street selling dime bags, etc), and that some of the legal MJ customers, many of whom are on SSI, living on $750.00 & change a month, supplement their incomes by buying at store prices and selling at street prices.
IMHO, the lawmakers need to shit or get off the pot. If they can have legal MJ growers in California, they can have them in other places as well and if they legalize the stuff, there will be more available tax revenue.
MJ doesn’t cause muggings and probably never inspires violence by its users, and I think that whether it’s legal or not, it’s still going to be smoked by millions of people. Throwing millions or billions of dollars at trying to stop it is a waste of time, money and manpower in an era where the government can’t afford to waste that money.
My only real problems with it is use are
A) by young people, because regular smoking of MJ has detrimental effects on memory, and can therefore be detrimental, in turn, to absorbing all the information needed to get a student through high school and college, and
B) people who are at work in areas where they need to concentrate(ie military venues, operating vehicles or machinery, maintaining and repairing same, etc).
I know a few people who have pretty lucrative businesses in Silicon Valley who quit administering drug tests because they found they were having to terminate some of their best assets.
Also, most dangerous drugs go through the system in a couple of days, whereas THC, the active element in MJ, can stay in the system for over two months, so the guy who smoked a couple of times at parties a month ago can lose his job after testing, while the one who smoked crack every day and then quit a week or two ago for the drug test comes out clean and keeps his job.

Posted by: Seth at July 10, 2003 05:25 PM

It turns out that any chronic obsessive behavior - sex, drugs, alcohol (a drug), exercise, overeating etc. - is likely a response to a combination of genetic predisposition and emotional trauma.

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003370.html

As we learn more about brain science we are learning that drugs do not cause addiction.

Posted by: M. Simon at July 10, 2003 11:21 PM

You mean, someone could use, say, heroin or crack over a period of time, and if he/ she didn’t have an addictive genetic disposition, he/ she might not become an addict?

Posted by: Seth at July 10, 2003 11:31 PM

In this post, legalization means like alcohol is legal, prescribed means like penicillin is prescribed.

Seth - Your A) is a real point when it comes to legalizing another psychoactive substance. We do a poor job keeping alcohol from kids. But enforcement of age laws is a problem in the U.S.

I don’t have a problem with MJ being prescribed. But I think that would be a bad precedent, down the road, to set for approval of medicines by voting on them.

The system doesn’t always work, but when it comes to medicines, we need Science. I don’t want to go back to the days when you could buy opium over the counter - that was when there were few effective medicines for illness, the days before antibiotics, etc. The days when, very often, all a doctor had to offer a patient was pain relief, because there were no good treatments or cures.

John - Yes, good points :-).

Re MJ research, if one Googles the two words Marijuana Studies, you get about a zillion hits, one is: http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science.html It doesn’t appear that MJ has to be legalized for it to be studied. And though I’m not generally a believer in conspiracy theories, I’m very bothered by the claim that we must legalize MJ to be able to use it as a medicine or study it. We already have many, many meds, available by Rx, that are psychoactive, addictive, or deadly when used incorrectly. The legalize-MJ people seem to want to hide behind the needs of patients, and compassion for them, but claim that MJ has to be legal. That’s a conspiracy, IMO - trying to legalize a recreational drug by claiming it’s “For the sufferers.” Sticks in my craw.

None of us on here are dummies ;-). But medicine has become so complex that doctors specialize - unheard of in my grandparents’ time. Safe, effective drugs require scientific study - not a “We should legalize it over-the-counter because it seems to help” approach. If I’m sick, I want to be able to have confidence that the meds will perform as stated, be likely to have a benefit, not a placebo effect or just make me so high I care less - unless that’s all Science and Medicine have to offer. if a person is terminally ill (say, six months to live or less), I don’t have a problem with a doctor being able to prescribe anything that’s likely to make them feel better toward the end. But the key is prescribe.

Yeah, I’m not an Alternative Medicine enthusiast. It’s either Medicine, or it ain’t, IMO. I wish herbal/dietary supplements had better oversight, bec. many people have been harmed by taking weird herbal concoctions, or kept themselves from doctors who could have offered them Safe and Effective treatments. Just because it’s “natural” doesn’t mean it’s good or safe. I could walk out on my property and pick you the last salad you’d ever eat, “all-natural.”

It’s the same ol’ flick here. But MJ legalization arouses so many passions, I’m asking for trouble if I use my real email addy when I post about this stuff.

Posted by: flick at July 10, 2003 11:38 PM

flick,

It would nice to be able to trust the FDA except for the last 50 or 70 years the DEA and it’s predicessor in collusion with the FDA have supressed research on medical marijuana. It would appear they have something to hide.

In addition you might want to google [ marijuana “compassionate IND” ] for the official government program that hands out pot to a select few. The government actually sends these people pot every month.

In addition marijuana at 1/10 cent a dose is a useful replacement for anxiety supression drugs - a $42 billion a year market - at $1 a dose. The drug companies are at the head of the fight against illegal drugs. Can you say rent seeking?

It turns out the government is in collusion with the drug companies to pick the pockets of the American people. I think Bush Sr. had or has a lot of drug company stock. Searle if I remember correctly. And I like Jr.

