Feds: No more arrests for pot smoking patients.

Dana - posted on 10/23/2009

From what I understand, it's not mandatory to have insurance. That link provided just gives an option for "affordable" health care for those who make too much money to get federal aid. A family of four that earns between $42,000 and $63,000 a year pays a $40 monthly premium per child, and a $10 co-pay per physician visit.

Colleen - posted on 10/22/2009

It was only available for kids, and at that point in my life it didn't apply to me so I don't really know details about it. It may or may not have been mandatory for all kids to be covered...I'm 95% sure it was, but now that I'm thinking about it I'm starting to second-guess myself. Regardless, from what I remember it's a good program. Here's the link to the official website, if anybody wants to check it out.

http://www.allkidscovered.com/

Isobel - posted on 10/22/2009

Illinois has a public option for health care? why has this never been mentioned before? honest question...how was it?

Colleen - posted on 10/22/2009

I'm so much more in favor of state government than federal. There are plenty of things left for our federal government to take care of besides social issues. For example, I don't agree with gay marriage (for a number of reasons, probably not what you'd think, but that's not a topic for this thread), but I do agree with the way our country has been going about the decision of whether or not to legalize it. I think that each individual state should vote about what their state's policy will be. If two men or two women want to get married, they're more than welcome to do so in the states that allow them to do so, but I want to have a say in what my state decides. If my state decides to allow it, so be it. If not, then that clearly shows where the other residents of my state are at on the issue. It's not up to Representative Joe Schmo from Vermont to tell me that just because something applies in his state, it should apply to mine as well.



My husband and I lived in Illinois for a few years and, while the politics there have a tendency to be more corrupt than most places, they had some policies for their own state that were fantastic. Mandatory health insurance for children--along with a public option for those who didn't have private options--was one of them.

Amie - posted on 10/22/2009

That's probably one of the most outrageous things I've ever heard. If that were to happen what's the point of having a president? Of identifying yourself as an American?

It's not an either or situation. It's a collective agreement upon an entire nation of people. Will all people be happy all the time? No of course not. I've stated this before. You can not make every single American happy. Just as every single Canadian is not happy.

We too have people who are against abortion, against gay marriage and against marijuana in all forms. They are allowed to have their views though. No one is censoring them; However they are being censored against their views being passed into law. Basic human rights should apply for all people. The Canadian government seems to be doing a better job of this though than our counter parts.

Natalie - posted on 10/22/2009

Quoting Christa:

All the more reason to leave it up to the states. Why should a few get to decide what's best for everyone?

Unless it's about abortion or gay marriage, right?

Amie - posted on 10/22/2009

Christa you're missing the point. It takes just one to start a process. THEN the (federal) majority decides.



It all has to start somewhere though.

Amie - posted on 10/22/2009

Quoting Mary:

I WOULD agree that it should be legal on the federal level, but I also understand that a lot of times, the more progressive states take the step first, and eventually a national concensus is reached! As long as we are making progress as a country, I am content to wait for the rest of them to catch up...

That's how it generally happens. Some states/provinces are more progressive, they inact something and push for it. Enough get behind them and support them it because federal legislation.

Ontario (I believe) is the one that lead our abortion rights.

Ontario is the one that spear headed the gay marriage laws.

AND medical marijuana was again spear headed by Ontario.

ME - posted on 10/22/2009

I WOULD agree that it should be legal on the federal level, but I also understand that a lot of times, the more progressive states take the step first, and eventually a national concensus is reached! As long as we are making progress as a country, I am content to wait for the rest of them to catch up...

Dana - posted on 10/21/2009

Traci, I don't believe anyone asked you to explain it further. One too many nips, eh?

Traci - posted on 10/21/2009

I think it's a states rights issue...abortion and gay marriage. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it and I'm not explaining it any further. :)



Yay for states rights and LOCAL gov't !!!!!!

Dana - posted on 10/21/2009

I of course think that it all should be legal on a federal level but, I wouldn't mind if it was a state thing either.

Amie - posted on 10/21/2009

Traci I doubt that. Medical use SHOULD be allowed federally. Abortion is, gay marriage SHOULD be too.

In Canada:
Abortion has been allowed since 1988.
Medical marijuana has been allowed since 2001.
Gay marriage has been allowed since 2003.

States rights are all well and good. I'm glad some are taking the steps forward. I'm glad the feds are staying out of it now. It SHOULD change the laws federally though and the entire thing will become a non-issue.

They are being consistent though. I bet if you ask all the previous poster's they will agree it should be federal law to allow medical marijuana.

Traci - posted on 10/21/2009

Okay...well, since we're all for states rights when it comes to drugs, then I'll expect the same response when we are talking about abortion and gay marriage :) Let's be consistent, ladies :)

Jenny - posted on 10/20/2009

Well Jeannette, look me up if you make it up this way. I'm sure we can make an accident happen lol.

Jeannette - posted on 10/20/2009

Quoting Mary:

Jeannette...That is just the "conservative" response I am hoping for!!! I am thrilled, and I hope that more states will be encouraged by this move to pass laws allowing chronically ill or in pain people to smoke their relief! I saw a doc interviewed in CA last night saying that he would MUCH rather write scripts for Marijuana than for vicodin, etc.! It does make me a little sad that I left a medical state for a non-medical one...My chronic back pain, due to compressed discs would CERTAINLY qualify me for a medical script!

I know what you mean.  I live in the Bible belt...I and others worse off than me, will die IN pain before they legalize marijuana here.  Though I know  where to get the stuff.....I delivered to 2 houses today that were lighting up! lol!   I can't risk losing my job, so I just stay clean.  Although, I am considering a jaunt to BC for the next cannibus day!  If I ever "accidentally" get hold of a good lot, I'm going to bake until I've used it all.

ME - posted on 10/20/2009

Jeannette...That is just the "conservative" response I am hoping for!!! I am thrilled, and I hope that more states will be encouraged by this move to pass laws allowing chronically ill or in pain people to smoke their relief! I saw a doc interviewed in CA last night saying that he would MUCH rather write scripts for Marijuana than for vicodin, etc.! It does make me a little sad that I left a medical state for a non-medical one...My chronic back pain, due to compressed discs would CERTAINLY qualify me for a medical script!

Jeannette - posted on 10/19/2009

It's about time the feds stop over ruling states...now if they'd just stick to it in other areas.