The Governor vetoed a bill today that would have legalized medical marijuana.
'There should be no doubt that all of us would want to relieve the pain of a suffering patient,' the Governor said in a statement. But few physicians have prescribed marijuana because doing so would be a violation of federal law. I am also concerned that this bill would send the wrong message to our youth. I have carefully weighed all of the issues associated with this issue. I believe it is most appropriate for me to veto this bill.
Wow, who knew there were such social conservatives over in Connecticut?
On a serious note, I've always supported the legalization of medical marijuana. It works wonders for people with cancer and AIDS and other maladies.
Certainly this issue should be decided by individual states -- not by Congress.
As for Gov. Rell, she thought about the issue at length and made what she believes is the correct decision. Despite what you might hear from the trust-fund malcontent and frothing-at-the-mouth brigades, that's really all we can ask of our elected officials.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Health Care, Law, Medicine
Comments (8)
Here in Oregon the Medical ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by epador | June 21, 2007 1:14 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Here in Oregon the Medical Marijuana Card can be had for a mere 4-500 bucks. Medical Marijuana is mainly a scam from what I see in the clinic: folks with depression and ADHD using this drug after a supposed thorough medical evaluation, folks with significant history of substance abuse or mental health issues cleared. And the users seem to drive with impunity.
CT smart to nix this fabrication of NORML.
1. Posted by epador | June 21, 2007 1:14 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 21, 2007 01:14
2. Posted by Kevin (not Ayles) | June 21, 2007 5:55 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I can't see the value of medical marijuana. If you want to legalize the stuff, do it, but why make it available to just sick people? It's not like there is no other drug to stop pain on the market...
2. Posted by Kevin (not Ayles) | June 21, 2007 5:55 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 21, 2007 05:55
3. Posted by hermie | June 21, 2007 7:52 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So if a state goes 'smokeless', as Illinois and other liberal states are legislating, are those who smoke weed given an exemption?
3. Posted by hermie | June 21, 2007 7:52 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 21, 2007 07:52
4. Posted by P. Bunyan | June 21, 2007 10:49 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
It's a shame. There are a lot of benefits from medical marajuana that cannot by achieved by synthetic drugs.
But as usual ignorance and prejudice rule in government over common sense and facts.
And Hermie, I'm sure they'd still have to smoke outside X number of feet from any doorways and windows in the fascist, err I mean Democrat, controlled states.
4. Posted by P. Bunyan | June 21, 2007 10:49 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 21, 2007 10:49
5. Posted by Half Canadian | June 21, 2007 2:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
For my understanding, the main benefit of smoking marijuana is that is increases your appetite, something that AIDS and cancer patients need. What other benefits are there, and have any studies (I'm sure the Netherlands would be prime research territory) confirmed these claims?
5. Posted by Half Canadian | June 21, 2007 2:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 21, 2007 14:13
6. Posted by Rance | June 21, 2007 2:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Certainly this issue should be decided by individual states -- not by Congress."
Are you saying that individual states should be allowed to determine what medication is and isn't safe and effective for its residents?
6. Posted by Rance | June 21, 2007 2:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 21, 2007 14:53
7. Posted by serfer62 | June 21, 2007 4:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I am against legalization because it will immediately soar into a "Right". Air Traffic Controllers, pilots even truck drivers will eventually get that "right" from the aclu loopies.
The benefits are debateable anyway. Here in HI anyone who wants to grow his 7 plants of bliss just needs to apply for it..
7. Posted by serfer62 | June 21, 2007 4:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 21, 2007 16:57
8. Posted by kim | June 23, 2007 12:00 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Perhaps, Rance, since the Feds want to stick their heads in the sand about the whole thing as if Reefer Madness were loose in the land. Fifty states with 50 sets of rules would make a marvelous experiment. Why don't we make it a prospective one?
================================
8. Posted by kim | June 23, 2007 12:00 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 23, 2007 12:00