Posted by: M. Simon at July 10, 2003 11:40 PM

But Jr.’s been pushing a lot of regulatory issues on the pharmaceutical industry, especially in their marketing arena, to try and quell their practices re bringing docs on Cancun vacations to pitch products, offering “special prices” to pharmacists to inspire them to push products, etc. He’s trying to even the playing field for HMOs and others, which doesn’t show the same “partiality” GB senior might’ve had.

Posted by: Seth at July 10, 2003 11:57 PM

Seth,

First off there is no such thing as addiction as far as I can tell. What we call addiction is chronic behavior in response to chronic pain. Taking drugs for pain is not considered addiction as far as I know.

And yes the addiction rate for heroin is around 10%. 90% of the population could use it with no chronic use problem. Pain ends - use ceases.

That is also true for those with the kind of pain the government doesn’t consider real. Once the emotional pain is gone chronic use ceases.

Where genetics comes in is in the length of time the pain memories last. What we know is that the memories die out over time and as of now we have no treatment that we know of that can speed up the process. The do have some glimers that they can prevent the embedding of pain memories with drugs if treatment is done in a timely fashion - about two weeks from the time of the trauma.

Chronic drug use is a symptom. Drugs do not cause addiction. If that is the case no one is in danger of addiction from drugs. Chronic use is a sign of chronic pain. There are no addicts. Only people in pain.

Posted by: M. Simon at July 11, 2003 12:03 AM

Seth - There’s a lot of interesting anecdotal stuff in the drugs newsgroups and the recovery newsgroups. I highly recommend reading their archives.

It seems that a fair number of folks who try to keep their use of those 2 drugs to occasionally, so they don’t get hooked, end up failing despite their best efforts, poor folks.

If you look up addiction info on the web, read from a wide variety of types of sites - the pro-legalization, the anti, the medical, the recovery sites, etc.

I’ve used more than my share of space in here. I’ll see y’all on another thread ;-).

Posted by: flick at July 11, 2003 12:07 AM

Jr. has also pushed the Prescription Drug Subsidy Program. So in that area I guess he is on the same side as his father.

In any case tthe whole drug area is corrupt - top to bottom.

“The Latin American drug cartels have
stretched their tentacles much deeper
into our lives than most people
believe. It’s possible they are calling
the shots at all levels of government.”

- William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

Posted by: M. Simon at July 11, 2003 12:12 AM

Did I mention that my position is endorsed by the nation’s largest group of drug councilors. THE NAADAC.

The disconnect here is between what the professionals know and what the citizens know.

Posted by: M. Simon at July 11, 2003 12:17 AM

They certainly had a strong market via Wall Street when I worked there, back in the 1980s, as people with the capital to invest and the greed to forestall any conscience attacks discovered Peruvian Flake to be a lucratively marketable product.

Posted by: Seth at July 11, 2003 12:27 AM

What a nice, lively and thought provoking debate, the way it should be. No calling of names, bravo!

Posted by: Texas Chick at July 11, 2003 08:09 PM

LOL!

Posted by: Seth at July 11, 2003 08:19 PM

It’s a STUPID idea to let the government get involved in medical weed.
just look at liberal bungling going on in Canada.

just decriminalize it is all, like NY is, only make it perfectly legal to posses an ounce.

here, the government allows medical use, but you can’t buy it anywhere, now they made, (exept for medical use,) the cultivation laws even stiffer, 14 years for growing it, thats like manslaughter !!

Now they are trying to make it so your Doctor sells you a nickle bag at the office, which is insane, I’m sure doctors don’t want to have a dope stach, (besides their own personal) in their offices.

Trust liberals to make something simple more complicated. No one ever had troubles growing and selling the stuff before

Posted by: Bubba at July 12, 2003 02:56 AM

That’s the only good idea they’ve had in California in years, Bubba- they leave the medical MJ business to the private sector, so it runs smoothly.
There was a proposition on the last SF ballot to let the city take over the business, but as I recall, it was one of the few things that I voted against that came out the way I voted. The minute these clowns running the city of SF got involved, it would become FUBAR.
These guys couldn’t manage a damn laundromat with any kind of competence.

Posted by: Seth at July 12, 2003 04:34 AM

Bubba, you wrote -

“Now they are trying to make it so your Doctor sells you a nickle bag at the office, which is insane, I’m sure doctors don’t want to have a dope stach, (besides their own personal) in their offices.”

IIRC, there are ethics prohibitions against doctors selling products out of their offices that are available by prescription or over the counter, or that profit the doc.

Posted by: flick at July 12, 2003 12:51 PM

now im not as learned a debater or writer of blogs as msot of you here so bear with me, this topic really bothers me when it shows up.

i’ve smoked a joint about everyday after i’ve gotten off of work. I break NO other laws.. (hell i’ve been driving for 10 years and i have never gotten a traffic ticket!). I started up an advertising agency at the age of 22. I pay my taxes, I love my wife, I love the US. I am a former eagle scout…. woah. I believe I should be able to do what i want in my own country. (I know a crazy idea but this is a government by the people and for the people right?… i am a people er person… )
Everyone who is not informed or doesnt care to be, will harp on how it(being mj) is a gateway drug, or how kids will go after it like candy…
puhleeze.

I did not abuse mj in highschool. Almost flunked my senior year.
I tried mj in college and it opened my mind..

Everything i mean everything i learned about pot in grade school during the “say no to drugs” campaign in the 80’s was totally wrong. The flim strips we watched and police that came in to talk to us knew only what their government guide books told them to tell. I know they were only trying to do the right thing but people who say how dangerous it is are truly not informed…
it’s not. that is right it is not dangerous. I did not become addicted.. I enjoy IT. It does not enjoy me. Once a day. Like a chilled out vitamin after work.

This is how it becomes a gateway drug….
People see how they were lied to about the dangers of pot and start to think they were lied to about the dangers of other substances. Therefore they try those out too since they are on the little list in our school drug text book one column over.

This is silly.. i have wasted my time. It will fall on the deaf ears of people that have already made up their minds and only want a witch hunt. Bring it on. you can find me enjoying a joint watching the history channel after work. My god i am such a criminal.

Posted by: gijoe at July 12, 2003 01:29 PM

LOL

I remember unearthing one of my youngest aunt’s high school hygiene textbooks from the 1950s at my grandparents’ house years ago. There was a chapter on MJ.
It talked about how MJ almost invariably leads to heroine addiction, etc, and even talked about how “mobsters often use it to bolster their confidence before they make a hit.” That chapter left pretty much no doubt to students of the time but that MJ is, indeed, Satan’s weed.
That’s where the stigma comes from, gijoe. Most of the people who make federal laws come from that era of general education.

Posted by: Seth at July 12, 2003 02:58 PM

I agree with sophias first post…

1. Alcohol is way more dangerous than MJ, is more addictive and its legal.

2. Folks that grow their own weed for personal consumption get busted and put in jail for it, even though they endanger no one else.

3. The biggest problem with MJ appears to be the criminal element that supplies it.

Take the criminal element out of the equation by decriminalizing weed. Visit Amsterdam and see how the Dutch have tackled the problem.

This thing about people getting high and committing crimes… Yes, but they are probably not doing it on MJ. Smoke a nice fat reefer filled with sinsemilla skunk and lemme know if you make it off the sofa. Damn, even if you have the munchies and the nearest donut or bag o’chips is in the kitchen, I bet you ask someone else to go fetch em…

(Disclaimer: So Ive been told! Hehehe)

Posted by: USF at July 12, 2003 06:36 PM

gastrointestinal Joe, Seth, USF,

Amen Sister! Did anybody else watch REEFER MADNESS at the midnight movies? What a hoot!

You want to know why any drugs are illegal? Follow the money trail. IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY! The FDA & the AMA are in bed with the Pharmaceutical co.s, and the illegal drug lords would sooner eat shit than have their cash cow dry up. You think the Columbians, et al want legal drug use? They want the high profit margin that black market brings. Market forces would shrink their profits, and then they couldn’t afford all their toys and congressmen.

Whether directly through under the table payoffs, or indirectly through “legal” campaign contributions, the anti-drug crowd has a vested interest in the status quo. If the US had a more Danish drug plan, guess how many people would be out of work. We have created whole industries, just to harrass a large portion of our population “for their own good”.

And flick, not that you will be swayed, but please read LEFT FOR DEAD, by Dick Quinn. It talks about some of what you referrenced, and is a short read. Unlike you, I believe in natural, preventive medicine. I read the above book back in ‘95, took it to heart, and haven’t had so much as a head cold since. Try it, I know it could do you some good.

Cheers.

Posted by: Elvis at July 13, 2003 02:57 AM

Buy
Lipitor Buy
Zocor Buy Plavix
Buy Advair Buy
Prevacid Buy Casodex
Buy Pravachol Buy
Norvasc Buy Celebrex
Buy Effexor
Buy Vioxx Buy
Diovan Buy Zoloft
Buy Actonel Buy
Paxil Buy Celexa
Buy Claritin Buy
Actos Buy Singulair
Buy Nexium

Buy
Nolvadex
Buy Levoxyl/Synthroid
Buy Mevacor Buy
Biaxin Buy Inderal
Buy Xeloda Buy
Crestor Buy Tenormin/Atenolol
Buy Procardia Buy
Depakote
Buy Toprol Buy
Sinemet Buy Monopril
Buy Glucophage/Metformin
Buy Lotensin Buy
Prozac Buy Topamax
Buy Clarinex Buy
Zyprexa Buy Coreg

Buy Tamoxifen Buy
Lupron Buy Calan
Buy Femara Buy
Soriatane Buy Prinivil
Buy Avalide Buy
Tiazac Buy Cozaar
Buy Ditropan
Buy Hyzaar Buy
Arimidex Buy Wellbutrin
Buy Avandia Buy
Prilosec Buy Premarin
Buy Detrol Buy
Proscar Buy Agrylin
Buy Altace

Buy Fosamax Buy
Tricor Buy Protonix
Buy Neurontin Buy
Lamisil Buy Flomax
Buy
Aciphex Buy Aricept
Buy Evista Buy
Bextra